Thread: Decrease XP obtained from quests and monster kills

I think that players level too fast and don't have time to enjoy all the regions in the game. I have played with few characters already and i never did Eregion because i was too high lvl for it by the time i finished Angmar and Forochel and it was no longer fun to kill grey monsters.Therefore, i believe they should decrease the amount of xp you obtain from quests and monsters (by let's say 10-20%). This will prevent players from level too fast.
By decreasing the amount of xp players obtain, I believe that they will be able to enjoy the game better and will be challenged more. They will be more motivated to do all the quests in a region and will be more willing to do all the regions. The challenge may also bring certain players together to complete a particular quest.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Khaldir

I think that players level too fast and don't have time to enjoy all the regions in the game. I have played with few characters already and i never did Eregion because i was too high lvl for it by the time i finished Angmar and Forochel and it was no longer fun to kill grey monsters.Therefore, i believe they should decrease the amount of xp you obtain from quests and monsters (by let's say 10-20%). This will prevent players from level too fast.
By decreasing the amount of xp players obtain, I believe that they will be able to enjoy the game better and will be challenged more. They will be more motivated to do all the quests in a region and will be more willing to do all the regions. The challenge may also bring certain players together to complete a particular quest.

Thank you.

I disagree.

I don't like how slow it is to level my characters right now. I would enjoy the game less the way you want it. Slow isn't challenging, it's boring.

This has been suggested many times (see below).

I think the only way some people would support it is if an option were provided that allowed them to throttle the XP gained, from 0 (none) up to say 200%. The upper limit is arbitrary; but some people would like to level faster, so why not let them? Win-win.

I think you could base the upper limit on the number of characters at the level cap on that account. Some formula like this:

100 + (10 x N) percent, where N is the number of characters at the cap. So if you had 5 characters at 75, you could level at up to 150%.

Arbitrary Artificial Level Down System (48 posts): http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?370775-Arbitrary-Artificial-Level-Down-System

A Well Meant Question (49 posts): http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?460790-A-well-meant-question-(to-the-dev-team)

Level in LOTRO is too fast (524 posts): http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?362854-Leveling-in-LOTRO-its-very-very-fast..slow-it-down-a-bit!

Leveling Disable Token(39 posts): http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...your-character

Slower XP (326 posts): http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?238994-Slower-XP

Stop XP (80 posts): http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?453493-Stop-XP

XP Off (28 posts): http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?378121-XP-Off

XP Reducer (872 posts): http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...312-XP-Reducer

XP throttle/toggle (7 posts): http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?355494-XP-throttle-toggle

XP Toggle (39 posts): http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?451536-XP-toggle

Originally Posted by Khaldir

... I have played with few characters already and i never did Eregion because i was too high lvl for it by the time i finished Angmar and Forochel and it was no longer fun to kill grey monsters. ...

Then why didnt you take advantage of the easy solution and simply took one of your few characters into Eregion instead of Forochel/Angmar? The game gives you at least two levelling areas for most level ranges now. That is a plus. You´re not supposed to do every single quest on each character just to level.

There are many arguments for a temporary XP disabler, but the solution you present is for a problem that sits in front of the keyboard.

Personally I do feel that leveling is too fast, but I know others do not agree, this is why I support the level disable option mores than cutting the exp.

For example, my Champ was lvl 66, halfway up to 67. I went to mirkwood and did the starter area, and it leveled me to 67. I did two more quests, and then ran Warg Pens with the 4 or 5 side quests included, and those quests brought me up halfway through 67... I haven't even done ANYTHING in mirkwood yet, and am already over its level yet still I get obscene amounts of exp for doing practically nothing.

Its mostly annoying because of rep/rep rewards. By the time you get the rep, the rewards are garbage because you've already leveled up 5 times (and were probably past the level already) and can use the next place's rep rewards, but oh wait you need rep for them first, which takes you up another 5 levels, oops now the rewards from them are useless too.

But anyways, so many posts about the same thing, hopefully turbine will implement some sort of token or toggle, and implement it well.

