Compilation: Capped Dungeons, pro and contra arguments

[VydarrTyr]

Basically, the main issue opposing both sides, which we’ll never solve because it’s kind of philosophical, is the following:

Human nature makes people ALWAYS choose the easiest and most effective path.

Procap people believe in this, and pro-uncap people do not.

Your opinion on level caps disproves your hypothesis. If people always choose the easiest and most effective path, you would not be arguing for level caps. You'd be arguing against them.

The fact that you are arguing for level caps means that you are not choosing the easiest and most effective path. You're choosing a more difficult path.

[VydarrTyr]

You might just want to get rid of the "Counter-Arguments" altogether. But in case you don't:

Arguments for a FFXI-style cap:
...
- If you uncap low level dungeons, high level players will simply rush through it; which basically means that you are wasting the lasting potential of a dungeon (which could be challenging forever with caps).

Counter-argument: This dungeon will not be interesting forever. High level players are already unlikely to focus on the low level dungeon, since there will be a challenging r50 dungeon with rank appropriate rewards.

- With capped content, low level equipment remains valuable. Crafters are happy because there's a steady demand for low level gear, and even low level NM drops will retain their epicness forever.

Counter-argument 1: People already complain about lacking inventory space. Forcing them to keep low level gear to run low level dungeons will make those problems worse.

Counter-argument 2: Low level drops will not retain their epicness forever. As players level up, they'll want new and better gear. Forcing them to retain old gear that they've leveled past does not make the old gear better or more exciting. It just makes the old gear necessary.

- When there are no caps, using high level characters in a low level dungeon will become the norm. Ironically, it will become hardest to enter a dungeon when you are at the appropriate level, because no[ ]one will want to risk failure - especially once most players have a high level job. Counterargument: This will not happen. There will always be high level players willing to help out.

Counter-argument 2: This will not happen. Given the number of people who say they would prefer to run the dungeons on low level jobs for the challenge, and the influx of new players that we hope will happen in the future, there should be players available to run the dungeons on low leveled characters.

Counter-argument 3: If there are no low level characters in the game, then the game has bigger problems. If that's true, there will be little interest in a low level dungeon, and the devs should gear their content toward high level characters.

- Capping allows for items valuable even at high levels (e.g., some sort of currency) to be included even in low level dungeons, because the risk/reward equation remains balanced.

Counter-argument: This does not exist in the game currently, and would take time to develop. That time would be better spent creating more content, which can award the theoretical "higher level rewards."

- Adding a scaling cap allows the r30 dungeon to become a new, simple, rewarding and fun alternative way to get sp with your friends, even though they are lower or higher in ranks than you. Counter argument: None so far

I'd agree with this. But the counter argument is still that it takes time to develop.

Arguments against a FFXI-style cap:
...
- People should be free to decide on the degree of challenge of a dungeon. Counterargument: This should logically include the LV 50 dungeons then. Will players be happy with LV 50 dungeons that can be done in easy-mode?

First, it would not logically include level 50 dungeons. Because level 50 is the cap. You can't run a level 50 dungeon on a job that you have over the rank of 50.

Second, yes, I'm sure many people would like to be able to do the level 50 dungeons on easy mode. If people find an easier way beat the level 50 dungeon, I'm sure they'll use it. That has no bearing on whether we should be able to take our r50 jobs into the lower level dungeon.

If we're making a slippery slope argument, be aware that the slope slides both ways. If players find an effective way to get through the r30 dungeon, they shouldn't be able to use it? If people figure out that Thm, Conj, Arc, Glad is the best party set up, should we ban that set up? If the end boss is weak to earth spells, should we make it so that no one can cast earth-based spells? Just because something is harder doesn't make it better.

- Once most players reach higher levels, there will be no one left to do the low level dungeons with. So it should be possible to solo those dungeons with a high level job (see the CoP areas in FFXIV).

Under the current system, it will not be possible to solo any of the dungeons. You have to have 4 members to get into the r30 dungeon.

I should point out that I'm (generally) against the party member requirement. (I'm surprised no one has started a thread on this yet.) If I have 3 r30s, why can't we try to take on the dungeon with 3? If I have 5 r30s, I'd prefer that we not be forced to leave someone out. If I want to solo it with my r50, I'd like to be able to try it.

