Aura_Familia
-
Posts
4518 -
Joined
-
Just cause I didn't make it clear before:
Everything else in game (especially pve wise) > pvp.
I only pvp between issues when I'm bored.
This was even more true when i13 dropped.
And lol, at the "responses are mixed".
No, they are not. Let's not try to pretend that the pvp community is larger than it is. Especially after i13. -
Quote:Don't get me started on Posi. The first tf that's supposed to encourage players to play tfs is . . . a tedious, ridiculously built slog???Originally Posted by Nethergoat
Then Posi WAS a total waste of time! =P
The revamp in the upcoming issue release is probably one the best content decisions the devs ever made.
Which makes it all the more frustrating that War Witch continues the old "we'd rather do NEW content rather than revamps" mantra of Posi. -
Quote:If you are on a tf that required you to be a minimum level, say level 45 or 40, then your random roll will be of that level.Originally Posted by Heartbreaker
I wouldnt support a unilateral forcing of rolls, because we need the ability to save up for those spoecific big ticket items. I would however, support a split system, on any TF that gives more merits than a random roll costs, havi it auto-roll once, and give the remainder in merits. That gives a random roll feeding the market pool, AND the ability to save up, even though it takes a bit longer.
And I can't stress enough how much we need to be able to determine the actual level of our random rolls- or, as someone else suggested, a way to craft any recipie at the level we desire.
Yet ANOTHER reason why forced random rolls IS NOT a good idea. In addition (for why this is a HORRIBLE IDEA):
What if you are on a tf that gives 34 merits? If you force a random roll (20) you leave that person with 14 merits. And thus we are back to point of many characters having merits that can't spend on random rolls.
BAD IDEA for whatever reason you want to give.
And no, I don't see the devs reducing the random roll amount EVER from 20. -
None of the above. I (and I assume everyone in forum and in game) use the PVE aspects more. Seeing as how you have to level up a toon to pvp with in the first place.
-
Quote:Nope, would still be a bad suggestion. It goes against the very nature of one of the reasons why merits came into existence. At that point you might as well get rid of merits all together and go back to the old table at the end of a tf that popped up.Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
In isolation, yes. However, in this case each suggestion assumes that all the suggestions before it have been implemented, so the forced random roll would be at a selectable level (so you wouldn't have to lock a character at a level to get rolls of that level).
-
Quote:Your first comments are also why some people like tickets over merits.Originally Posted by Mnemnosyne
I do have to add that allowing rolling at a specific level would be something I would very much desire, because at the moment I'm facing the unpleasant prospect of either locking my character at a lower level until I get all my recipes, to ensure I can get them at the level I want them, or leveling to 50 and potentially not getting the recipes I want at the level I want. Neither of those prospects appeals to me. Being able to continue leveling, but still be assured of getting the recipes at the level I want them at would be nice.
Indeed. While I will likely do the necessary work at some point and figure out what I need to - and probably only the bare minimum that I need - I expect most people look at something like that and have no idea where to begin, and give up immediately. A simple, concisely written guide to help people determine what rolls to make would probably increase the number of people rolling, at least to some degree. Some advice on what recipes to look for and check prices on in which roll range and so on. -
Quote:People seem to forget that there are enough players who've been around long enough who remember the old table that appeared at the end of tf and the AUTO random roll pool c option.Originally Posted by Eva Destruction
It's that people who aren't familiar with the market or recipe pools aren't aware of what stuff sells for, what their chance of getting a worthwhile recipe with a random roll is, or that random roll is random. They roll, get a Trap of the Hunter, deem merits worthless, and start saving up to buy their LotG directly.
This table was the reason quick katies existed and at the time there was an abundance of pool Cs, at least blueside.