Originally Posted by Beleg

100 + (10 x N) percent, where N is the number of characters at the cap. So if you had 5 characters at 75, you could level at up to 150%.

That formula would permit me to level a character at a 200% rate. Since my account is VIP, so long as I have rest xp (which is almost all the time), 300%. If you add in the pocket item from RoI, 325% on mob kills. If there is a "double xp" weekend (which is really a "+100% of mob kills" weekend), the mob kills would yield 425%....

Got to watch out for the Law of Unintended Consequences.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Originally Posted by whheydt

That formula would permit me to level a character at a 200% rate. Since my account is VIP, so long as I have rest xp (which is almost all the time), 300%. If you add in the pocket item from RoI, 325% on mob kills. If there is a "double xp" weekend (which is really a "+100% of mob kills" weekend), the mob kills would yield 425%....

Got to watch out for the Law of Unintended Consequences.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

It wasn't unintended. If you already have 10 level-capped characters, I would have no problem with you leveling as fast as you want. But if Turbine wanted to cap it at 200% or whatever, that would be fine with me. I'll be one of the players who has it set below 100% (down to 0, in some cases).

The problem isn't the default leveling speed. The problem is that we have no control over the points awarded for each qualifying action. As you can see there is wide range of customer wants. It is too slow. It is too fast. Very few people saying it is just right.

Turbine really needs to do is offer some sort of customer control like a experience point disabler. Turbine already offers all kinds of accelerators. Obviously, there some interest more powerful accelerators.

For my oppinion, in Lotro charakters leveln way too fast.
But also its a fact, that you can not do ALL the quest with
one charakter in levelrange.

But Turbine ist doing all they can to make you level quicker, so you have to buy new content earlier. Just dont do the stupid, "run from point a to point b"-quest and it solves at least a bit of what we are calling a problem.

They call it marketing, I guess.

(( sorry for my poor english ))

Originally Posted by Beleg

I think the only way some people would support it is if an option were provided that allowed them to throttle the XP gained, from 0 (none) up to say 200%. The upper limit is arbitrary; but some people would like to level faster, so why not let them? Win-win.

I think you could base the upper limit on the number of characters at the level cap on that account. Some formula like this:

100 + (10 x N) percent, where N is the number of characters at the cap. So if you had 5 characters at 75, you could level at up to 150%.

A configurable percentage like this would be my preferred way of solving the problem. I support the toggle that simply turns XP on/off, or having a "Level Up" button once reaching an XP threshold rather than the leveling being automatic, if either of those are enough easier to have a better chance of being implemented. But if I could set my XP gain at 30% or 40% and keep it there, then gaining levels could actually be an accomplishment to enjoy, while still getting to experience the whole game. So this particular version of the solution is the best for completionists like myself as well as for those in a rush to finish the game. And so long as it includes the option to set it all the way down to 0%, it also takes care of those who want to level in-sync with other players, leveling only when they're together and not when they play alone.

I'm not sure how high above 100% Turbine would want the feature to go (when they also want to continue being able to sell their current XP accelerators), but I like your idea of tying it to the number of level-capped characters the player already has.

I can not see and do not support a general slow down of leveling/XP Gain.
There are many playstyles and those that like faster leveling should not be forced to slow down.
But at each content addition level cap raise those that prefer slowiner leveling should not be forced to gain XP/level faster.
Problem is right now thats what happens as Turbine bumps the Curve for the End gamers that feel the need to Rush to the cap.

Give us a toggle a simple XP on off switch a slider to control percent of XP Gain possibly divert it to IXP.
Give Us that prefer slower leveling more casual play RP an option to slow things down.
Do not force anyone make it an option My playstyle is Mine Your Play style is yours both have thier Place and are equaly valid.



Fleeting Hope appears on the Horizon.....
It shimers in the wake of frustrations
IT wavers Just out of reach....
When Will we actually Grasp the ring of XP Control.


