Why the experience nerf

[Taem]

LOL, sorry to burst into this fine conversation uninvited, but wasn’t the main inquiry in the thread lost? It begged the question, "why the experience nerf?"

It seems that blizzards way of dealing with problems is immediate results. They see people rushing and cowing and no matter how much they change the game, people find the "sweet-spot" to gather together and gain experience. So what do they do? Make it impossible to gain ANY experience for EVERYONE :D . Oh yes, and ruin the cow level by making the cows impossibly hard to kill and making their drops useless. Now what’s the point of a secret level if you get slaughtered and there is no redeemable value to be earned from there? Why even keep the cow level in anymore? Why not just get rid of it? I mean, its illogical to the game anyways, much like the Alien Hive of Hellfire. Blizzard sees people rushing and gaining experience by just standing way off-screen. They change the way shared-experience works. I guess I'm just saying that the people who are in charge of the development of experience in the patch just don't get it, and probably never will. They have good ideas, like the party sharing, and bad ideas, like nerfing the cow level and the experience penalty. I might of done it differently, but then again, I really don't know.

RE: The PvP thing

Analogies can be made of almost any action to anything, such as PK'ing to politics. Who cares about analogies? If you want to talk "reality", talk about the underlying motives for PKing and the fundamental morals of a person willing to do it. Also, take into account that people don't always view their character on-line as a extension of themselves, but of an alter ego they wish to manipulate, much the same way when certain people get behind the wheel of a car, they become maniacal drivers. I personally don't have any problem with PK'ers or PK'ing. I actually enjoy their addition to the game, however I feel certain skills should either not be able to work in PVP, or there should be a timer. Trigger hackers and hydra pkers are very unfair, but then again a 5-second timer, as has been suggested, won't stop a Town/World Portal trapper, now will it? When I pk'd my favorite tactic was to "help" people get from act 1 to 3, so they had my trust. Then I would send them a "trapped" town portal in Mephisto's lair, surrounded by the three Council Members, Mephisto, and plenty of whatever else was running around. Usually, people would die in less than one second unless they were using maphacks auto-leave ability when their hit point got too low. I loved Pk'ing and saw it more as a sport, like hunting geese, then a morally wrong thing to do. I would expound on myself, but atlas I have company.

[NiteFox]

LOL, sorry to burst into this fine conversation uninvited, but wasn’t the main inquiry in the thread lost?  It begged the question, "why the experience nerf?"

Quite simply: A grief player joined in and ruined everyone's fun.

[whereagles]

Nitefox:

I find it funny when your so-called "tolerance" is based on saying my opinions are moronic. I'm sure other people will also find that funny.

Also, disdaining my posts based on the fact that I am a Lurkerlounge newbie just shows that you look at what others say with prejudice and self-proclaimed status. And for your information, I'm no newbie. I've been around the Lounge since D2 came out. Not that it's any of your business, though.

Finally, if anyone here is the "narrow-minded", I think it's you. Unlike what I see from you, I understand, respect and TOLERATE the anti-PKers' points of view. I just think that's an imobilistic way of thinking, which shows the mentality of someone who is not interested in any change from his routine, i.e. a conservative.

--------------

Pakman:

I wish I had time to elaborate a complete reply on why I think there is a sweeping wave of conservatism (or whatever that's spelled, lol) arising. You can find some information on this book from Noam Chomsky: New York, 9/11.

As for dying for your country, that's fine and all and such courage deserves praise. HOWEVER, there's hardly any war I consider worth fighting for.

--------------

Occhi:

I was there in the Sirian/Max debate. I know it all and I disagree with Sirian for a series of reasons, but that's another story.

[Occhidiangela]

Edit added: For what it's worth, Sirian and I disagree on a number of points on that issue as well. I figure that, hacks aside, I can find ways to deal with griefers and still have fun, he cosiders that an unacceptable solution.

As to Pendulums:

Chomsky has his own blinders, for all of his wit and erudition.

If you look at America for the past 50 years, you will see that social trends tend to swing back and forth. Compared to the direction of movement from 1953 to 1973, which was a considerable swing to "the left" the pendulum began to swing back toward center in the 1980's. One could say that a small swing to the right was evidenced, mostly for the reason that "the war on drugs" was put into place and reversed a trend toward liberalization on that score. It never swung all that far past center to the left during Clinton's presidency, but one reason for that is that the "centerpoint" may have moved a bit, as well as the Congress / Presidential balance being different that in other eras. :)

Like business cycles, which move up and down due to a myriad of factors, I'd suggest that the perceived "swing to the right" is a social reaction to a "swing to the left." The old "silent majority" appear to have found a voice they had lost, for better or worse.

What is nonsensical, in my view, is the assertion that the pendulum will ever stop swinging. The cries of despair of some seriouslyl reactionary folks in the 1960's, that the swing to the left would destroy (fill in the blank here) is now being echoed by some on the left of center as to the currently perceived "direction of swing" will (destroy civil rights or whatever the evil du jour may be.) I'd suggest that it will never stop swinging, though the center point will now and again move slightly.