MANY folks actually rolled and got junk most of the time. Or at least enough times that they didn't LIKE the random part of it at all. THAT also explains why many folks SAVED up for what they wanted when merits came into existence. -
Quote:The 2nd suggestion would be too easy to game.Originally Posted by Psara
IMO, Merits aren't worth enough and MA tickets are worth too much. The system is set up to reward farming MA missions over doing TFs; I'd like to see the value of merits go up and that of tickets go down.
Past that, it might be nice to change the diminishing rewards system on merits to a completion-based outcome. Stealth the whole TF and basically just kill the bosses and AVs? Fewer merits but it's faster. Take the time to kill things? More merits but it takes longer. Average it out so you actually get a certain number of merits per time based on an average team.
And with that part of it out the first part is not a good idea.
Not everyone has time to do TFs.
I think the value of merits and tickets are perfect as is.
The only change needed is allowing folks to choose the level of what they roll. -
Fred, question, if they implemented this and your arcs got locked, what would be an acceptable wait time for you for GM to review your arcs and unlock them?
-
Quote:This sums up everything having to do with inventions (IOs, tickets, merits, the markets, etc) perfectly.Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
I just get irritable when people say 'can't be done' when they mean 'will take longer than I want it to'.
In this case it's a little important, because I'm not sure the Devs and Players agree on how long it 'should' take to outfit a character with IOs.
I'm guessing, but I feel confident the Dev design is "it doesn't matter how long it takes, because they are optional".
Thus, WAI. And in my personal case, acceptable, although YMMV.
It's clear how fast it takes to get a complete the complete build you need is irrelevant when discussing flaws in the system with the Devs, since the idea is that no one "needs" a complete build.
I will say that how the players view systems and how the devs view them have never meshed completely.
So yeah it is WAI from the developer point of view, but most players would not agree, as they DON'T want to take inordinate amount of time to do things in game. The makers of the mmo are perfectly happy (I would argue need players to) to have players take as long as necessary to do things in game.
That last paragraph is not a bad or good thing. It just is. -
Quote:Was referring to this:Originally Posted by FredrikSvanberg
To be reported as exploits? No.
For each play to be counted? Yes.
Those are different things. Or did I misunderstand what you meant.
Solution 1:
Let us report arcs as potential exploits.
When an arc has been reported enough times it should be locked, automatically. A GM will then inspect the arc and if the arc is not an exploit it is unlocked and flagged in such a way that it can't be locked again. If the arc is republished the flag goes away and it can once again be locked if it is reported enough times.
Should the arc upon inspection prove to be abusing an exploit it will of course not be unlocked and appropriate action may be taken against the author, such as revoking all MA publishing rights (and giving their slots to me as a reward for coming up with this idea).
----
it's basically saying a GM has to review the arc. My point is they didn't have the manpower to do that for months while all those farms stayed up and functional, I'm not seeing anything to assume they all of a sudden do. -
Quote:Sorry Fred, but with the total lack of anything done to various farms that have existed for months at a time, I'm going to have to very strongly disagree with the notion that we don't know if they have the manpower or not.Originally Posted by FredrikSvanberg
Griefing already happens, and is much easier to do with the star ratings system. We don't know whether they have the manpower to do this because none of us know anything about the number of GMs or their normal workload.
Then a change is needed now more than ever.
There won't be many farms around once 1) has been in use for a while, I hope. "Gaming" the system is already in effect but in a different manner, which is much easier. If you think it will be easy to get a bunch of people to play your arc over and over on different alts if the arc isn't also fun and worthy of replay, then I salute you in your ability to herd cats.
I noticed a lack of alternative solutions. Oh well.
I'm going to go with a strong NO, they don't have the manpower, or as many farms as have been in the system for so long, would not be. With how vehemently folks in-game and on the boards have complained about AE farms for ages, you'd think that if they DID have the GM staff many of those would be gone in weeks (not even days as you are assuming). However, MANY of those farms have existed for MONTHS.
They. Do. Not.
I agree with Venture on that point. But that doesn't mean I don't think your suggestion shouldn't be done. See my previous posts.