Q1: Will you ever have an experience eliminator/on-off switch? - Justin Viskoc
A: Since we’ve already done some work on an experience disabler, I’d say the odds are real good J. It’s not 100% polished yet and until it is, here also is the standard fine print line that there is no commitment implied here as to when it will see the light of day. - Linda “LLena” Currie, Design Director

http://www.lotro.com/gameinfo/featur...aa-june-1-2012

Originally Posted by NickStern

I can not see and do not support a general slow down of leveling/XP Gain.
There are many playstyles and those that like faster leveling should not be forced to slow down.
But at each content addition level cap raise those that prefer slowiner leveling should not be forced to gain XP/level faster.
Problem is right now thats what happens as Turbine bumps the Curve for the End gamers that feel the need to Rush to the cap.

While I can't see a general slowdown by itself, if they would finally add in some options on leveling speed, I think changing the default speed back down to its original 2007 settings would be beneficial to the game. For instance, if we got the leveling percentage slider, have "100%" represent the speed the game was originally designed for, before all the general speed-up changes that have been made since, but let anyone who specifically wants to set it higher, be able to go up to the speed we have as the base speed now. Nobody would be forced to slow down that way, but new players would have time to enjoy the early content.

I think a lot of new players don't notice how detrimental the fast leveling speed is until after they've already out-leveled a great deal of content they want to do. (If you don't know to be careful about it, you can easily out-level entire regions in just a day or two without intending to.) A slower initial default speed would give new players a chance to see the game and have a little more time to decide how they want to level. Then if they decide they want to level up to cap quickly, they can go ahead and set the percentage slider up to its maximum, or if they decide they want it slower they can do that.

Originally Posted by NickStern

Fleeting Hope appears on the Horizon.....
It shimers in the wake of frustrations
IT wavers Just out of reach....
When Will we actually Grasp the ring of XP Control.


Q1: Will you ever have an experience eliminator/on-off switch? - Justin Viskoc
A: Since we’ve already done some work on an experience disabler, I’d say the odds are real good J. It’s not 100% polished yet and until it is, here also is the standard fine print line that there is no commitment implied here as to when it will see the light of day. - Linda “LLena” Currie, Design Director

http://www.lotro.com/gameinfo/featur...aa-june-1-2012

Very promising, but still with two big questions, when and how.

I get why people (including myself) want less xp for quests/monsters, but I guess it makes sense to keep it this way since it'll encourage players to roll another character and play through the areas the other character would have missed.

Also makes sense for Turbine since the player would buy multiple things from the LOTRO shop in the process :P

Originally Posted by Brandybardard

I get why people (including myself) want less xp for quests/monsters, but I guess it makes sense to keep it this way since it'll encourage players to roll another character and play through the areas the other character would have missed.

Also makes sense for Turbine since the player would buy multiple things from the LOTRO shop in the process :P

A player who is so frustrated that they cancel VIP due to the break neck XP GAin Including Rest XP.....
The Player that Is tired of missing content skirms instances raids on level and stops playing.......

Are not People LOTRO is makeing Money off of.....

More Options means more Players more enjoyment for differant playstyles and players sticking around longer
as they are able to adust the game play to fit them better....... Those are the people that Pay to Play Lotro.

Originally Posted by NickStern

A player who is so frustrated that they cancel VIP due to the break neck XP GAin Including Rest XP.....
The Player that Is tired of missing content skirms instances raids on level and stops playing.......

Are not People LOTRO is makeing Money off of.....

More Options means more Players more enjoyment for differant playstyles and players sticking around longer
as they are able to adust the game play to fit them better....... Those are the people that Pay to Play Lotro.

And if an XP disabler ever does make it into the game, as the dev indicated it might, you'll get the pleasure of paying some more - most likely in the form of buying temporary XP disablers from the Store.

I have a hard time believing that it will be implemented in any other fashion, for the simple fact that allowing players to permanently and indefinitely lock themselves at a certain level for free would allow players to delay or even avoid entirely the need to spend money to keep playing the game (e.g.lock yourself in at 50, and you never have to buy Moria, Mirkwood, Isengard, Rohan, etc. - why on Earth would Turbine want to allow players to do that for free?).