It's possible that the dungeons are structured in such a way -- with puzzles or whatever -- that require at least 4 players to complete. And if so, that's fine. But as a general rule, I'm in favor of giving players more options.

Counterargument 2: Caps will ensure low-level dungeons remain interesting even for high-level players. So the contra-argument is flawed.[/I]

No. Interesting content will ensure the low-level dungeons remain interesting. Requiring them to be challenging will ensure that they remain challenging for high level players. Challenging =/= interesting.

(As a side point, please take out "So the contra-argument is flawed." If you're trying to fairly recap the arguments, then you shouldn't judge the arguments. Plus, anyone who says stuff like "so I win" in arguments almost always loses.)

- If you want challenge, simply enter with appropriately low levels. Counterargument 1: As soon as some sort of reward (loot, points, etc.) is involved, that reasoning ignores both human nature and the nature of a competitive MMO environment. Example: guildleves. Everybody is complaining that they are too easy and a mindless Zerg. But nobody increases the challenge anyway, because that would decrease efficiency (SP).

First, some people increase the challenge. For example, me. Also, people who try to solo the NMs.

Second, if human nature was really in favor of the easiest way to complete things, then no one would be arguing in favor of level caps.

Counterargument 2: Not capping the dungeon would force high level players to level another job just to be able to experience the challenge.[/I]

They'd be forced to level it to 25. That's not exactly an overpowering requirement.

The real problem is that some people will want a challenge, but they've got all DoW to 50 already. They can't get a challenge unless a) they can run the dungeon with fewer than 4 people, or b) they start a new character. I think that's a more compelling argument.

Another problem is that they'll be forced to run them on jobs that aren't their preferred jobs. I think that's more compelling, too.

- With capped content, you'd be [forced] to store low level equipment for each job you intend to enter the dungeon with. Given the limited storage space we have, that's a definite no-go. Counterargument: In FFXIV, most equipment scales down to your level - so there's no absolute need to keep low level equipment.

(I changed the argument from "allowed" to "forced" because it's more accurate.)

Low level weapons do not scale. If you use a r50 weapon on a r30 job, you're worse off than if you were using a r30 weapon. And if you use r50 armor or weapon on a r30 job, it will degrade significantly faster than if you were using r30 gear. So under the system currently in the game, players will need to keep 2 sets of gear and armor.

- I want to be able to help out my low level buddies with my high level character. Counterargument: You're free to help them out. But using a high level character for it is not "helping out", but cheating them out of a unique experience.

It should be up to them whether they're being "helped" or "cheated."

- Implementing a cap system would pull development time away from adding more different content. SE should be working on adding more content not making existing content more repeatable. Counter argument: Development time to implement it would be small in light of its benefits, as basically you just have to set a max level entry requirement - there already is a min level one.

I've seen nothing to indicate that "development time would be small in light of its benefits." The devs would have to do much more than just set a max entry level requirement.

Players would also suffer a burden. They'd have to re-do all of their macros. Given that I already have to set up at least 4 sets of macros for every r50 job, having to set up 3 more sets of macros is a headache that I'd rather avoid.

To me, it boils down to two arguments.

1) Whether the devs should spend time developing a level-synch now, or if they should spend their time developing more content. I'd prefer that they spend their time developing content. If there comes a time when we're satisfied with the amount of existing content, I'm fine with them developing some sort of level-synch. But considering that it takes 3+ months to implement 2 dungeons, I'd prefer that they use their time refining the battle system and developing new content.

2) Whether players should be forced to de-level before entering the dungeon, or should be given the option to level-synch. I'm fine with them being given the option to level-synch. But I'd prefer that they not be forced to play the game in one way.

[Rentahamster]

Your opinion on level caps disproves your hypothesis. If people always choose the easiest and most effective path, you would not be arguing for level caps. You'd be arguing against them.

The fact that you are arguing for level caps means that you are not choosing the easiest and most effective path. You're choosing a more difficult path.

Err, I don't think you understand the concept. Given the same reward, a human will choose the easiest path to get it. That's why the vast majority of players will choose to run the rank 25 dungeon on their rank 50 class since that is the easiest path to get the items.

Doing so would be detrimental to game balance.

Therefore, we need to implement a restriction, so that rank 50 players need to play the dungeon as a rank 30 class in order to eliminate the easier path. This maintains the level of difficulty and keeps balance in place.