IMO, it as about time, regardless of your location regarding "left / right / center" that the pendulum swung down like a sledge hammer on "political correctness" censorship that has infiltrated our universities. It smacks of a closed mindset of Orwellian magnitude, and it too could use a little correction back toward a reasonable center.

How ironic, that on campuses, the "Liberals and activists" of old have now become "the establishment." I wonder how the view is from where they sit?

[Occhidiangela]

If I recall, what you just described fits into the category of "monster killing" or "mking" via TP or waypoint trapping.

Grief play is grief play.

On the other hand, if you were doing this to rushers, there is a segment of bnet who would cheer you for your efforts.

[kandrathe]

I too have some trouble warming up to yet another amazon whose name is a boob joke.

[LemmingofGlory]

But that's not something I'd do. My Naked Druid's name was unusual, but it wasn't lewd.

-Lem

[lemekim]

But that's not something I'd do. My Naked Druid's name was unusual, but it wasn't lewd.

-Lem

*grin* The druids have their share of crude joke-names, mainly referring to beastiality in one form or another. I think I prefer the boob names to them.

~lem.

[edit: When did you get the new sig? :o ]

[kandrathe]

ROFL. :lol: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you! But I can see where you would have thought that. Just a general comment about the 13 year old level of name choices in public games. I just find it hard to role play with the noble barbarian "zzButtMuncherzz", or much worse...

[LemmingofGlory]

When did you get the new sig?

I've not abandoned the other sig. Rather, I use two sigs which indicate mood. Long sig means I'm levelheaded (er, y'know, for me). Short sig means I'm short tempered, irritated, or moderating someone. And sometimes a post is sufficiently short and it doesn't really need the longer sig.

[o: *LEMMING* :o]

[Wapptor]

Your problem is your attitude whereagles,

You may have LURKED around this forum for quite sometime, however upon joining you seem to assume that you immediately deserve the same respect given to such long-time members such as Occhi, Nico, Roland, Shadow etc. etc. The problem is, just like NiteFox said, you enter a forum/message board as a zero, whether you like it or not. You must earn your respect (or lack thereof) over time by contributing to this community however you choose.

To give an analogy, consider starting a new job. You start as a lowly employee, it takes time to work your way on up. If by chance you are active enough, dedicated enough and work hard enough, after a very long time (and with a bit of luck) you might become the CEO. But you had to start low. The Lounge is made up of the people who post on these forums, play D2 games together, chat, or whatever else they choose to do. We are a community and the only respect you will get is from us. No matter how much you may like or respect yourself, you need to find someway to make us feel the same way before you get that respect you think you deserve.

Some people have been here a very long time, you have not. If you want to play hardball with them, be prepared to be on your own. We don't know you, we know them. The chances are we will support them over you. Wait a little while, if you're as great as YOU know you are then in time we will accept that too :P. I know it can be difficult, especially if you are coming from a position of greatness, perhaps within another online community, and having to start all over again. But that's how it is, deal with it or leave.

PKing/Grief playing is not a popular activity here among us Lurkers. If it is one of your favorite pastimes, then this is probably not the place for you. Are we narrow minded? Perhaps. But this is our forum, made of the people who use it. Its a private forum for a reason. If the forum doesn't generally agree with you or even dislikes you, then this is not the place for you. It's not personal, it's private, you might just be welcome somewhere else.

-Wapptor

[Archon_Wing]

ROFL.   :lol:  Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you!  But I can see where you would have thought that.  Just a general comment about the 13 year old level of name choices in public games.  I just find it hard to role play with the noble barbarian "zzButtMuncherzz", or much worse...

Yes, it kind of takes out the cinematic value out of the game. Diablo 2 Starring...

[Axispoint]

PKing/Grief playing is not a popular activity here among us Lurkers. If it is one of your favorite pastimes, then this is probably not the place for you.

More and more I'm starting to realize why I like this place ;-)

And you know, instead of going after helpless PvM, why don't PK's just go after other PK's? Then again, do they just go after the PvM players 'cos it's easy? I don't know...perhaps one of the pro-PK people could answer?

[Wapptor]

Because, if they liked to fight people who were of equal level (pick on someone their own size) they would just duel instead of being Pks... Player Killers do not like fighting people of equal skill, they enjoy causing misery by destroying someone with no chance of fighting back. They are internet bullies, with personalities similiar to the kids who may have teased you or other children during elementary school. They are not honorable duelists, they are lowlifes, cowards, they do not want a challenge, they just want to kill someone else, they want to win. They do not care about any other players whom they effect, they just care about their own personal satisfaction.

In truth, most PKers are not that skilled, generally they are people too poor or unskilled to actually duel. Or they are just script kiddies with a credit card and lots of *godly* gear, making themselves feel big and strong by "proving" just how |337 they really are. To further validate this point, just try meeting some established duelers or a dueling group, generally they are nice, honorable, legit people who do not PK nor prey on the weak. They don't need to prove themselves that way. PK's however do.

-Wapptor

[OneInTen]

You must earn your respect (or lack thereof) over time by contributing to this community however you choose.

I find this one interesting. Surely that cuts both ways. A new member does not know who the old guard are either. Hence, the old guard have to earn the respect of the new member just as much as the new member has to earn the respect of the old guard.