EDIT: Keep in mind you are also saying that the arcs in question have to be actually played. -
Quote:While I like your idea, I think you are SERIOUSLY underestimating it as "for a few days". With some farms in existence for MONTHS, I don't think there are enough GMs for it to be just for a few days. I'm fine with that though as long as there is an epic penalty for grief reporting.Originally Posted by FredrikSvanberg
Similar systems are in use in other places and they seem to work. Sure, an arc might become unavailable for a few days while it gets sorted out. If I was the GM and I discovered that someone had gathered 20 people to report an arc that didn't need reporting I would hand out some temporary bans for griefing. Or whatever they do to griefers these days.
And yes I release my proposal addition to your idea would make the whole process even longer. -
Quote:Seriously. Make the process more complicated and folks will just yawn, not rate, and move on. good points.Originally Posted by FredrikSvanberg
Those things are already handled by categories, keywords and the arc's description. If you're going to introduce ratings for all those things we have as keywords now it will just cause an even greater mess, since the basic problem with ratings is that there is no yardstick by which everyone measures these things. Something that is 5-star Action for you might only count as 3 stars of Action for me, and 1 star for someone else. And so on.
Since it's all subjective anyway, why try to put a number on it? You either like it or you don't; that's entirely subjective and easy to figure out, and by finding out how well liked an arc is (ratio of "likes" to total number of plays, for example) everyone can see that an arc is either generally well liked or not. If a lot of people like an arc it's a good chance that other people will also like it, including you, so try it out and see. At least with a different kind of ratings system there wouldn't be a cut-off at 5 stars below which nobody can find anything. Searching for arcs would no longer depend upon the almighty 5-star rating.
Another reason for changing the ratings system would be to make things easier for everyone. We have today a problem with people thinking that they must click each star in order to get to the number they want, so they start out by clicking star number 1, then 2, then 3, etc. The author gets a note saying that someone has voted for his arc, but no tickets, so he knows someone voted less than 3 stars and thinks that is the final score, but the final score is in fact the last star the player has clicked. This is not intuitive! If you only can choose "like" or "dislike" - heck, there doesn't even have to be a "dislike" option - it is less likely to cause similar confusion.
I haven't even started talking about people who don't rate arcs because they don't know what the stars mean; or because they only rate farms; or because they don't want to rate an arc if they can't give it 5 stars because they don't want to punish the author by condemning the arc to 4-star oblivion. And I'm sure there are many more reasons out there for why someone won't rate an arc they have just played. I'm equally sure that a large number of those reasons can be solved by making the entire process simpler.
As to your suggestions, great. BUT there MUST be the same penalty in 1. for those who falsely accuse some arcs as a farm, or you're opening the door to a level of griefing that would make the current star rating system look like a joke.
I would also say a team of 3 GMs should review all arcs. If not then you get into the issue of one GM seeing something as a farm, and another not. -
Quote:Yeah really.Originally Posted by Fulmens
Chaos, is that an "all of the above" or an "any of the above" list? Cause there's ... quite a lot... on there.
I don't think there is any way they can do ALL OF THAT in one shot.
Not with as much OTHER stuff they have to do for GR.
Hell, merging the markets ALONE would be work. -
I never kick for power choices.
I kick if you do something stupid like training mobs on us, or run into a room screaming some version of "lerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroyjeeeeeenkins", and if you act like a jerk.
Funny enough I can barely remember the last time I kicked someone.
Might be because I no longer do pugs and make most teams from the global channels like VU and the Freedom Channels.
/shrug. -
Quote:For some folks yes.Originally Posted by Tokyo
There's more to the market than profiteering?
EDIT: The actual point to the market is a place to buy and sell IOs. It exists so that you don't have to go use global channels and yell in b-cast like a loon trying to sell your items.
Making a profit doing it is a side item.