[VydarrTyr]

Err, I don't think you understand the concept. Given the same reward, a human will choose the easiest path to get it. That's why the vast majority of players will choose to run the rank 25 dungeon on their rank 50 class since that is the easiest path to get the items.

I understand the concept. It's possible you're not understanding what I'm saying.

If "given the same reward, a human will choose the easiest path to get it," then why are you arguing for a level cap? I assume you're a human. And yet, you seem to want "the easiest path" to be blocked. You are not choosing the easiest path to get the reward. You're choosing a greater challenge.

I'm not saying that's better or worse for the game. I'm saying that your argument disproves this tenet.

[Rentahamster]

I understand the concept. It's possible you're not understanding what I'm saying.

If "given the same reward, a human will choose the easiest path to get it," then why are you arguing for a level cap? I assume you're a human. And yet, you seem to want "the easiest path" to be blocked. You are not choosing the easiest path to get the reward. You're choosing a greater challenge.

I'm not saying that's better or worse for the game. I'm saying that your argument disproves this tenet.

That's because we're discussing the concept within the context of game design and balance.

From a game design perspective, I want the cap in to preserve balance.

As a player, I am not going to enter the rank 25 dungeon as a rank 25 character (unless I'm running it for SP). If I have a choice, and if good items are on the line, I am always going to do it as a rank 50 character.


As a designer, you need to put in restrictions to the game since you know that it is in the player's self interest to do things the easiest way.


You are interpreting the statement, "given the same reward, a human will choose the easiest path to get it" far too strictly.

[VydarrTyr]

That's because we're discussing the concept within the context of game design and balance.

From a game design perspective, I want the cap in to preserve balance.

As a player, I am not going to enter the rank 25 dungeon as a rank 25 character (unless I'm running it for SP). If I have a choice, and if good items are on the line, I am always going to do it as a rank 50 character.


As a designer, you need to put in restrictions to the game since you know that it is in the player's self interest to do things the easiest way.

I understand your argument.

You are interpreting the statement, "given the same reward, a human will choose the easiest path to get it" far too strictly.

I'm interpreting the statement according to what's logically contained in the statement. The statement is too broad to be logically consistent. The problem isn't with my interpretation, it's with the statement.

If people mean, "People usually choose the easiest path to achieve their goals," then they should say that. But it weakens the argument, so people don't want to say that. So the original statement was:

Human nature makes people ALWAYS choose the easiest and most effective path.

Procap people believe in this, and pro-uncap people do not.

That's simply not true. And logically, it cannot be true.

[Chinook]

It's just that we use different perspectives. You're right that such a statement by itself could be wrong.

But it was made in the following context:

Pro-uncap people use the argument that people who want to have fun will go as their r25 job to spend more time in the dungeon and risk a failure, just to enjoy the content as it's meant to be played.

The statement you quoted is just to prove that it won't happen. If there's a cap, the easiest and most effective way to complete the dungeon will be to use strategies and play as a team. Then we can find better strategies and go back in again. Which is what some of us would prefer over going as r50 and raping everything, then be done with it, after the devs spent 6 months to build it.

[Jynx]

One more arguement for Pro-cap.

-Level caped items will always have a market even in a legacy server where characters are all higher levels.

God knows that in FFXI it was a pain to sell any lower level equipment on Odin when it got closed off.

[Rinsui]

you forget all the balancing that would need to take place as well to de-rank someone to the proper rank including de-ranking their gear, or do you expect everyone that wants to participate also has to buy all new gear to do so? Its not as cut and dry as you try and make it out to be, I guarantee it would take them months to implement such a system.

Krausus, thanks for the clarification. I do see your point now, and I understand your argumentation. While we already have a equipment scaling system in place (if you put on a LV 50 haubergeon on a LV 30 character, it is already scaled down!), limiting the level/abilities... well, no, we also have a scaling system for that already. So actually I do not understand you... but for the sake of fairness, I'll include your objection nonetheless ^.^/

Edit: And after reading Vydarrs post, I think I fully understand. Your objection is justified.

[Rinsui]

@Vydarr
- The argument about inventory space is already included in the list.
- Included Counter argument 2 about the epicness of low level gear.

Counter-argument 2: This will not happen. Given the number of people who say they would prefer to run the dungeons on low level jobs for the challenge, and the influx of new players that we hope will happen in the future, there should be players available to run the dungeons on low leveled characters.

