06-25-2004, 07:03 PM
Looking at it on a kill-by-kill basis does not do justice to what the rest system will do. Ultimately, the player that plays more will get a bigger reward at the end. The rest system merely makes it so that they are a bit less behind than they would have been. How can this be unfair?
For an illustration, let's consider adding a rest state to single player Diablo. Since you want to give casual players a bonus rather than slowing down heavy gamers, we will say that the heavy gamer is getting on average the same amount of experience as before, while the casual gamer is getting more experience. Now the first question is "How much more experience do we need to give the casual gamer for it to actually be an effective bonus?" Then the second question is, "If we give the casual gamer that much of a bonus, how will it affect his gameplay?"
The answers to question 2 are variables in question 1, so it would not be a simple process. But here are a few things to consider:
- The experience needed to gain a level grows almost exponentially as you level.
- If you fight monsters below your level, you get less experience from them.
- If you skip monsters and move on, you don't get the items and/or gold for fighting those monsters, resulting in inferior spells and equipment.
- If you skip optional quests, you don't get the rewards for those quests.
- Fighting a monster is easier when your level is higher relative to its level.
- Fighting a monster is harder when your spells and equipment are worse.
- General game difficult is harder as you go deeper, and we are assuming this is your only character, so the more you skip early on, the further behind you are in terms of tactical knowledge later.
- No matter how many *battles* the casual gamer skips, he still has the same long walk to Wirt, the same long walk to Adria, and the same time requirements to shop or gain quest information in town square.
- If you want to skip to a new area, you still have to find that area.
Where am I going with this? Most of these points are problematic complications to the rest state scheme, and most of them (if not others) apply to World of Warcraft, to one degree or another. You want World of Warcraft to appeal to casual gamers? Make the early game as fun as the end game. Make griffon and ship flights instant. Make mounts and travel forms available earlier (like, say, level one). Make the game's interface more intuitive. Make cities faster and easier to navigate without having to print out a map from a fan site. Make it somehow possible to quit the game virtually anywhere without having to worry about getting ripped to shreds when you log back in. These are things that would actually help people who can only play for an hour a night (or less). But if you change their experience/mob ratio, you are either A) not changing it enough to make a noticeable difference or B) taking all of the careful balancing you did to the game at base experience and throwing it out the window, leaving these players with who knows what kind of game experience.
I think what Blizzard is doing is seeking a compromise between A and B. They are making a system that will only barely make a noticeable difference, and only barely ruin the game for everyone who plays more or less than whatever point the game is balanced for. Of course, game balance is still a work in progress, and I'm struggling to see how Blizzard can fine polish the game when they are getting conflicting feedback from different gamers since those gamers are getting different amounts of experience from completing the same quests, ending up in different areas at different levels, and having vastly different quality equipment at the same levels. All of those balance issues are exaggerated by the rest state, and the more extreme you make the rest state the more extreme the problems would be.
For an illustration, let's consider adding a rest state to single player Diablo. Since you want to give casual players a bonus rather than slowing down heavy gamers, we will say that the heavy gamer is getting on average the same amount of experience as before, while the casual gamer is getting more experience. Now the first question is "How much more experience do we need to give the casual gamer for it to actually be an effective bonus?" Then the second question is, "If we give the casual gamer that much of a bonus, how will it affect his gameplay?"
The answers to question 2 are variables in question 1, so it would not be a simple process. But here are a few things to consider:
- The experience needed to gain a level grows almost exponentially as you level.
- If you fight monsters below your level, you get less experience from them.
- If you skip monsters and move on, you don't get the items and/or gold for fighting those monsters, resulting in inferior spells and equipment.
- If you skip optional quests, you don't get the rewards for those quests.
- Fighting a monster is easier when your level is higher relative to its level.
- Fighting a monster is harder when your spells and equipment are worse.
- General game difficult is harder as you go deeper, and we are assuming this is your only character, so the more you skip early on, the further behind you are in terms of tactical knowledge later.
- No matter how many *battles* the casual gamer skips, he still has the same long walk to Wirt, the same long walk to Adria, and the same time requirements to shop or gain quest information in town square.
- If you want to skip to a new area, you still have to find that area.
Where am I going with this? Most of these points are problematic complications to the rest state scheme, and most of them (if not others) apply to World of Warcraft, to one degree or another. You want World of Warcraft to appeal to casual gamers? Make the early game as fun as the end game. Make griffon and ship flights instant. Make mounts and travel forms available earlier (like, say, level one). Make the game's interface more intuitive. Make cities faster and easier to navigate without having to print out a map from a fan site. Make it somehow possible to quit the game virtually anywhere without having to worry about getting ripped to shreds when you log back in. These are things that would actually help people who can only play for an hour a night (or less). But if you change their experience/mob ratio, you are either A) not changing it enough to make a noticeable difference or B) taking all of the careful balancing you did to the game at base experience and throwing it out the window, leaving these players with who knows what kind of game experience.
I think what Blizzard is doing is seeking a compromise between A and B. They are making a system that will only barely make a noticeable difference, and only barely ruin the game for everyone who plays more or less than whatever point the game is balanced for. Of course, game balance is still a work in progress, and I'm struggling to see how Blizzard can fine polish the game when they are getting conflicting feedback from different gamers since those gamers are getting different amounts of experience from completing the same quests, ending up in different areas at different levels, and having vastly different quality equipment at the same levels. All of those balance issues are exaggerated by the rest state, and the more extreme you make the rest state the more extreme the problems would be.