A lower average level?

[Decimate_The_Weak]

Lately EfU:M has enjoyed a large quantity of PCs at or over level 9. I feel that these higher levels have become far too easy to get.

Level 9 should be an outstanding achievement, something for long-term, very prominent, proactive PCs with great purpose and drive. Level 10 should be for those PCs that have been there, done that, and are still doing it.

My suggestion is as the title implies - to lower the average level of PCs by reducing quest reward XP (save for entry-level quests) and spawn XP.

... as well, on a side note, supply is pretty nuts too!

[The Old Hack]

Perma the whole server. Remove all quests that are not in the 2 to 6 range. Voilá.


...


...what? >.>

[nammykun]

I have played Sarah Silverheart for a /Long/ time and I have never gotten her above level 7. This is all.

[Mr Howardson]

I believe the quest rewards could use another look.

[Decimate_The_Weak]

Yes, there will be some people that are always on the lower spectrum and that won't change unless they either gain luck or become more knowledgeable of the mechanics.

I just don't like it being so easy to get to level 10. It's become too easy and I don't think that it was ever intended.

[Valo56]

I see a few quests being spammed to reach higher levels quite easily. Orcs 1 (the one the Watcher gives you), Flayer Den (the 2-7 quest), and the Well quest. I feel all of these should have their max levels lowered, as these quests are typically crushed as is.

Lowering them will make similar, harder quests be taken more (Muskroot's Apprentice vs Tainted Well) and may slow things down a bit.

[Guttersnipe]

It's less about player skill and more about having a built in crush group. Those with a solid, balanced group reach the top end of levels. Those without probably won't.

[xXCrystal_Rose]

This is perhaps why it is uncommon for me to get past level 6 for very long! Even if the 'average level' was made lower people with a solid regular group will still be above the curve. The only difference is the curve would be at a different point.

[HoHoHeeHee]

This will accomplish nothing. It was -far worse- before the XP was raised not so long ago (though reduced some since). I'd much rather have the majority of players at 6-8 and a handful of 10s than have -most- of the the players suffering while a few dominate easily!

This suggesting is coming from someone with a dedicated buffbot and other strong allies (no offense) so of course he'll have plenty of supplies and an easier ride to 10. Those without the luxury of a handful of well built PCs do not share your sentiment, I believe!

[Numos]

How does this improve anything?

On a cut throat server like EFU I always enjoyed the 'idea' that a single-critical, a single-failed saved against color spray could fell even the mightiest of characters. It keeps things dynamic. Widening the gap between the average PC and the extraordinary, high level fighters almost always snagging hold person immunity somehow, etc. will lead to a much more static population.

I think so long as you need to apply to hit 10th level that is a sufficient gate-keeper to keep characters who are not 'extraordinary' from anonymously creeping up the ladder in power.

[Sheer Gluttony]

I do not really think people reaching level 10 is all that unbalancing really, yes I agree it should be hard, but for almost every class but sorceror and rogue, a level 10 character is almost indistinguishable from level nine.  By lowering the level cap you simply make it easier for certain classes to dominate, especially with supplies.  Imagine the odd level 9 wizard with cloudkill when the average level is five.  The way I see it, things are pretty balanced as it is and it is extremely rare, and an application is needed to justify the truly exceptional levels of 11/12.  Really the difference in levels is generally not all that key.

[Blue41]

Level 9 is an achievement for some people. Should it be an achievement for everyone?

I dunno. I don't think so. The recent batch of preludes have been very fantastic for scratching any low-level adventurer itch I might've had. But for everyone else, anyone with a good, smart group, similar playtimes and time to spare is going to shoot up in levels like clockwork. For people without, it takes a good deal longer.

[Potionmaster]

It's less about player skill and more about having a built in crush group. Those with a solid, balanced group reach the top end of levels. Those without probably won't.

Very much this. Without access to a decent questing group, it is very unlikely you will reach level 9 without some serious commitment. While recently there may have been an influx of people reaching 9, I would suggest that majorly these have been people who have quested together often. As a majority, I would say that level 9 is not overly common when considering the player base at large and think things should stay largely as they are.

[Disco]

I remember the good old days when lvl 9 was rare. And I kind of miss them. Once that is said, it is nice to see the perks that comes with lvl 9+ every now and then.

[Paha]

I remember a year back when it was the players that demanded these exp changes with a loud voice and DM's did deliver >_> now we can all agree the levels are too high. Oh boy.

Edit:

Yet at the same time folks demand to not have exp losses on death, have solid exp and not have levels matter. Solutions to everything are very, very hard. To cater for the wish of folks achieving specific level, and cutting the exp then, hard?

What can we agree would be this solid level that all should be able to reach easily, and what is not.