Hydrophidian

If farming and PLing in AE reach levels that seriously impede attempts by players to do anything else, I have every confidence that the devs will address it. I don't know how, I don't know when, but I'm sure it'll happen. Because it's happened before.

In the meantime, I think people just have to adapt.

Years ago, I used to PUG quite a bit. Then my character got into the 40-50 game, and things changed. It was very hard to find a team that wasn't a PL arrangement. And when I hit bridge-range, oi. Blind invites every time I turned around, /tells promising "huge xp" seemingly every few minutes... and when I joined a team that seemed legit, I'd arrive in the mission only to discover that it was yet another PL arrangement, which they 'forgot' to tell me about. "Now that you're here, you might as well bridge."

Uhm... no.

That's when I stopped doing the PUG thing... and I really haven't done it since. Instead, I got involved with smaller communities that had play interests more in line with my own.

Anyone can do this, and it's a lot easier now than it was then. Shop for SGs, join global channels, make some posts on the server board, and build a friends list.

Eventually, the devs effectively addressed the overwhelming PL presence in the 40-50 game. It was still there, but its profile diminished significantly. However, by that time, my play habits had changed to something I find to be much better.

Maybe you'll find that to be the case as well. Give it a shot.

What I've seen is a all-lieutenant custom group, generally consisting of Freaks. Then you had defendable objects, somehow actually stacked on top of one another, giving regeneration and/or recovery buffs. When stacked, these objects are buried in mobs.

Due to the buffs, a Tanker sitting in the midst of that would be in no real danger. Actually, a lot of different builds of different ATs would be relatively safe. Add some AoE damage, and you have yourself a PL set-up, wherein the individual being PLed could be contributing very little or nothing at all.

I understand power-leveling to be: being carried up through levels at a ridiculous pace with little or no risk involved. While the particulars may differ from traditional methods, this can definitely be accomplished in MA. The devs are likely to smish it where they can.

Power-gaming is a whole other thing. The "boss farms" being described sound more like that. Personally, I think the devs should leave such things alone. Being motivated by challenge is not a bad thing. This is a game, after all. People who pull out all the stops are naturally going to level much, much faster than those who don't, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really have an issue with Dev's Choice. Hall of Fame is another matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

From a design perspective, I don't particularly care for either one of them. I think they're more trouble than they're worth. From a play perspective, they're just kinda... in the way.

Some of the headaches that come with DC--or, more specifically, the implementation of it--are illustrated in this thread.

How I think it probably should've been implemented:

* If an arc gets DC, it gets a seal on it, which has no effect on its placement in the list.
* If you click on the seal, you get a little pop-up with a brief explanation on why the arc was chosen. Maybe attach a Dev's name to this as well, so we can start getting an idea of each Dev's tastes and whether or not they're in line with our own.
* Allow players to search for just DC arcs.

I think this approach would've mitigated a lot of the negativity we now see in relation to DC.

There are awful players.

Does it make sense that awful players would be drawn to something like power-leveling? I think so. After all, in being awful, wouldn't they have a hard time otherwise?

But not all awful players are power-leveled. Neither are all players with power-leveled characters awful. I think it makes sense to be cautious with a character that's obviously been PLed... but I also think no automatic assumptions should be made.

Over the years, I've strongly favored Controllers and Defenders. If I ever decided to PL one, I don't think I'd have any trouble at all playing it post-PL.

Also, to this:

[ QUOTE ]
First toon I've PL'ed over a total of 2 days was a grav/kin troller during the last double exp weekend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you genuinely PLed, or did you just power-game your way up?

[ QUOTE ]
Part 1 of this 2-arc story would have a beginning, some of the middle, but no ending. Part 2 would have no beginning, some of the middle, and an end.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then neither of those are arcs. It isn't a "2-arc" story. It's one arc split into two segments.

[ QUOTE ]
(criticism based purely on the fact that it wasn't contained within one arc, I mean. Its quality as a story is moot to this point).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's debatable.

[ QUOTE ]
I think people should be more open minded when it comes to the MA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, the irony!

[ QUOTE ]
It's also totally possible that I'm just not being clear enough about what i'm trying to get across.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I understand what you're trying to get across. If I'm not mistaken, you think it's okay to split a story arc into multiple MA slot segments.

That's fine.

Other people believe that each MA arc should be an arc.

This is also fine.

As I see it, the problem is you don't think this is fine. You've implied it's 'arbitrary', 'unreasonable', and 'closed-minded' to look at it that way.

It's not. It's simply a different perspective. And your continued efforts to invalidate it don't exactly indicate an open mind to me, y'know?

[ QUOTE ]
I just think that flatly stating 'any story which goes over 1 arc is bad, period' is going too far.

[/ QUOTE ]

What some people are saying is that an arc that isn't an arc is bad. There's a case to be made for that, and it's been made in this thread already.