Originally Posted by Lestache

And if an XP disabler ever does make it into the game, as the dev indicated it might, you'll get the pleasure of paying some more - most likely in the form of buying temporary XP disablers from the Store.

I have a hard time believing that it will be implemented in any other fashion, for the simple fact that allowing players to permanently and indefinitely lock themselves at a certain level for free would allow players to delay or even avoid entirely the need to spend money to keep playing the game (e.g.lock yourself in at 50, and you never have to buy Moria, Mirkwood, Isengard, Rohan, etc. - why on Earth would Turbine want to allow players to do that for free?).

I really think if you read the various threads you will see that many if not most players that want the feature are like me.
Vip Multiple alts wnating to experiance content on level and have already bought up to the current expansion.
I have moria, and I have RoI Legendary and as soon as they offer RoR Pre Purchase I will Buy it as well.
Most want to ability to park Characters at the End Game content of each of the expansions to help bring others to the game.
to Help friends Kinmates others experiance the content on level when it had meaning. That can not be bad for lotro more players means more money. More Satasfied customers means more money. More Options means more satisfied happy customers and Paying Players.

If Turbine allows people the choice to enjoy the content on level then I have reason to want to experiance more content.
If I see hey they did a great job here in Moria, which by the way They Did and the Revamp in my oppinion was good I am glad I experianced it both ways, wow if this is good then I bet that RoI I heave heard about is good to I think I will buy it.
Oh Cool RoR Mounted combat.... I can Buy thast now as pre order get the specials and still experiance it later on level.

There is nothing that indicates that people would park a F2P character at a certian level and never spend any more money in the Game or buy the expansions. It certianly did not Happen In Rift or In WoW or EQ2....
I think it is a streatch to think it would here in Lotro which is IMHO a better game then all 3 of the others.
Options are good they create ways for more people to enjoy the game more ways thats a positive thing for all MMO's.

Will we pay for it Yeah I think it will cost TP I hope it is a permenate thing for say 1995 TP account wide that I can toggle on and of as I se fit. Failing that a easonably prced Token like the Soldier Token Is something I would probably put to use as well at least with it I could go help a friend or Kin mate to complete a difficult quest or instance and not outlevel the area I am working on. I believe Turbine is working on a good Idea. I hope they Implement it In a way to satisfy both the Players that want it and Is Profitable for them.
I want this game to mae it to the 10Th anniversarry and Yes That means I am willing to Pay when Needed and support the Game. if they fail to Implement something showing they listen to the customers then VIP gets canceled until they Do.

We are 99% certain to get this. No idea of when, however.

http://www.lotro.com/gameinfo/featur...aa-june-1-2012

Originally Posted by Hassan_the_Assassin

We are 99% certain to get this. No idea of when, however.

http://www.lotro.com/gameinfo/featur...aa-june-1-2012

Wow... How did you get from "the odds are real good" to 99%? Because 99% isn't 100%, perhaps?

And people wonder why devs are reluctant to say anything on the Forums...

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Originally Posted by whheydt

Wow... How did you get from "the odds are real good" to 99%? Because 99% isn't 100%, perhaps?

And people wonder why devs are reluctant to say anything on the Forums...

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Quotes are wonderful things. I got it from this one: "we’ve already done some work on an experience disabler, I’d say the odds are real good J. It’s not 100% polished yet"

"not 100% polished yet" sort of implies a fairly advanced stage of completion. There is also the choice of words. "When" rather than "if" is a good indication, if we are indulging in Kremlology.

Leaving a bit of room for unforseen circumstances stopping it, and not setting any kind of ETA is wise, considering these forums.

Slightly off topic, beware of numbers, some should not be taken at face value. In older texts some numbers, like "77" or "1000" simply means "a lot". Round numbers, like 1 000 000, usually don't mean exactly that. When talking about somewhat fuzzy probabilities, a figure like 99%, does not mean exactly 99%, but rather something like "the odds are real good".

