Compilation: Capped Dungeons, pro and contra arguments

[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]

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

That's already in the list ^.^/

[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.

[VydarrTyr]

Rinsui,

Thanks for wading through my ultra-long wall of text.

@Vydarr
- The argument about inventory space is already included in the list.

Looking through your list, there are a number of posts that have "Counter-Argument: none so far," which is misleading. There are counter-arguments, they're just addressed elsewhere. So maybe the language should be changed to "Counter-Argument: Addressed elsewhere."

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.

It is a slippery slope argument. The Counter-argument suggests that the logic of Point A would lead to absurd consequences if applied to Subject B. That's a slippery slope argument.

And yes, reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes an exploit, and they can also disagree on whether those exploits are "cheating." I -- and I think many others, including SE -- would not consider taking a r50 into a r30 dungeon to be "cheating." You obviously disagree, but I would respectfully submit that you're in the minority on that issue.

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.

Well, there's gonna be DRAMA no matter what happens.

I don't really mind the idea of puzzles that require multiple people to solve. If someone DCs, I think that's just a risk you run when you're playing an online MMO. It's a bummer -- especially since there's going to be a time limit before you can re-enter -- but it's a game, and not the end of the world.

But I do think the fact that you can't solo a dungeon is a counter-argument to the point about soloing at r50. While I'd like to be able to do it, it's not currently allowed.

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?

I think people would have taken a free Excalibur. Like Renta said, I doubt that they would have valued it as much as if they'd earned it. But again, I think I've been unclear.

I don't disagree that people would usually prefer to get rewards the easiest way possible. In fact, that's probably the main sociological lesson in MMOs. If there's a way that players can get rewards more easily and quickly, they'll do it.

But the statement was that people will always get their rewards the easiest way possible. That's not true. I've made things intentionally more challenging, just for the fun. Some people fight NMs solo, just for the challenge. After the world NMs got boring, a LS on my server started mixing it up -- fighting without provokes, fighting without AoEs, etc. -- just to keep it fun and interesting.

I do think people will blitz through the r30 dungeons with r50 jobs. I will probably do it myself at some point. But I'll probably run them on my r30 jobs, too. Because I want the challenge. And I would honestly be shocked if none of the people here who say they want a challenge run the dungeons on their r30 jobs.

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.

I think the fact that you have to start a new character is definitely a counter-argument, rather than a positive. You should get attached to your character, and want to use that character in all adventures. So I intended that to be a negative, not a positive.

The point I was making is that it doesn't take long to level a job from zero to 25. So, yes, some people will have to level another job to "get the challenge" of running the dungeons on a r25 character. But it wouldn't take much of a time commitment to do it.

But again, I don't think that negates the argument. It just points out that -- like rearranging macros -- it's a headache, not an actual bar to participation.

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).

I don't disagree with this argument. In fact, I think it's a valid point, and a strong argument in favor of level capping the dungeons.

What I disagree with is the idea that people will always choose the easiest path to get rewards. But I've gone through that a couple times now, so I won't belabor the point (more than I already have).

[Gun_Anam]

I'm gonna copy my quote from the other thread in support of uncapped dungeons.
Capping dungeons removes any sense of character progression in regards to the dungeon.

It's the whole surplus argument all over again and how it's presented, except in this instance you're asking for surplus instead of bonus SP. Dungeons SHOULD be easier the higher rank you are. That's how MMO levelling systems should work. A R50 should NOT have the same difficulty completing a R30 dungeon as a R30. People rank up their characters so they they're stronger and if you rank up and you're still the same strength in the dungeon then you haven't progressed your character at all. Where's the sense of progression if you're always going to be held back to the strength of a R30?

Give us a dungeon difficulty option the same as leves. People can then see their character progression as they move up the stars without the dungeon being any easier, unless of course they choose to leave it on the lower star difficulty.

Honestly, having new players do the dungeon at R30 and finding it challenging is good. Having them hit R31 and thinking they're stronger now and it should be slightly easier only to find they're being gimped back down a rank is very demoralizing. It's a very bad precedent to set.

[Rentahamster]

I'm gonna copy my quote from the other thread in support of uncapped dungeons.
Capping dungeons removes any sense of character progression in regards to the dungeon.

Squishing weak mobs with your high rank classes is what overworld mob fights are for, not specially designed dungeons that are eligible to reward really good item drops.

[Richard]

I'm gonna copy my quote from the other thread in support of uncapped dungeons.
Capping dungeons removes any sense of character progression in regards to the dungeon.

progression in content is based on completion and obtaining all the gear. are you saying that if you were able to be capped at the dungeon level that you wouldn't be able to complete it or get all the gear?

progression in mmorpgs is not based on being a higher level that the content you run.

[Gun_Anam]

progression in content is based on completion and obtaining all the gear. are you saying that if you were able to be capped at the dungeon level that you wouldn't be able to complete it or get all the gear?

Sorry, perhaps I was unclear. My arguement had nothing to do with content progression.

Character Progression is about seeing your character grow in strength & ability. Acquiring gear isn't character progression, it's only progression with your personal collection of gear. Completing story quests isn't character progression as it's only progressing the story and not any improvement to the character.

[Rinsui]

I'm gonna copy my quote from the other thread in support of uncapped dungeons.
Capping dungeons removes any sense of character progression in regards to the dungeon.

Noted and included.

[Rinsui]

@Rentahamster
Included.

'cept for

Counter argument: A minor inconvenience, on par with every other inconvenience regarding macros in this game. While it's true that we don't need yet another reason to redo our macro bars, the difference between a rank 25 character and a rank 50 character is only 15 abilities that are going to become disabled. Besides, improvements to the macro system and skill assignment system will be implemented in the future as well, so the issue will be less important as time goes on.

Because your argument is based on the assumption that the macro system will (soon) be overhauled. (Sorry, I understand your point, and I also consider it a minor issue. However, what you consider a "minor" inconvenience is an inconvenience nonetheless; as such, it's best included only in the contra block).

@Jinko
There is a poll somewhere in the general forum. The problem was just that, like, 80% of the voters didn't even understand what "cap" in the FFXI sense means.