Again, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an arc to be an arc: Beginning, middle, end.

Beginning, middle-- is not an arc.

If you want to make a story that takes multiple arcs to complete, that's fine. But if the arcs aren't actually arcs, a lot of folks will be put off, and that's an understandable reaction.

When you start an arc, it's reasonable to expect that it will be an arc... not half of one, or a segment of one.

When I first heard about it, I thought 'Developer's Choice' was a horrid idea.

None of this has changed my opinion on it.

It'd be neat if 'add negotiation' became a detail, but assuming that's not going to happen any time soon, if ever, you may have to change your approach to setting the scene. After all, there's nothing saying it has to mirror standard content that closely.

For example, instead of walking in on the two groups as they're negotiating, you could intercept one of the groups as it's on its way.

Or, you could expand the two negotiating groups to encompass the entirety of the map, make it a small map, and make it a Defeat All.

Or, to get closer to what you encounter in standard content, make a custom group, comprised a boss from one faction, and a lieutenant from the other, call it "Negotiators", and set a single Defeat Boss detail. Have the dialogue indicate that they're pausing to smish the intruder before they continue talks.

You could even repeat this with a second custom group (More Negotiators) and reverse the roles, with the faction that had the boss in the first custom group now holding the lieutenant spot.

You could take it one more step further and use the Captive detail, and write it as one of the negotiators (the captive) escaping during the chaos.

[ QUOTE ]
You can do this starting in I15.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, how's that for a quick response to the OP's issue?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this kind of arbitrary qualification.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's nothing unreasonable about expecting each arc to be self-contained, even if they're part of a larger story.

[ QUOTE ]
If I had to rate Prime Time TV I'd rate it PG-13. So is this the same way here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quote:

"Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language."

Emphasis mine.

The Entertainment Software Rating Board

The game's rated "T for Teen", so I think 'PG-13' is a good rule of thumb. After all, we have gambling, prostitutes, villains in fetish wear with a none-too-subtle BDSM theme, an extra-dimensional nightclub, crime sprees, and so on.

This isn't a G-rated setting.

It Lurks Below! [ARC ID: 192922]

One-shot mission for levels 5-10. It's getting unpublished on the 25th, so play it while it lasts!

The various Crey types that're in scrubs.

Possessed Scientists.

[ QUOTE ]
The people i'm complaining about admitted their gaming experience consisted of AE after they started whining they weren't getting XP on a TF they exemplared for. Furthermore they did not know what merits were, only tickets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but what I'm saying (and others are saying, I think) is that you'd have these same people being just as clueless, even if MA didn't exist. It isn't an MA/EA phenomenon. All MA has done is exacerbate the issue. And I'm not even sure about that (though I find it very likely).

Also, a player doesn't have to be PLed to come out of MA clueless. If MA is all they've done--which is certainly an option--they're going to be ignorant about a lot of things outside of MA. This is why I think we're going to be seeing more of this 'n00b' problem over time.

So, yah, I understand what you're asking. I'm just pointing out that, even if a number of people took your request to heart, we're still going to have this issue, and it's still going to be more prevalent in the future. 'Cuz the clueless aren't limited to MA, or even to power-leveling in MA.

We're just going to have to adapt to it.

I think you might be better served by just asking, in general, if people intend to buy slots and, if so, on what basis. I think you're continuing to draw lines through the playerbase that aren't entirely valid.

As for me, I will probably end up buying slots, but only when I fill my existing ones with arcs I want to keep available. As the majority of my MA work has been, to date, SG-focused and temporary, that might take a while... but I assume it'll happen eventually.

When it does, I'll likely buy the whole 5 at once, just 'cuz it's the better deal.

[ QUOTE ]
I used the search function to build my team. I found a few people that were looking for missions or TFs, and started with them. I figured they knew how to use search, so they can't be that bad and are at least interested in what i was planning to run. I think i found 2 ppl via bcast, and they turned out to be good players. So, 3/6 players i found in search, quit 45 mins the way through.

When building a team for a TF, you want to get started as quick as you can, knowing it can take a couple hours. Kinda hard to screen out the n00bs.

[/ QUOTE ]

_Inc_,

The problems you've described are identical to the problems I used to have... 4 years ago.

MA has contributed to some annoying trends, but the trends are by no means new. The issues that are being attributed to MA are the same issues that caused me to stop joining PUGs long before MA ever existed. MA didn't create them. It's just adding to them. And, given that MA is a valid alternative to doing regular content, I think these particular pitfalls will continue to be more pronounced as time goes on.

So, I believe the best advice is to change the way you approach TFs. Post your intentions for a TF in advance on the server forum (or some other community forum). Join server-focused globals, where you can throw out invitations to participate. And only use the team search feature as a last resort.