Originally Posted by Hassan_the_Assassin

Quotes are wonderful things. I got it from this one: "we’ve already done some work on an experience disabler, I’d say the odds are real good J. It’s not 100% polished yet"

"not 100% polished yet" sort of implies a fairly advanced stage of completion. There is also the choice of words. "When" rather than "if" is a good indication, if we are indulging in Kremlology.

Leaving a bit of room for unforseen circumstances stopping it, and not setting any kind of ETA is wise, considering these forums.

Slightly off topic, beware of numbers, some should not be taken at face value. In older texts some numbers, like "77" or "1000" simply means "a lot". Round numbers, like 1 000 000, usually don't mean exactly that. When talking about somewhat fuzzy probabilities, a figure like 99%, does not mean exactly 99%, but rather something like "the odds are real good".

If I were to pull a number out of thin air to go with "the odds are real good", I'd probably pick something more like "80%". But I'm good with "odds are real good" and am inclined to leave it at that.

As for numbers in reports.... Something else to watch out for is too literal translation from one measurement system to another. Example:

Many years ago, a US VIP was visiting South Korea. The news report I read stated that the press were kept back "at least 331 feet" from the plane. From that, it was easy to guess what the original dispatch said, mainly that they were kept back "at least 100 meters". Some fool with a calculator converted meters to feet without thinking about the fact that the 100 meters was a mark I eyeball estimate, not something checked out with a tape measure. Had the report been published as "at least 100 yards", it would have been consistent with the original report and--more to the point--given the correct "feel" for the actual report.

Makes one wonder...do schools still teach people about precision and accuracy? The advantage of a slide rule over a calculator is that that it inhibits the tendency to believe that all those digits in an answer actually *mean* something...

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Originally Posted by whheydt

Makes one wonder...do schools still teach people about precision and accuracy

They do in engineering programs. Engineering solutions are always approximations. You get taught:

1) Accuracy
2) Precision
3) Safety Margins and the other slop.

The term I heard a lot. An Engineer only has to get close enough to make it so. Thie engineering behavior drives the Physical and Mathematic Science people crazy. Physical and Mathematical Science people are typically called theorical science. Engineers are applied sciene. Engineer take theory, simplify it so they can come up with a useful product.

Well, thank you for the replies. I see that those who disagree clearly stated their points. I have actually never thought of doing one region and not another o.O. I always wanted to do EVERYTHING. but it seems that some of you may be right. Maybe all these regions weren't meant to be done all together. Maybe they were intended to add some variety on how players experience then game.
I still think that i level too fast, but i see that there is a way for me to solve the problem. With that said, i am off to Egerion with my LM. ;-)

Originally Posted by Yula_the_Mighty

They do in engineering programs. Engineering solutions are always approximations. You get taught:

1) Accuracy
2) Precision
3) Safety Margins and the other slop.

The term I heard a lot. An Engineer only has to get close enough to make it so. Thie engineering behavior drives the Physical and Mathematic Science people crazy. Physical and Mathematical Science people are typically called theorical science. Engineers are applied sciene. Engineer take theory, simplify it so they can come up with a useful product.

Fours years at UCBerkeley in EECS....the stories I could tell.... Punchline on some good jokes: Close enough for all practical purposes.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Originally Posted by Hassan_the_Assassin

We are 99% certain to get this. No idea of when, however.

Aside from the issue of translating "the odds are real good" to "99%", I don't know that "when" is the biggest question. I'm far more concerned with the question of how they plan on implementing it. So far our only clue is that several months ago they had planned to put it into the LOTRO Store, but since the Store carries everything from game features to consumable items, that doesn't really tell us much. Even if they can't tell us yet when it will be ready, I wish they would tell us what the feature is that they've started work on. What it is and how it works would be determined during the design phase of development, and "we’ve already done some work on an experience disabler" sounds like they're past that phase.

Still many want away to do this slow or temp stop XP GAIN

Not Signed!


If you want to do every area no one is stopping you, it doesn't really matter if the quests are grey in my opinion if you just want to explore and learn the story of the zone or you can take an alternate levelling path with an alt however please don't make those of us that are on our 7th alt to 75 or whatever go through every single area and increase the time it takes us to reach level cap because some of us know the quests so well by know we can quote the quest texts for you off the top of our heads. If they put an XP decrease tome or something like that in the store that's fine but dropping quest XP rewards down is not.