Though arguably if you couldn't make a profit selling the junk mobs (and players) drop, they'd be no point to the market. Personally I wouldn't have bothered with IOs if I have to go to 131243243545 people/players and places to get the stuff for one build. Forget trying to IO out multiple alts. -
^
The best way to improve pvp is NOT to push all pvp into one zone, but to make ALL pvp cross server.
Incidentally it would be the perfect way for them to test if they could make the ENTIRE game cross server. -
Quote:which is why I personally ALWAYS thought shivans and nukes were a stupid idea. If I'm on a build (read invs, stealth, hide, etc) that can completely ignore pvp and stop myself from being found in the zone where these temps are, the whole "it's a lure, so that there is a chance that pvp CAN happen" falls flat on it's face.Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
What? Who? Me? Not at all! I'm 100% for a healthy and vibrant PvP community and I miss the one we had. IMO the greatest tragedy of I13 was the simultaneous exodus of existing PvPers and the raised bar of entry for anyone considering PvP.
As for everything else you said, I agree with all of it. It must be very frustrating to keep running into people in PvP zones who don't actually have any intention of PvPing and who leave if PvP'd upon (okay, that sounds a bit wrong). What do you want to see happen to prevent this? Because if you're in the zone to obtain nukes, shivans, or badges, and have no inducement to stick around, then leaving looks like a perfectly reasonable plan - and you can't expect people to suddenly start acting in a manner contrary to their interests, any more than they can expect you to start acting in a manner contrary to your interests.
I'd rather only have folks in zone who are there to pvp.
Interestingly enough the one zone with the pvp item that has the most insignificant pve use (RV) is . . . drumroll . .. the most popular pvp zone. (more so since i13 made newb pvp inherently harder to get into--as others have already mentioned).
You'd think if the "this-can-be-used-in-pve item" lure was a good idea the zones with them would be more popular.
LOL
-
Interesting thread.
I think the greatest point made is that there is NOTHING the devs can do to draw in those who don't want to pvp. They have been trying literally for years to entice folks who HATE pvp or are indifferent to it, to pvp with one stupid gimmick after another. ENOUGH.
They need to improve the system for those who DO WANT TO PVP, or are curious about pvp and might try it. /em raises hand as one who does and has been more and more lately. Hell if it wasn't for RV I would have canceled my account until GR came out.
With that said I'm terrrrrrrible at it, but I'm still having fun!
I also have broadcast and tells completely off when I pvp, usually.
^
protip for anyone wishing to try out zone pvp. -
Quote:AKA: Swtl;drOriginally Posted by poptart_fairy
Probably because we'd get bored of reading your response about seven paragraphs in.
samuel writes too long; didn't read.
j/k
-
Quote:lolflationOriginally Posted by black_barrier
agreed.
being able to get to 50 and not have to tap into farming to get everything but purples was very nice.
i think the stalker i built during i14 cost me like 250M total, and it's worth now about 10B. -
Quote:Isn't being able to email yourself items basically unlimited storage (or at least near it)?Originally Posted by Nethergoat
hoarding impacts liquidity and liquidity is a major part of the BM's issues.
As the devs adamantly oppose a market merger, they're stuck with half-measure solutions- reducing or eliminating storage for a wide range of marketable items would increase market supply.
Just a guess on my part, but it seems much more likely than their taking any steps to increase storage. -
The best way to get "instant" pvp is not the arena. It's usually empty, unless you happen to catch a kickball match by watching the /Arena channel. Or join the league.
Go to RV, Recluse's Victory, on Freedom. -
Quote:I wouldn't.Originally Posted by macskull
I would take a damage reduction on ET if its activation time could be reduced to something like 1.5 or 1.67 seconds (still more than the 1 second it used to be, but), because having your two heavy hitters be really long-animating powers in a game that's all about speed and efficiency seems counterproductive.
The damage on EM isn't all that already. The animation times don't bother me.
If I want something faster I play another set.