Now that's a difficult one. I think we have already disproven that those who prefer a challenge would run the dungeon with low level characters, despite their preference for challenge (please read the guildleve comparison) because of the competitive environment a MMO creates. But I'll include your argument nonetheless.

First, it would not logically include level 50 dungeons. Because level 50 is the cap. You can't run a level 50 dungeon on a job that you have over the rank of 50.

Second, yes, I'm sure many people would like to be able to do the level 50 dungeons on easy mode. If people find an easier way beat the level 50 dungeon, I'm sure they'll use it. That has no bearing on whether we should be able to take our r50 jobs into the lower level dungeon.

If we're making a slippery slope argument, be aware that the slope slides both ways. If players find an effective way to get through the r30 dungeon, they shouldn't be able to use it? If people figure out that Thm, Conj, Arc, Glad is the best party set up, should we ban that set up? If the end boss is weak to earth spells, should we make it so that no one can cast earth-based spells? Just because something is harder doesn't make it better.

No slippery slope, just a logical consequence of the "difficulty should be adjustable" argument. If players find an easier way to beat a dungeon (let's say, a manaburn of sorts) I think the fault is on SE's side, not on the player's. The latter only try to maximize their effort/reward equation. So yes, I personally believe exploiting weaknesses in the game system (pathfinding issues, "playing" with a monster's territory binding and such things) is cheating, but I fully understand why others would consider it "smart play" - because unquestionably, innovative tactics are involved. BUT that's only a personal opinion and not the issue of this discussion.

On player number restrictions: Definitely a point. Just imagine that during your "raid" someone DCs, and there's a puzzle requiring 4 players to solve. THE DRAMA. But, please accept that I consider this another topic. Things are complicated enough already.

No. Interesting content will ensure the low-level dungeons remain interesting. Requiring them to be challenging will ensure that they remain challenging for high level players. Challenging =/= interesting.

(As a side point, please take out "So the contra-argument is flawed." If you're trying to fairly recap the arguments, then you shouldn't judge the arguments. Plus, anyone who says stuff like "so I win" in arguments almost always loses.)

A valid objection. That interesting dungeons need to be challenging actually is not a logical necessity, true. About the "so the counter-argument is flawed": that's not my opinion. But I took it out nonetheless.

Second, if human nature was really in favor of the easiest way to complete things, then no one would be arguing in favor of level caps.

Sounds logical, but once again defies the complexity of human nature (which are very well able to contradict themselves three times within a single sentence). Let me give you an example: Everybody in FFXI wanted artifact weapons (Spharai, Excalibur etc.). Few would have refused an Excalibur if it was given to them for free at the beginning of the game (I certainly wouldn't have...). So one could assume that, if SE simply had handed out free Excaliburs with every copy of the game, everyone would have been happy. Do you think that would have been the case?

They'd be forced to level it to 25. That's not exactly an overpowering requirement.

Hmm. And since we have no death penalty, they would have to level another job to 25 a little later, then another one...? Please clarify! I included the possibility to start a new character to participate in low level dungeons.

With capped content, you'd be [forced] to (...) I changed the argument from "allowed" to "forced" because it's more accurate.)

Of course! Sorry, "forced" is correct. A copy-paste error.

It should be up to them whether they're being "helped" or "cheated."

Included as a contra-argument.

I've seen nothing to indicate that "development time would be small in light of its benefits.

True. At the moment, everything is mere assumption. Included.

Players would also suffer a burden. They'd have to re-do all of their macros.

Included.

I'm interpreting the statement according to what's logically contained in the statement. The statement is too broad to be logically consistent. The problem isn't with my interpretation, it's with the statement.

That argument is true once you take into consideration the overall balance of the game and the relative value of rewards. Rentahamster is on the right track, and clarifies one facet of the problem I assumed to be a commonly shared premise:
- Rewards obtain part of their value by their rarity. With easily-attainable rewards, you devaluate the rewards themselves. So proponents of level cap partially want to ensure that the world is not flooded with rewards obtained with no effort (see one of the pro-arguments about rewarding effort).

Also, please note that we are talking about setting the parameters for an environment. That people will try to maximize their rewards in that environment is the assumption. But that does not logically imply that people want the environment to be inherently easy.