Originally Posted by Lynchpin13

Not Signed!


If you want to do every area no one is stopping you, it doesn't really matter if the quests are grey in my opinion if you just want to explore and learn the story of the zone or you can take an alternate levelling path with an alt however please don't make those of us that are on our 7th alt to 75 or whatever go through every single area and increase the time it takes us to reach level cap because some of us know the quests so well by know we can quote the quest texts for you off the top of our heads. If they put an XP decrease tome or something like that in the store that's fine but dropping quest XP rewards down is not.

It will not change for you...
while the original op was a general decreas most if not all agree that will not should not happen.
no one wants to change your gameplay style
we want an XP toggle for ourselves to play our way.
If you chose ot to use it thats fine
oh and you can still buy the XP boost items in the store
we just want the same options.

/Signed on the no xp toggle option.
I'd never use it, but hey, it would make a bunch of players happy and if work has already started on it...

As far as I can see the only real draw back would be the lack of outraged posts from John_Webb everytime turbine give the rest of up bonus xp weekends :P

Originally Posted by Tannus

/Signed on the no xp toggle option.
I'd never use it, but hey, it would make a bunch of players happy and if work has already started on it...

As far as I can see the only real draw back would be the lack of outraged posts from John_Webb everytime turbine give the rest of up bonus xp weekends :P

Again Thank you for your support keeping these posts on top of the thread Pile.
Perhaps Turbine Will relaise there are amny that want the XP reducer/toggle and
maybe just maybe rush it through Production Just Like the Cosmetic Dummies.

If your Well behaved enough do not worry I will keep a few Outraged Posts available Just for You.

Originally Posted by John_Webb

Again Thank you for your support keeping these posts on top of the thread Pile.
Perhaps Turbine Will relaise there are amny that want the XP reducer/toggle and
maybe just maybe rush it through Production Just Like the Cosmetic Dummies.

If your Well behaved enough do not worry I will keep a few Outraged Posts available Just for You.

Well past time for the XP toggle.
Unfortunetly it appears that Turbine in thier wisdom
goofed again and introduced a consumable of limited use and value.
700 TP for a 7 day calander time XP Toogle.
thats plain crazy!!

What was the intention 7 day real time 7 day game time 7 day use time, or 7 day/night cycle in game?
We will never really know the original Intent as only Turbine knows for sure.
However if theymanage to make it 7day game time while logged in thats a start hopefully not the end result.
Any thing less is a slap in the face of the long term players.

Originally Posted by NickStern

Well past time for the XP toggle.
Unfortunetly it appears that Turbine in thier wisdom
goofed again and introduced a consumable of limited use and value.
700 TP for a 7 day calander time XP Toogle.
thats plain crazy!!

What was the intention 7 day real time 7 day game time 7 day use time, or 7 day/night cycle in game?
We will never really know the original Intent as only Turbine knows for sure.
However if theymanage to make it 7day game time while logged in thats a start hopefully not the end result.
Any thing less is a slap in the face of the long term players.

Did they "goof" or did they figure that those that *really* want an xp disabler will pay for it to cover the development cost?

I seriously doubt that Turbine is unaware of opinions on the subject of a voluntarily controlled, permanent xp disabler (one that you buy for a one-time fee and the switch on and off at will) versus a time-limited one. I raised the possibility of the later method (based on some other Store items) when they were originally looking at making such an item available. The reaction to that possibility was completely predictable then and is the same now. The ruckus will only get louder when those that don't pay attention to the comments out of beta or the Forums generally find out the details.

Now where did I put the popcorn supply....?

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Originally Posted by whheydt

Did they "goof" or did they figure that those that *really* want an xp disabler will pay for it to cover the development cost?

Perhaps neither.

Perhaps they wanted a discussion on cost to get some input about pricing. Perhaps they set a price that allows them to restrict or regulate who is testing it. Perhaps the price is being beta-tested just like the other features.

