Pantheon doing level scaling? Seriously?

12346»

Comments

  • svannsvann san jose, CAMember UncommonPosts: 1,993
    Dullahan said:
    gervaise1 said:

    Do you have any idea about political theory or have you just been .... brainwashed.

    National Socialists were considered "right wing" - and there are a wide range of "left" and "right" socialist parties in Europe.
    Actually, socialism of all types used to be considered left wing. It was revisionist history among the academic world in an attempt to separate their beloved ideals from Hitler that recategorized nazism as "right wing", despite the fact that his ideals had absolutely nothing in common with right wing ideals (no, not even "nationalism" as all communist (left wing) countries were nationalist, as they are today. See Nkorea).
    Hitler murdered communists and unions.  Right winger.
    MrMelGibsonJamesGoblin
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,336
    svann said:
    Dullahan said:
    gervaise1 said:

    Do you have any idea about political theory or have you just been .... brainwashed.

    National Socialists were considered "right wing" - and there are a wide range of "left" and "right" socialist parties in Europe.
    Actually, socialism of all types used to be considered left wing. It was revisionist history among the academic world in an attempt to separate their beloved ideals from Hitler that recategorized nazism as "right wing", despite the fact that his ideals had absolutely nothing in common with right wing ideals (no, not even "nationalism" as all communist (left wing) countries were nationalist, as they are today. See Nkorea).
    Hitler murdered communists and unions.  Right winger.
    For each thing you can name trying to label hitler as right wing, I can name 10 that made him left.

    The left right dichotomy is founded first and foremost on the size and power of government. That places fascists and communists alike way left of center.
    MrMelGibsonIselinJamesGoblinsvann


  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,336
    edited September 23
    Dullahan said:
    gervaise1 said:

    Do you have any idea about political theory or have you just been .... brainwashed.

    National Socialists were considered "right wing" - and there are a wide range of "left" and "right" socialist parties in Europe.
    Actually, socialism of all types used to be considered left wing. It was revisionist history among the academic world in an attempt to separate their beloved ideals from Hitler that recategorized nazism as "right wing", despite the fact that his ideals had absolutely nothing in common with right wing ideals (no, not even "nationalism" as all communist (left wing) countries were nationalist, as they are today. See Nkorea).
    Fascists are right wing.  No idea where you're getting that they are not.  Next thing you'll say is that Hitler's movement was atheist when Hitler himself called his movement Christian.  Gotta love those alt facts.
    Don't believe everything pinkos at university told you. I can call myself 20 feet tall, that will not make me an inch taller than 6 foot.
    Post edited by Dullahan on
    MrMelGibson


  • MrMelGibsonMrMelGibson USAMember EpicPosts: 2,234
    Dullahan said:
    Dullahan said:
    gervaise1 said:

    Do you have any idea about political theory or have you just been .... brainwashed.

    National Socialists were considered "right wing" - and there are a wide range of "left" and "right" socialist parties in Europe.
    Actually, socialism of all types used to be considered left wing. It was revisionist history among the academic world in an attempt to separate their beloved ideals from Hitler that recategorized nazism as "right wing", despite the fact that his ideals had absolutely nothing in common with right wing ideals (no, not even "nationalism" as all communist (left wing) countries were nationalist, as they are today. See Nkorea).
    Fascists are right wing.  No idea where you're getting that they are not.  Next thing you'll say is that Hitler's movement was atheist when Hitler himself called his movement Christian.  Gotta love those alt facts.
    Don't believe everything pinkos at university told you. I can call myself 20 feet tall, that will not make me an inch taller than 6 foot.
    I got that information from Hitler's own book and public speeches.  I don't get my alt facts from right wing nut sites like info wars and Bannon's propaganda site.  Fascism and Nazis has always been far right.  Looks like you might want to read a history book at some point.  Otherwise You'll continue to believe the nonsense you are spouting here.  
    JamesGoblinTorval
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,336
    Dullahan said:
    Dullahan said:
    gervaise1 said:

    Do you have any idea about political theory or have you just been .... brainwashed.

