Scrap Mission LV Req. in Balanced Way

[Keystone]

To me, mission level requirements are poison. They feel like the worst carry over from the original version.

Anyone else not like being able to join a party of 4 because you're level 60 instead of 75?

Wanna scrap this in a balanced way that still gives incentive for lower level players to run lower rank missions?

I support any way that would work and be popular, but at Zeta's request, here's a way I would manipulate the code to accomplish this:

 

     if (enemyHP == 0) // When the enemy is defeated...
     {
          if (playerLevel < missionRequirement)
          {
               enemyLevel = playerLevel; // If player's LV < mission req., make enemy LV = player's LV.
          }
          killEnemy(); // Calculate loot and XP based on the reduced enemy level.
     }

killEnemy() would just be a method that determines what EXP and loot drops when the enemy dies (based on the enemy's level). Marmalade probably has a method like it in the code. (A method is just a reusable block of code.)

That's what I would do, but people don't always like my ideas, so if they have another way, I'm for their other way.

Plus, in killEnemy(), I'd probably make it so if the player's level was under the requirement, anything dropping besides meseta, 'mates, or charges wouldn't drop.

Edited April 3, 2021 by Keystone

[Zeta]

How would you balance this?

Let's say a Level 1 joins Fantastic Voyage S, or some other Level 95 requirement mission:

- They'll be useless to the party. Actually, they'll be worse than useless - enemies scale up for each player in the mission. I bet you'd end up with parties kicking underleveled players.

- They'll get massive exp. The level 140 enemies in these missions give ~400 exp a kill, as opposed to the ~10 exp a kill the character should be getting.

Sure, these problems won't be as apparent if you're only 10 levels under the requirement, but they're problems you'd have to solve for this to work. I mean, sure you can say you don't care and leave these problems for other people to solve, but that's not very persuasive for a suggestion you want to be implemented.

 

I also think this would make the game less fun in general. Reasons why:

- Level requirements create a sense of progression and help introduce new players to the game. When you first start out on C rank, you're facing weak versions of enemies (ex: Delsaban instead of Deljaban). This is good because new players have very few resources and need time to learn the game before they confront stronger enemies.  Once you reach late B rank or A rank, these enemies get replaced by their stronger versions and things scale up. Then, once you hit S rank all enemies become faster, which makes the game noticeably more difficult - but by this point you've learned the game better and are capable of handling the faster enemies. For me it was really cool when I finally hit 40 and could play the big boy missions, and I felt the same when they released S rank and I got to 70. Being able to hop into missions above your level would destroy this sense of progression.

- Level requirements encourage you to play different missions as you level up. You go from Unsafe Passage to Plains Overlord or Sleeping Warriors to The Holy Ground to White Beast to Fantastic Voyage, or whatever progression of stages you want. You're encouraged to swap missions every 5 levels, and it keeps the experience fresh since you're not just grinding the most popular/optimal exp stage.

[Keystone]

19 hours ago, Zeta said:

Sure, these problems won't be as apparent if you're only 10 levels under the requirement, but they're problems you'd have to solve for this to work. I mean, sure you can say you don't care and leave these problems for other people to solve, but that's not very persuasive for a suggestion you want to be implemented.

What I would do is this:

     if (enemyHP == 0) // When the enemy is defeated...
     {
          if (playerLevel < missionRequirement)
          {
               enemyLevel = playerLevel; // If player's LV < mission req., make enemy LV = player's LV.
          }
          killEnemy(); // Calculate loot and XP based on the reduced enemy level.
     }

killEnemy() would just be a method that determines what EXP and loot drops when the enemy dies (based on the enemy's level). Marmalade probably has a method like it in the code. (A method is just a reusable block of code.)

That's what I would do, but people don't always like my ideas, so if they have another way, I'm for their other way.

Plus, in killEnemy(), I'd probably make it so if the player's level was under the requirement, anything dropping besides meseta, 'mates, or charges wouldn't drop.

Edited April 3, 2021 by Keystone

[Keystone]

On 4/2/2021 at 11:47 PM, Zeta said:

Let's say a Level 1 joins Fantastic Voyage S, or some other Level 95 requirement mission:

- They'll be useless to the party. Actually, they'll be worse than useless - enemies scale up for each player in the mission. I bet you'd end up with parties kicking underleveled players.

I also think this would make the game less fun in general. Reasons why:

- Level requirements create a sense of progression and help introduce new players to the game. When you first start out on C rank, you're facing weak versions of enemies (ex: Delsaban instead of Deljaban). This is good because new players have very few resources and need time to learn the game before they confront stronger enemies.  Once you reach late B rank or A rank, these enemies get replaced by their stronger versions and things scale up. Then, once you hit S rank all enemies become faster, which makes the game noticeably more difficult - but by this point you've learned the game better and are capable of handling the faster enemies. For me it was really cool when I finally hit 40 and could play the big boy missions, and I felt the same when they released S rank and I got to 70. Being able to hop into missions above your level would destroy this sense of progression.

- Level requirements encourage you to play different missions as you level up. You go from Unsafe Passage to Plains Overlord or Sleeping Warriors to The Holy Ground to White Beast to Fantastic Voyage, or whatever progression of stages you want. You're encouraged to swap missions every 5 levels, and it keeps the experience fresh since you're not just grinding the most popular/optimal exp stage.

Some of your other points I didn't get to...

1.) A low level player will be worse than useless because enemy strength scales up with more players in party.

We could just reduce how much more powerful enemies get when a low level player joins.

2.) Level requirements create a sense of progression, like fighting Delsaban and then Deljaban later, and take you to different missions as you reach new level requirements for them.

I agree with you that level requirements are in the game for that purpose.

     But with the small player population that we have, level requirements sometimes feel like party passwords, and that's where I have an issue.

     If you're a low level player and you don't want to solo, you aren't going to go to a random mission counter, because on the small chance there's even someone there, you probably won't be able to join them. And on the flip side, if I play an infrequently run mission as a high level, unless I pick C-rank, I'm almost certainly restricting myself to a solo run, so the reward for level progression can feel empty in at least that respect.

Instead of missions reading "all members must be LV100+", I'd have them read "Full loot and EXP yield at LV100+".