My belief is that so long as a forum has a healthy influx of new members, you have to continually act in such a way to gain respect, or else you'll soon find your "status" lost as the new outnumber the old.

Attempts to "recapture the old days" by trying to exclude new members are infact very unhealthy to a community over the long term, because new members evaluate people on their current actions. Without such impetus, people's behaviour tends to degrade unnoticed over a period of time until a once good community goes bad.

Just an observation, not really of the Lurker Lounge in particular, but of forums in general.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

A new member does not know who the old guard are either. Hence, the old guard have to earn the respect of the new member just as much as the new member has to earn the respect of the old guard.

I tend to disagree. New members are expected to learn and follow the norms of the community, not vice versa. Rules are made so that THEY can make a transition into membership with as little fuss as possible. For some, this is obvious... for others, an anathema. The former become respected voices, the others become charcoal briquettes with a lovely "banned" tattoo on their ... um... "ash". It is up to the newcomer to earn his place, not the community to adapt to anyone that walks through the door: they're not Jesus, and we do the lecturing around here (usually to each other, sometimes at high volume). ;)

My belief is that so long as a forum has a healthy influx of new members, you have to continually act in such a way to gain respect, or else you'll soon find your "status" lost as the new outnumber the old.

Our respect is earned when our community's norms are followed. I would change your sentence to be "so long as a forum has an influx of new healthy members": There are those of said "influx" that can "de-flux" with a boot-heel between their gluts; the others are more than welcome. It is up to the newcomer to determine which group he resides in.

The balance is that the "old" members must remain true to the norms of the community as well. If they step outside of it, they'd find themselves removed as well. The Admins would take into consideration their overall contribution to the forums, certainly... but you can only bend the rules so far before you find you've broken your own back. Most, if not all, of the "old" crowd know this... and so their need to "continually act in such a way [as to] gain respect" is held firm by simply continuing to act as they've always done.

Attempts to "recapture the old days" by trying to exclude new members are infact very unhealthy to a community over the long term, because new members evaluate people on their current actions. Without such impetus, people's behaviour tends to degrade unnoticed over a period of time until a once good community goes bad.

I don't see that. I see a community moving forward continually, within the parameters of the forum's existence, and enforcing the general will that the-norms-as-they-have-been shall always be. I don't consider that a counter-productive activity.

*tips helm*

[OneInTen]

I mean no disrespect to the Lurker Lounge in what I wrote (not that I think any was taken). From my experience of this place, as I've drifted past it on and off over the last few years, it seems to be a very tight and good community.

I was more interested in the concept of the old vs the new expressed in the post. It's something I've considered a lot in terms of online communities, and I think that it's a common attitude. To me, it seems wrong because it tends to enshrine respect as though it's some constant figure that can be applied universally. I don't think that can ever be true. EVen amoung the "old" members you'll frequently find people who hate each other's guts on most boards (I admit I dont pay enough or frequent enough attention to the politics here to know if that applies to here).

I'm well aware of the need for order, and that someone has to enforce that. Usenet is a prime example of a community without a means to enforce order - and you wont find me calling that a pleasant place.

However, seperating the concept of authority from the one of respect is something I think should be done when considering the issue. Most newcomers will follow the rules as best they can. However, I doubt most newcomers will automatically respect the older members more than a fellow new member. They'll read the posts and see who floats to the top, so to speak.

That's really my point about respect flowing both ways. Until the older members have established themselves in the newer member's mind, they're still earning respect from them. The reason is that I believe respect is a personal thing, not a community thing.

Now, many forums try to hasten the process of old members gaining respect with newer ones with features such as post counts, registration dates or member numbers. Maybe they have some sort of sub concious effect, I don't know, but most people at least proclaim to pay no attention to them, so we're back at square one.

Anyway, to bring this back into context, the whole point I'm making is that it's not as though people ever got together and said "these are the list of people we respect around here". So to say to someone "other people can do it, they're respected, you're not" isn't quite accurate. The newcomer is left thinking "hey, but I don't respect them". So making an appeal to respect is, in my mind, a pretty ineffectual way to make a point.

An appeal to the rules and norms of the community (as I note the post also contained) is generally more successful.

I'll note at this point if I was a more eleoquent writer I'd have been able to articulate "Respect is an individual value, community norms and rules are shared" in one paragraph, rather than half a dozen. Excuse my verbosity, and also any assumption I've made about this being the time and place for such discussion. :)

*tips shako*

[Archon_Wing]

You do have a point there. There's actualy really no way to tell who's a respected member right away. Join dates don't mean that much, especialy considering this incarnation of the forum is only several months old and there were two forms before this one.

Of course, I would still place my stock on who makes quality posts, and depend on them for making more quality posts. :) This might be someone who registered yesterday but the idea still stands.

I'm not trying to point out who's better. In general, the fools have hung themselves as time goes on and thus whoever has "survived" has to be of some kind of value. In that sort, they may command some respect. They earn it through consistent behavior.

Must you like everyone? No. Should you take the advice of someone who's been in the community longer? Probaly.

My opinion is that people deserve respect unless proven otherwise. :)