    National Socialists were considered "right wing" - and there are a wide range of "left" and "right" socialist parties in Europe.
    Actually, socialism of all types used to be considered left wing. It was revisionist history among the academic world in an attempt to separate their beloved ideals from Hitler that recategorized nazism as "right wing", despite the fact that his ideals had absolutely nothing in common with right wing ideals (no, not even "nationalism" as all communist (left wing) countries were nationalist, as they are today. See Nkorea).
    Fascists are right wing.  No idea where you're getting that they are not.  Next thing you'll say is that Hitler's movement was atheist when Hitler himself called his movement Christian.  Gotta love those alt facts.
    Don't believe everything pinkos at university told you. I can call myself 20 feet tall, that will not make me an inch taller than 6 foot.
    I got that information from Hitler's own book and public speeches.  I don't get my alt facts from right wing nut sites like info wars and Bannon's propaganda site.  Fascism and Nazis has always been far right.  Looks like you might want to read a history book at some point.  Otherwise You'll continue to believe the nonsense you are spouting here.  
    Spare me, no one who has spent even an hour reading Hitler would come to the conclusion that he was any type of traditional Christian. Talk about alternative facts.
    MrMelGibson


  • ZindaihasZindaihas Seattle, WAMember UncommonPosts: 3,626

    Well I can see this thread has gotten way off topic and is going to get locked.  But before it does, I thought I'd throw my 2 cents worth in.  Nazism is the acronym for National Socialist Party.  You can argue whether it was left or right, but Hitler brought Germany's industry under the authority of the German government, which is the antithesis of Western conservatism which advocates free markets with minimal government intervention.  So from that standpoint, its political ideology strikes me as leftist.

    More importantly, the idea that Hitler was a Christian and/or Nazism was a Christian movement is offensive to me.  In truth, Hitler was an occultist as was Heinrich Himmler.  Simply Google Nazism and occultism and you will see that was the case.  Over time, critics of Christianity have twisted Nazism from ideology based on the occult into one based on Christianity.  Because Hitler was not an outright atheist, like Stalin, and was an enemy of Stalin's, people have tried to claim he was a Christian, which is absolutely false.

    MrMelGibsonDullahan

  • MrMelGibsonMrMelGibson USAMember EpicPosts: 2,234
    Dullahan said:
    Dullahan said:
    Dullahan said:
    gervaise1 said:

    Do you have any idea about political theory or have you just been .... brainwashed.

    National Socialists were considered "right wing" - and there are a wide range of "left" and "right" socialist parties in Europe.
    Actually, socialism of all types used to be considered left wing. It was revisionist history among the academic world in an attempt to separate their beloved ideals from Hitler that recategorized nazism as "right wing", despite the fact that his ideals had absolutely nothing in common with right wing ideals (no, not even "nationalism" as all communist (left wing) countries were nationalist, as they are today. See Nkorea).
    Fascists are right wing.  No idea where you're getting that they are not.  Next thing you'll say is that Hitler's movement was atheist when Hitler himself called his movement Christian.  Gotta love those alt facts.
    Don't believe everything pinkos at university told you. I can call myself 20 feet tall, that will not make me an inch taller than 6 foot.
    I got that information from Hitler's own book and public speeches.  I don't get my alt facts from right wing nut sites like info wars and Bannon's propaganda site.  Fascism and Nazis has always been far right.  Looks like you might want to read a history book at some point.  Otherwise You'll continue to believe the nonsense you are spouting here.  
    Spare me, no one who has spent even an hour reading Hitler would come to the conclusion that he was any type of traditional Christian. Talk about alternative facts.



    JamesGoblin
  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKMember LegendaryPosts: 16,661
    And there you have it folks - Godwins law achieved.

