Ill_Omen

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line: if you're not giving someone XP, don't count them in the XP division calculation. The rest of this system sounds perfectly reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your point is completely true, but it presents the devs with an interesting conundrum that I mentioned earlier in this thread. If they changed it so that XPs were calculated based on only the number of people in range, so that you get the "right" amount of XPs that you deserve, then it would be instantly exploited by powerlevelers. Using the common SK/Mentor (Bridging) method of powerleveling, the sidekicked player would stay in range of the guy fighting and the mentor (bridge) would stay in range of the sidekick but not the mobs being fought. That would give the SK even more XPs than if this change had never been implemented. The XPs would be divided by two people--the person fighting and the SK--instead of divided by all three of them. So, that would be a more efficient form of powerleveling than existed before the change. The devs could give you more XPs when the team is divided, and in the process introduce a better form of powerleveling, or they could leave it as is. Obviously they opted for the choice that doesn't actually improve powerleveling.

Personally, I find the irony of the whole thing very amusing.

Dwimble

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh, this hadn't occured to me... I figured the high level folks are all in there fighting and that having someone hang back would slow down the combat enough to not be worth it. I don't have much experience in l33t PL techniques.

And as someone above pointed out, the group that is doing the fighting still gets the same XP they were getting under the old system. They just miss out on the warm fuzzy feeling of helping out their erstwhile comrades.

Not being a PLer and not caring much about PLers, I don't really see the need for this change, but with the latest updates, I don't see it affecting me that much either. I hope it has the effect they desire though, just because I hate to see coders wasting their time.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is what we feared. As people in other topics mentioned, this actually is worse XP than going solo. So the player is penalized XP-wise for splitting from the team. In other words, if you split the team into two teams to complete two tasks, you're actually getting LESS XP than if you created two SEPARATE teams to do the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the problem is? If you're not working together on the same fights, why should you get xp for them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. The point of this is to prevent people from getting XP for battles they do not actually participate in. If a team splits up to do separate tasks why should everyone get the experience for both missions? Each player is only fighting one battle, so why should they get the xp for two?

[/ QUOTE ]

They shouldn't. But on the other hand, if they aren't helping, and aren't getting XP, why should the XP that I receive include them when determining how many teammates to divide the XP between? If part of your team isn't getting XP because of the distance limitation, that part of the team shouldn't count when dividing the XP among the members of the team that do get XP.

This situation happens legitimately all the time. Let's say your group is at the mission location, and you've just zoned and are on your way to them. You stop to defeat a mob. Under the current system, the XP is divided amongst all of the team, even though you did all of the work. Under the new system, the XP is still divided among the entire team, but now only you get the XP. That is silly. XP shouldn't just go disappearing into thin air.

Bottom line: if you're not giving someone XP, don't count them in the XP division calculation. The rest of this system sounds perfectly reasonable.

I really don't understand what all the fuss about... first off, if you're not in the 45-50 range, no one's going to have Hami's anyway, so you don't have to worry about it.

If you are at the level Hami's become possible, why don't you have any yourself? If you're so concerned about becoming #1 in the Arena, then do the training necessary to be number 1. Part of that might involve running a lot of Hami raids. If you're not willing to put in the time to get some Hami enhancements, what makes you think you'll have the time to dominate the Arena ladder rankings?

I believe an analogy can be made to athletics. Even if you have a lot of talent, you're not going to be a professional athlete without a lot of often repetive, grueling training. If that's what you want to be, that's what you do. If you don't want to train, then you'll find plenty of people to play with at the local club leagues.

For the record, I don't have a character high enough to even get to Hami's zone. I just think it's silly to complain about something that everyone has equal access to. Everyone is playing the exact same game, with the exact same access to enhancements. All it takes to get them is time. People who are able/willing to put in that time shouldn't be penalized because others aren't.

wait a sec... the Arena isn't cross server, is it? If no one's fighting Hami on Guardian, then what do you have to worry about? No one will have the Hami-Os, or at least most people won't. And if people are fighting Hami, why not join them?

[ QUOTE ]
Problem with this is that most players won't think they are Confused.

They will think they are the victim of a bug or some sort of exploit.

Letting the player know when they are Confused is the easiest way to prevent Customer Service from recieving tons of false bug and exploit tickets.

We tried to implement a system where we can let the player know they are Confused, but give them the opportunity to "act normally", just occassionally changing their actions server side. Once Issue 4 hits test, try it out and give us your feedback.

[/ QUOTE ]
As a Mind Controller, I just want to say I am so psyched to try this out. Mass Confusing an opposing team sounds like a lot more fun than Mass Confusing a horde of Hellions on Perez.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about making /ghide be a persistent global hide, and extending /hide to a) be persistent (if it isn't already) and b) hide that specific character from Global Chat as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought about that, but I'd like to be hidden from Global Chat but still be findable for teams. /hide takes you off of EVERYTHING, so you don't show up on the Find Team dialog, even if you have LFT set.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, I didn't realize that about /hide. Maybe /ghide could take a parameter? like /ghide all, /ghide <character name>, /ghide <server name> (hides all of your characters on that server), etc.