There are lots of possible explanations.

Turbine's reward will be determined as a product of price and volume. For this, they should recognize that many of the reasons for wanting a disabler - roleplaying, completionist, adventuring group members wanting to spend a couple of hours each week away from the group, people who would like to but avoid skirmishes because of the XP - will require multiple purchases or none at all. So, it must be priced to allow multipe purchases, or they will get none at all.

I, for one, will compute an annual cost. If that is too high (and 35,000 TP is too high) then I will not create the characters that would use it.

Also, it would be a mistake to think that all who would use this item would pay through the nose. Different eople ave different likes and dislikes - and in different strengths.

Originally Posted by Vandervahn

Then why didnt you take advantage of the easy solution and simply took one of your few characters into Eregion instead of Forochel/Angmar? The game gives you at least two levelling areas for most level ranges now. That is a plus. You´re not supposed to do every single quest on each character just to level.

There are many arguments for a temporary XP disabler, but the solution you present is for a problem that sits in front of the keyboard.

The problem that I have with this is that I don't particularly want to have to level another character just to run another region in the same level range! For example;

I have a Champion that I really enjoy playing. At level 20 (ish) I get to choose, do I quest in the Lone Lands, quest in the North Downs, or do skirmishes with my friends? Because there is no way of doing more than 1 of those 3 options without leveling too fast to enjoy the other 2. So do I have to make 3 identical Champions (because I enjoy playing my Champion class), level them all to 20, then play one in the Lone Lands, one in the North Downs and one reserved for skirmishes? Then level them all to 30 and do the same for Evendim and the Trollshaws Skirmishing. Then level them all to 40 and do....... etc?

And before anyone says about using different classes, I do play different classes, but I have 1 main and a few alts. The main being the one I enjoy playing most and I don't want to play a class I enjoy less, to explore and quest in the different regions, that is why I have a main!

Originally Posted by whheydt

Did they "goof" or did they figure that those that *really* want an xp disabler will pay for it to cover the development cost?

I personally think they goofed in making it a consumable a permenate toggle
would be more usefule and still could have been monitized like the premium wallet.
As I have said before I have multiple toons own all the expansions so not like I plan to
forever only play the free low level content. I would park toons at various levels
to enjoy the content and help friends kinmates newer players through the content.
It would allow me to play with new friends that join at various levels and not out level them.
Ibelieve There are many that would do that.
It means I buy more from the store to support these toons not less.

I seriously doubt the development was all that expensive since they already have increased XP
tomes and items in the store. Clearly the code to manioulate the XP variable already existed.
Adding a item to stop setting the variable to = Zero should not have taken a year.
Very poor base codee work if it did.

Originally Posted by whheydt

Now where did I put the popcorn supply....?

MMMMMMMM Popcorn....lol

Originally Posted by Tiempko

Perhaps neither.

Perhaps they wanted a discussion on cost to get some input about pricing. Perhaps they set a price that allows them to restrict or regulate who is testing it. Perhaps the price is being beta-tested just like the other features.

How would that even apply to beta since TP in beta as free for the asking.
There would be no restriction on who can test based on cost.
Why was it for so long 1 TP in beta if they wanted to restrict testing.

Yes they wanted to restrict testing thats why it was not mentioned
in Dev Notes, Patch, Notes, Forum questions about function, no dedicated forum for feedback.
They wanted to restrict testing to create a self fullfilling prophecy.
They wanted to push it of as WAI or they new it was not working but did not want to spend time fixing it.
Shame really they do not see the potential for this to bring and keep more peole in the game longer as paying customers.

No thanks, OP. I hate how slow the levelling process is for me. I've played the game through slowly once, I don't want to do it again. When I level an alt, I want to hit end-game as soon as possible and so cutting xp gain would be a big handicap.

Originally Posted by NickStern

How would that even apply to beta since TP in beta as free for the asking.
There would be no restriction on who can test based on cost..

My guess is that they know something about human psychology and that even when using free money people are in the habit of responding to price signals. It may be irrational, but humans are not entirely rational.