    /thread
    BeezerbeezTorvalXarkoAdamantine
  • ZindaihasZindaihas Seattle, WAMember UncommonPosts: 3,626

    You can throw up quotes all you want, and perhaps its easy to fall for the notion that Hitler's belief in mysticism was based on Christianity because he tried to define it as such, but that doesn't make it the case.  Rather than pull quotes out of context which were most likely framed by critics, do a little in depth research.  The evidence that Hitler and Nazism was an occultist and not a Christian is overwhelming.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_and_the_Occult

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/did-hitlers-obsession-with-the-occult-lose-him-the-war/

  • ForgrimmForgrimm Somewhere in TimeMember EpicPosts: 2,529
    How did a thread about level scaling devolve into discussion about fascism and Hitler?
    Beezerbeezpantarodcutbi001
  • ZindaihasZindaihas Seattle, WAMember UncommonPosts: 3,626
    Forgrimm said: How did a thread about level scaling devolve into discussion about fascism and Hitler?

    I was curious about that myself so I went back and looked at the posts to see where it started.  It looks like Dvora was the first one to steer it in that direction when he called Nyclelios a "brainwashed lefty socialist".  And in this day and age of political polarization in America, that's all it takes.

  • MrMelGibsonMrMelGibson USAMember EpicPosts: 2,234
    Forgrimm said:
    How did a thread about level scaling devolve into discussion about fascism and Hitler?
    Ask dull, he started it lol.
  • ianicusianicus Calgary, ABMember UncommonPosts: 617
    If they do scaling, count me out, lvl scaling is casual access garbage.
    Dullahan
    "Well let me just quote the late-great Colonel Sanders, who said…’I’m too drunk to taste this chicken." - Ricky Bobby
  • MrMelGibsonMrMelGibson USAMember EpicPosts: 2,234
    ianicus said:
    If they do scaling, count me out, lvl scaling is casual access garbage.
    The developer already said they're not doing scaling.  So no worries on that front.
  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKMember LegendaryPosts: 16,661
    Forgrimm said:
    How did a thread about level scaling devolve into discussion about fascism and Hitler?

    Godwins law - its inevitable and only a matter of time before it happens

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
  • ZindaihasZindaihas Seattle, WAMember UncommonPosts: 3,626

    Alright, back on topic.  I haven't weighed in yet (at least on the subject matter) partly because I was unfamiliar with the term "level-scaling".  And I probably should weigh-in considering I am one of the ones who pulled it off-topic.  After reading a few of the posts, I think I have a grasp on it.  It's where the game adjusts the levels of two more players of vastly different levels in order to allow them to group together, correct?

    Yeah, I'm against that.  Why bother leveling when the game can arbitrarily adjust it by simply grouping with someone of higher or lower level?  Going back to EQ (as I so often do), I have mentioned that my brother started playing it well before me.  When my first character was level one, he had a character who was about level 53.  I couldn't group with him, which sort of sucked, but if anything, it motivated me to get my character up so that I could group with him.  It was fine because there was no shortage of other players for me to group with and get to know.

    At the time the level cap was 60, so he maxed out and kept busy by raiding and exploring while I worked my way up into the 50s where I was able to group with him.  I didn't take too long because I'm a much better player than he is (hehe, I just put that in there in case he happens to look in on this forum).  In truth, I'm only slightly better than him :) But it was a motivating factor, so I see no need for it.

  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,232
    edited September 24
    Zindaihas said:

    Alright, back on topic.  I haven't weighed in yet (at least on the subject matter) partly because I was unfamiliar with the term "level-scaling".  And I probably should weigh-in considering I am one of the ones who pulled it off-topic.  After reading a few of the posts, I think I have a grasp on it.  It's where the game adjusts the levels of two more players of vastly different levels in order to allow them to group together, correct?

    Yeah, I'm against that.  Why bother leveling when the game can arbitrarily adjust it by simply grouping with someone of higher or lower level?  Going back to EQ (as I so often do), I have mentioned that my brother started playing it well before me.  When my first character was level one, he had a character who was about level 53.  I couldn't group with him, which sort of sucked, but if anything, it motivated me to get my character up so that I could group with him.  It was fine because there was no shortage of other players for me to group with and get to know.