[ QUOTE ]
From the testing I've done, it seems that:

1. /ghide is persistent across sessions. When I log out and log back in, I'm still hidden. That's just fine with me.

2. /ghide applies to ALL characters. If I log out and log in to a different character, that character is hidden as well. This is NOT fine with me.

Why don't I like this? Well, I have a character that when I play them, I don't want my other Friends from knowing I'm online. Call it my 'escape' character. I always want to be hidden from GC whenever I play this character. ALWAYS. Right now this is easy, because we can turn the Global Chat system on and off entirely, but that won't be the case when the system is no longer in beta.

With /ghide working the way it does now, I will have to remember to toggle myself to and from hidden every time I switch character. I can see this becoming a severe irritation, especially when I forget. What I would prefer is for /ghide to be a per-character setting, like the normal /hide command. Is there any chance this might change before the full launch?

[/ QUOTE ]
How about making /ghide be a persistent global hide, and extending /hide to a) be persistent (if it isn't already) and b) hide that specific character from Global Chat as well. That way, if you want to hide an alt, you can, and if you want a way to globally hide all of your alts, you can do that as well.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Origins - definitely.
Comic Con - definitely.
Wizard Worlds - definitely.
Gen Con - definitely.

Our great OCR team is going to post a convention calendar so that you can see when we'll be in your neck of the woods. Don't worry - I'll be going to cons in the Northeast, West, MidWest and Texas...

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah. How's about you don't screw DragonCon over this year by saying. "Oh by the way...we're not coming to that con next week!" Honestly, after doing that, that should've been the first Con visit you announced.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hear hear. I was really looking forward to that last year.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No – this is a bug. We’re working on it.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is becoming the mantra of Cryptic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's better than "No, you're wrong, everything is working as intended" which was the mantra of a certain online RPG based on a popular late-1970's SciFi movie.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes Solo has broken the problem down quite clearly for us. There is indeed 2 conflicting points of view here. I am a firm believer that minions should be weak canon fodder, while Statesman's vision apparently lies in option 2...

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay so solution. After 22 we no longer call them minions. They will be Lieutenants, Captians and Bosses and since we are now level 25 or whatever we can blow through minions, but since they are so easy, why bother hitting them at all? but 3 lieutenants should be a challenge?? Would that make it feel better?? Just trying to get a better understanding here of your side.

It is simply changing the name.....I can not get hung up on a name, but thats only my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was going to say something similar...

level 1-10, call them "Peons"
level 11-20, call them "Minions"
level 21-35, call them "Foot Soldiers"
level 36-50, call them "Bad-**s Mo-Fos"

I think people might complain less if 3 "Bad-**s Mo-Fos" was the standard.

[ QUOTE ]
One quick question Statesman, what about the Defenders and Controllers that ALREADY have a hard time with mobs?
How would these changes affect them?

[/ QUOTE ]
When a Blaster can't Alpha Strike a group of 10 +2 Minions, maybe he'll want a Controller or Defender around to make sure he doesn't instantly die to the return volley.

Also, as a level 28 Mind Controller I can say with confidence that Statesman's statement that things get easier after level 22 is true even for what many consider one of the weakest powersets.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe EQPS2 gave a bonus for grouping. This is what CoH should do. Or at least give the same for grouping as for solo. I play a blaster, my wife plays a defender and my son plays a tank. Why should we invite others if it is going to decrease our xp. The missions are so easy that we never need a controller or scrapper. So they should either up the difficulty of the mission (which I believe they should do no matter what) and/or take away the xp penalty for grouping.

[/ QUOTE ]

There IS a bonus for grouping.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is? I honestly thought it was the exact opposite. I thought you gained less xp in a group then solo. I thought I even tested this out once a long time ago. Oh well, wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. Thanks for correcting me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, 3 people defeating one minion will each get less XP than one person defeating one minion. Less risk = less reward.

That doesn't mean there isn't a bonus for grouping however... it's just not 150%. I believe it's closer to 15%, and scales based on how many people are in the group.

I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air now:

1 Hero defeats 1 Minion: 100 XP
3 Heroes defeat 1 Minion, no bonus: 33.3XP
3 Heroes defeat 1 Minion, with 15% bonus: 38.3XP <-- reality

Now, yes, they each received less than they would have soloing that one Minion, but that Minion was worth 115 XP instead of the usual 100 XP. If they defeat 1 Minion per group member, they will receive more XP (115) than if they were ungrouped (100).

That's how the grouping bonus works in CoH.

[ QUOTE ]
what does MT stand for? in other games it meant main tank but i dont think thats what these people are trying to communicate.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible it stands for 'MisTell', meaning 'oops, that /tell I just sent you was supposed to go to someone else.' I saw this a lot in SWG, with people using the reply function. Without knowing the context, I can't be sure, tho.