Originally Posted by NickStern

I seriously doubt the development was all that expensive since they already have increased XP
tomes and items in the store. Clearly the code to manioulate the XP variable already existed.
Adding a item to stop setting the variable to = Zero should not have taken a year.
Very poor base codee work if it did.

I believe the cost is edge cases. Turbine does not want to make sure that the following interactions are properly handled:

1) Attempt to use any XP accelerator when XP is disabled is not allowed. Accelerator is not consumed.

2) Attempt to use XP disabler when any XP accelerator is active is not allowed. Disabler is not consumed.

These interactions have to be handled regardless of the implementation - Wearable item, toggle skill, consumable ...

The implementation is complicated by the requirement specification - consumable sold in the Lotro Store. Plus the discussion on how long does it last, price and any other details.

Increased XP is much easier because they all nicely stack with each other. The only check that needs to be made is to prevent someone from using a consumable when they already have the buff.

Apparently there are some interactions issues with character death. Some of consumable buffs survive defeat. Others are cancelled. That is another issue that has to be tested and verified. I hate to buy any variety of accelerator or disabler that is time based only to find out that defeat purges the buff.

I agree a disabler would be a lot cheaper, quicker to implement and simplier if it is a simple on off toggle that does not check for active acceleration buffs. Allowing people to disable XP when a store bought accelerator is active --> not good - going to cause forum complaints and request to customer service for replacements. It is pretty clear that Turbine picked a more expensive and hard to get right solution via consumables. Perhaps Turbine feels they can gather more dollars via a consumable versus a "Buy a Toggle"skill in the Lotro Store.

Originally Posted by Yula_the_Mighty

Apparently there are some interactions issues with character death. Some of consumable buffs survive defeat. Others are cancelled. That is another issue that has to be tested and verified. I hate to buy any variety of accelerator or disabler that is time based only to find out that defeat purges the buff.

And that is exactly why it should have been a permenant toggle not a time based consumable.
Turbine over developed what could have been should have been a simple thing to create.
An XP Toggle Off.
Yes there still need to be checks to make sure there was no operational competting buff but
that would not have been as much of an issue with a toggle.
Turbine over engineered and created thier own problems.

I would have easily payed up to 1995 TP per toon for a permenant Toggle
I have much more use for it then another mount.
Greed appears to have blinded Turbine on this one.

Originally Posted by Yula_the_Mighty

I agree a disabler would be a lot cheaper, quicker to implement and simplier if it is a simple on off toggle that does not check for active acceleration buffs. Allowing people to disable XP when a store bought accelerator is active --> not good - going to cause forum complaints and request to customer service for replacements.

I seriously doubt this is nearly the issue some factions at Turbine and you believe.
People that use the XP buffs want to get to end cap fast they would not use the disabler.
People that want to stop XP gain and keep at a set level do not use XP Buffs rather defeats the purpose of staying on level.
This is a specious argument concocted back in the days of floon and the lack of consideration of options to play differantly
to explain away why they could not should not do it.

Hey I want this toon to stay at 50 or so to help my kin through Moria think I will buy a bunch of XP boosters for Him.....
Yeah that sounds logical.

Originally Posted by NickStern

And that is exactly why it should have been a permenant toggle not a time based consumable.
Turbine over developed what could have been should have been a simple thing to create.
An XP Toggle Off.

Not really.

Originally Posted by NickStern

Yes there still need to be checks to make sure there was no operational competting buff but
that would not have been as much of an issue with a toggle.

I do not agree. The cost is the same. You have to implement the disabler check in all accelerators. You have to implement a check for any accelerator in the disabler. Toggle skill, equipable item or consumable does not change the cost of the check.

Originally Posted by NickStern

Turbine over engineered and created thier own problems.

I do not agree. IMHO - The majority of the cost and difficulty is in the interaction checks which are implementation agnostic.

Originally Posted by NickStern

I would have easily payed up to 1995 TP per toon for a permenant Toggle

If I were to use a disabler. I would want a toggle skill. I would never use a disabler. I have no opinion on price.