    At the time the level cap was 60, so he maxed out and kept busy by raiding and exploring while I worked my way up into the 50s where I was able to group with him.  I didn't take too long because I'm a much better player than he is (hehe, I just put that in there in case he happens to look in on this forum).  In truth, I'm only slightly better than him :) But it was a motivating factor, so I see no need for it.

    Some people aren't interested in soloing until they catch up, or grouping with others outside of their chosen social circle.

    Back in the early days of EQ (where I suspect you and your brother might have had considerable free time)  catching up wasn't so bad,  neither was Pugging as it was a kinder era with players and game play mechanics being more forgiving of the less adept players.

    This is a different era, min/maxing is the rule, speed runs, "players must know fights", no gawking at the story or content, dungeon finders, dps meters,  kicking people from groups, etc makes grouping with others that I don't personally know something I will no longer do these days.

    As its normally tough to find 6 to 8 people to regularly stay in step with,  level scaling / mentoring systems makes it more agreeable to group, at least for me.

    One reason I quit ESO at launch was I joined it with 8 friends however due to its design we rarely could play together in PVE and it looked as if we never would until we all reached level 55 and cleared all three realms worth of contents on our own.

    Had the current level scaled design been in place I suspect we might all still be playing ESO some today but for now most of them are over on the DAOC free shard while I'm catching up in single player games.


    Post edited by Kyleran on
    svannAmatheTorvalMadFrenchie

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - Screw off-grid PVE boosting changes

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon


  • BeezerbeezBeezerbeez ChicagoMember UncommonPosts: 270
    In a niche game such as this, if done well level scaling could work very well. It might also help a small indy team like this in that it keeps a content area relevant for far longer; it's going to take them time to churn out new zones and this gives some flexibility to reuse areas by adding new content there. Having blended monster difficulty in the same general area is great, but it doesn't bring people into groups together, it just brings them into the same general area. Combining that effect with level scaling may be just what a group focused game like this needs to stay relevant longer. After all, what is worse than a group-centric game with nobody to group with? Also, WTF with the Hitler crap you guys? I need blood pressure medicine now. Thanks for that. 
    Kyleran
  • MendelMendel Marietta, GAMember RarePosts: 1,797
    In a niche game such as this, if done well level scaling could work very well. It might also help a small indy team like this in that it keeps a content area relevant for far longer; it's going to take them time to churn out new zones and this gives some flexibility to reuse areas by adding new content there. Having blended monster difficulty in the same general area is great, but it doesn't bring people into groups together, it just brings them into the same general area. Combining that effect with level scaling may be just what a group focused game like this needs to stay relevant longer. After all, what is worse than a group-centric game with nobody to group with? Also, WTF with the Hitler crap you guys? I need blood pressure medicine now. Thanks for that. 
    I think the pertinent question for the developers should be, is the amount of time necessary to implement a scaling/mentoring feature worth more than simply creating new content?  Having more content has been the guiding philosophy for the MMORPG genre since day 1.  Reusing content hasn't had the same appeal as something new.

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • strykr619strykr619 San Diego, CAMember UncommonPosts: 193
    OP needs to learn how to read IMO before screaming THEIR IS A FIRE! 
    jpedrote52
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,366
    Mendel said:
    In a niche game such as this, if done well level scaling could work very well. It might also help a small indy team like this in that it keeps a content area relevant for far longer; it's going to take them time to churn out new zones and this gives some flexibility to reuse areas by adding new content there. Having blended monster difficulty in the same general area is great, but it doesn't bring people into groups together, it just brings them into the same general area. Combining that effect with level scaling may be just what a group focused game like this needs to stay relevant longer. After all, what is worse than a group-centric game with nobody to group with? Also, WTF with the Hitler crap you guys? I need blood pressure medicine now. Thanks for that. 
    I think the pertinent question for the developers should be, is the amount of time necessary to implement a scaling/mentoring feature worth more than simply creating new content?  Having more content has been the guiding philosophy for the MMORPG genre since day 1.  Reusing content hasn't had the same appeal as something new.
    Trying to add enough scripted content to appease players is a losing fight.  Players will always advance at a rate far faster than any dev team could realistically create it.

