Gaining SP/EXP - Moving forward

[Jinko]

Yea so you end up with a situation like FF11 where everyone is killing Collibri because they have the highest XP per hour. (path of least resistance)

But lets go back and remember what FF11 used to be like before those monsters where introduced, players killed all kinds of monsters to level on, some were more favourable than others but there was a greater diversity in what was viable for good XP.

I don't care what I SP on as long as I'm having fun, of course there will be people who will want to maximise there SP/hour just like in any other MMO out there, but that's just the nature of that beast I guess.

The fact still remains that if I'm killing rank 20 marmots and rank 20 Dodo's they should be giving the same SP or at least very close to it, sadly this isn't the case, not even close.

[Naylia]

The fact still remains that if I'm killing rank 20 marmots and rank 20 Dodo's they should be giving the same SP or at least very close to it, sadly this isn't the case, not even close.

Agreed...I think you can have some flexibility in base to account for the individual difficulty but they should be ballpark.

[Betelgeuzah]

Yea so you end up with a situation like FF11 where everyone is killing Collibri because they have the highest XP per hour. (path of least resistance)

Exactly. They can't get around this no matter how much they try, but it is still better that they control what of the few monster types we end up killing than letting us decide whether to kill crabs, or crabs. It doesn't have to be only colibri either. They can make colibri the obvious choice at lvl40-45, ladybugs at 46-50, imps and jnuns at 51-55, mamool ja at 56-60 and so on. The point is that they are not left to wonder which monster type is the preferred one and having to deal with congestion issues when the camps the monsters reside in are not designed for so many parties among other issues.

But lets go back and remember what FF11 used to be like before those monsters where introduced, players killed all kinds of monsters to level on, some were more favourable than others but there was a greater diversity in what was viable for good XP.

The game wasn't called "Crab Fantasy XI" for no reason. Oh yes, Crawlers too. It's not like there weren't monster types to kill, but very few were exped on in the end. And that won't change. This game will become the "X fantasy XIV" if they do what you propose. Only way to have greater diversity is to have the control.

The fact still remains that if I'm killing rank 20 marmots and rank 20 Dodo's they should be giving the same SP or at least very close to it, sadly this isn't the case, not even close.

So that people can SP on marmots? "Marmot Fantasy XIV" on the way!

As long as you try to solve the issue this way, you are only treating the symptons, not the disease.

[Jinko]

I imagine the reason for upper rank cap is due to power-levelling, without it you could potentially take a rank 1 sit him in the back and have 7 other optimal rank players ranking him up at a phenomenal speed.

[Naylia]

I imagine the reason for upper rank cap is due to power-levelling, without it you could potentially take a rank 1 sit him in the back and have 7 other optimal rank players ranking him up at a phenomenal speed.

Out of Range Party Penalty is simple solution to this. Currently the rate is 12.5% of what is earned if you are in a party with 7 other people more than 5 ranks above you. The out of party curve could easily be made steeper. The impact could double every 5 ranks the person is above you or some such. I am of the belief that the out-of-rank limit should reach 0 - there is a point at which you do not contribute to the group. However - if I actually kill much harder rank monsters and take the time to do so - you should get credit for the effort, time, and skill put into the battle.

The fact that duoing allows me to max my difficulty bonus is just a disincentive to partying.

[Jinko]

Ok Betelgeuzah instead of disproving everyone how about you come up with a solution.

I don't think for a minute SE are intentionally pointing a finger at a specific monster and say grind on these as you seem to think though.

Yea that would definitely work Naylia

[Betelgeuzah]

Ok Betelgeuzah instead of disproving everyone how about you come up with a solution.

I don't think for a minute SE are intentionally pointing a finger at a specific monster and say grind on these as you seem to think though.

The solution is as simple as it gets. Instead of letting the players choose and trying to figure out the problems that may arise [current system], they need to take control of our progression and figure out the problems along the way. GuildLeve system works most efficiently for this, because problems like overcrowding do not exist, and several different monster types can be made a part of the system, essentially giving us a wider variety of monsters to kill in a controlled environment.

Right now, you say? SE isn't pointing any fingers, they are simply trying to figure out what comes next. Although they seem to be slowly emphasizing guildleves more and more, as monster grinding becomes less and less effective. This wasn't the case before, and as SE made changes we simply shifted from one monster type to the next, until SE fixed that and we moved to the next... its a cycle that will never end unless they take control.

Naylia was spot-on about something though, only her intentions were flawed:

1) Nerf leve-linking

Leve-sharing needs to be made more relevant and useful, which is why leve-linking needs to be nerfed. You run out of repeatable content way too fast with leve-linking, which is why it should not be encouraged to be used.

[Naylia]

Leve-sharing needs to be made more relevant and useful, which is why leve-linking needs to be nerfed. You run out of repeatable content way too fast with leve-linking, which is why it should not be encouraged to be used.

I agree with this too...the idea of leve sharing should be that I can share my unit of special content with other people....not that we can all consume our content as quickly as possible and just multiply out the rewards.

Caveat to this - the content to be shared has to then itself have meaning and value. Leves that are boring/poorly designed have no value with the above concept.

I've actually stopped/slowed doing leves on my highest rank right now, because it goes too fast when I get to do it. I am trying to experience some of the other things to do - like get an attempt at HQ'ing weapon at my current rank (just need to farm up some Quicksilver +3 for Jarl's Guisarme)(and even thought stats have lil to no meaning) and completely gear up at each rank so that the getting to 50 part itself has meaning (had a LS buddy help me with crafting my Vintage Scale Mail after I finally found all the mats - sadly no HQ).

[Naylia]

I just don't want to gain a whole rank in the 40s in a couple hours from a single well run leve party....am I the only person who thinks this is too fast? I'd rather it slow down a little and when new content debuts have a variety of content available that provides a controlled sensible pace of leveling while I enjoy things along the way - do some leves, do some dungeons - fight some NMs, explore a lil, gain a rank and have that mean something.

[Jinko]

Problem is guildleves work on the same base XP values, which in effect makes some leves more attractive than other, hence why people grab specific leves and fail them only to retry them on the next reset.

By making guildleves the optimal way to level they aren't fixing the situation they are just moving it.

*cough*

As long as you try to solve the issue this way, you are only treating the symptons, not the disease.

*cough*

I agree that leve linking does indeed reduce the amount of content available, but I feel that going back now would have people quitting after being so used to the SP bonus.

You can argue of course that you would still be getting the same SP just over a longer period but I doubt many would see it that way.