This has worked very well for me over the years.

[ QUOTE ]
Whenver I've posted this idea it never gets any notice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it did. The responses it received were fairly negative.

[ QUOTE ]
I realize I'm extremely biased with regard to this idea

[/ QUOTE ]

Yah, apparently you are, because instead of acknowledging and responding to the criticisms it's received, you've simply restated your position. It's like you didn't care for the reaction you got last time, so you're trying to press 'reset'. Doesn't work that way, though.

I'm sorry, but I think it's going to continue to be viewed as a bad idea, no matter how many times you repeat it. For the reasons why, please refer to the responses you received the last time you posted it.

[ QUOTE ]
will I be able to put the 3 custom critters I cut out back in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not. Maybe one?

Here are the results of a little test I just did:

Bare bones mission creation. Standard contact, small map, standard group (5th Column), minimum text, no details:

Live: 0.36%
Test: 0.37%

Added 'Defeat Boss' Detail:

Live: 0.74%
Test: 0.76%

Added custom boss:

Live: 7.81%
Test: 7.97%

So far, a little disheartening. But here's where it gets interesting. Switched the standard group for a custom group:

Live: 49.02%
Test: 41.79%

Note that this custom group has 3 minions, 2 lieutenants, and 2 bosses. All the critters have detailed descriptions, and most have extra costume details like wings and auras.

While it's not a huge savings, when you're bumping up against the file limit, it can be substantial.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You say it's not everyones game - I hope it can be the game of both the story crowd and the power-challenge crowd



[/ QUOTE ]

That will never happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

No reason why it can't. They're not mutually exclusive wants.

Could someone please tell me when "farming" became synonymous with "power-leveling"?

As I understand it, "farming" is not an issue. "Farming" has traditionally been a part of MMO design (read: time sink) since the beginning. Players "farm" all sort of things. There are some things you can't even reasonably get in this game without "farming" for them.

Can farming be tedious? Yah. Has there been a general move away from tedium as a time sink in MMO design? Yah, seems so. And that's good. But that doesn't make "farming" wrong or bad or evil. If people want to do it, let them. What's the problem?

Too many "farm" arcs in MA? Improve the search functionality. Problem solved.

People getting to 50 so fast they don't know what they're doing? Well, I hate to break it to ya, but power-leveling didn't just show up with MA. It's been around for as long as the game has. So, "changing" MA to make it "better" isn't going to eliminate that.

The only question that's relevant is: does MA make power-leveling so common a practice that it's skewering the game as it was designed and intended to be played by the devs?

Only the developers can answer that. And if the answer's yes, they'll do something about it. Just as they've done in the past. They kinda have to. Doesn't matter what anyone on these boards says about it, pro or con.

So, please. Can we lay off with the "farming" rants? I use MA, I love MA, I'm interested in what's going on with MA, I want to know what people are doing with MA. But I keep coming to this board and finding little more than commentary about "farming" and "suggestions" on how to "fix" it.

All power-levelers may be farmers, but not all farmers are power-levelers. Power-gamers are also not power-levelers (even though they may get to 50 almost as fast). If they want challenge arcs, as far as I'm concerned, that's a valid use of MA. If a "fix" doesn't distinguish between these groups, it's not a "fix" at all.

[ QUOTE ]
and what colors are used by the default game for things like "This is an objective", or "Warning, this mission may be a bit difficult."

[/ QUOTE ]

I've noticed the default game isn't consistent in this regard. But, generally speaking...

Red = Warning.
Green or Orange = TLDR version of mission briefing.
Green = Options (accept mission, be introduced to new contact)

I think I've seen blue used, but I don't recall what it was used for.

My advice would be: aside from red being a warning color (that's all I've ever seen it used for in regular content), use what works for you. Just be internally consistent with it.

The developers don't want hordes of people power-leveling to 50 in the blink of an eye, no matter who those people are.

So, this proposal doesn't really solve anything.

[ QUOTE ]
If there were no IO's, noone would want IO's, therefore you wouldn't be missing anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's entirely true. IOs addressed, or attempted to address, something that was missing in the game. Pre-IOs, a lot of people were wanting something more, a greater depth in character design and development. I think the Skill system was the first attempt to accommodate that desire, but it didn't make it beyond the drawing board. What we ultimately ended up with were IOs.

As to whether or not the market keeps me playing? No, it doesn't, not on its own. But it does play its part.

I'll put it this way:

Before even considering another MMO, it would absolutely have to have:

1. A level of character customization that was at least on par with City.
2. The ability to create multiple characters.
3. Some sort of market system.

So does the market keep me here? No... but I won't go anywhere else that doesn't have at least some semblance of the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
I would but what happened was that they fixed the icon bug on my glass panels which leads the majority of my base in-complete.

[/ QUOTE ]