    Some titles have experimented with using player-made content to fill the gap, but it comes with its own set of challenges.  Others have used RNG grinding or PvP focus.  While full-game level scaling is a challenging feature set to implement, a mentor system is much easier and, if you can create legitimate rewards for higher level players to do it, it gives those who fly through content an option to replay old content with the added benefit of unique rewards and a larger pool of players for those who are leveling to play with.

    image
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,336
    Mendel said:
    In a niche game such as this, if done well level scaling could work very well. It might also help a small indy team like this in that it keeps a content area relevant for far longer; it's going to take them time to churn out new zones and this gives some flexibility to reuse areas by adding new content there. Having blended monster difficulty in the same general area is great, but it doesn't bring people into groups together, it just brings them into the same general area. Combining that effect with level scaling may be just what a group focused game like this needs to stay relevant longer. After all, what is worse than a group-centric game with nobody to group with? Also, WTF with the Hitler crap you guys? I need blood pressure medicine now. Thanks for that. 
    I think the pertinent question for the developers should be, is the amount of time necessary to implement a scaling/mentoring feature worth more than simply creating new content?  Having more content has been the guiding philosophy for the MMORPG genre since day 1.  Reusing content hasn't had the same appeal as something new.
    Problem is, it's definitely easier. Once the system is in place, it allows them to perpetually reuse content with only minor balancing tweaks necessary down the road.

    That said, the issue is more than one of reusing content. The impact of allowing something like mentoring or level syncing is massive. Inevitabely, it ends up creating a way for players to circumvent the community at large in favor of smaller collectives. That stands in direct opposition to one of the major things that made EQ and first generation MMOs so appealing: overcoming social challenges.

    A major part of first gen mmorpgs were their social challenges. Making friends, interacting with people, and being prepared was part of the challenge each time you logged in. Nothing came easy, and as such, random players were valuable, players developed a deeper appreciation for one another and developed stronger bonds.

    Without these convenience features, players actually had to collaborate with people they did not already know, and that is what made your reputation matter. When you can't just join another instance or have a friend mentor down, you absolutely needed to communicate and meet new people to achieve your goals. Even in the biggest guilds in classic EQ era, you almost always needed random players to fill exp and farm groups. That created a very different mmo environment where players were more respectful and your daily activities were less predictable.

    https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/3215/matchmaking/view/post_id/49116



  • jpedrote52jpedrote52 Member UncommonPosts: 53
    Zindaihas said:

    Alright, back on topic.  I haven't weighed in yet (at least on the subject matter) partly because I was unfamiliar with the term "level-scaling".  And I probably should weigh-in considering I am one of the ones who pulled it off-topic.  After reading a few of the posts, I think I have a grasp on it.  It's where the game adjusts the levels of two more players of vastly different levels in order to allow them to group together, correct?

    Yeah, I'm against that.  Why bother leveling when the game can arbitrarily adjust it by simply grouping with someone of higher or lower level?  Going back to EQ (as I so often do), I have mentioned that my brother started playing it well before me.  When my first character was level one, he had a character who was about level 53.  I couldn't group with him, which sort of sucked, but if anything, it motivated me to get my character up so that I could group with him.  It was fine because there was no shortage of other players for me to group with and get to know.

    At the time the level cap was 60, so he maxed out and kept busy by raiding and exploring while I worked my way up into the 50s where I was able to group with him.  I didn't take too long because I'm a much better player than he is (hehe, I just put that in there in case he happens to look in on this forum).  In truth, I'm only slightly better than him :) But it was a motivating factor, so I see no need for it.

    Go to the first page and read the comment made by Kilsin, the Pantheon community manager, he said, very clearly, they're not doing level scaling.....
  • ZindaihasZindaihas Seattle, WAMember UncommonPosts: 3,626
    Go to the first page and read the comment made by Kilsin, the Pantheon community manager, he said, very clearly, they're not doing level scaling.....
    I never said they were.  I was merely stating my opinion on the subject.

This discussion has been closed.