Metatron_NA

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I do think that some people are done playing once they have what they want. For some that is a 50.


[/ QUOTE ]
For very very very few it's 50. Do a search and see how many 50's are on. Those are the people who find enjoyment post 50, and that is how this game should work.

[/ QUOTE ]

For what it's worth, I *only* play up to 50, once I hit 50 I find further use of the character pointless. So, I level the character to 50, and then put him away. However, even tough I do not play past 50, getting a character to 50 is not the end for me - because theres SO MANY character to try.

For example, I like Blasters. Theres a LOT of different kinds of blasters - Electric is very different from Fire, is very different from Energy, is very different from Archery, is very different from Psionics.

And that's just blasters. I also enjoy stalkers, corruptors, controllers, defenders, masterminds, brutes, khelds, and to a lesser extent scrappers, tankers, and dominators. Each of which have many different ways to make them.

I play casually. I do not have a guild or anything behind me. And from time to time I might spend a week or even two not even playing CoX due to to much work (I am self-employed). I tend to take a character from 1 to 50 in about 2-4 months.

Still, when I *am* in the game and playing, I don't want to be stuck in reverse, getting a very crappy rate of XP - I want to be leveling at a decent clip.

Anyways, my point is that even for those of us who only play their characters from 1 to 50, not only is the game NOT over when we get him to 50 (because there are so MANY different characters to play after that one), but we still like to level at a faster clip.

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect the reason the devs haven't drawn a line yet is that they know the moment they do, every farmer will be right up against it, and some will be putting one foot over it but claiming their other foot wasn't so it should be okay. (And some will sneak across it in the dead of night, swearing each other to secrecy first, and complain when they get caught.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope that's not the reason - as I have said before, keeping secret rules is like keeping the speed limit on a highway secret, but arresting everyone who break it.

Not a good idea, and ultimately, not fair.

[ QUOTE ]
We need to get someone to have posi define what he views farming to be to understand what it is they are trying to prevent or punish.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be ideal, but does not appear to be happening.

I agree - this may be my naivete speaking, blinded by my love of CoX - what a game it is! - but I have to believe that the guys in charge know the difference between fine tuning their game and condemning folks who just want to level fast *while* they fight crime.

I think (and hope) that all of us will be pleased by both the effectiveness of the devs as they weed out the ways in which MA can be abused and by the wisdom of the devs as they stay completely hands-off of our playstyles.

Now let's go back to arguing about their nerfs. (kidding!)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
04-28-2009 17:38:37 [Local] Positron: We'll be dealing with the farmers, harshly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source.

Not saying 'yay' or 'boo', just making people aware.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we can easily say that one of the following things is true:

1) Posi may have been using the word "farmers" to refer to people using exploits or breaking rules, not the way I and others use that word (someone who has a playstyle of seeking better reward rates, usually without exploits or breaking rules.)
2) Posi may have been speaking from his own dislike (similar to others on these boards) of people who's playstyle seeks out better reward rates, not just those using exploits or breaking the rules. As such, he may not have been speaking for the devs as a group at all, but about his own personal pet peeve.
3) Posi may have been speaking for the devs as a whole, and they may be intending to "go after" people who care how fast they level, and choose more effective options.
4) Posi may have been misquoted, impersonated, or Posi himself may have mispoken.

I would say that #2 and #3 should for now be ruled out, since I have a policy of trying to give folks the benefit of the doubt, I cannot based on that one thing alone assume that either the devs or Posi would be either so irrational or so short sighted.

#4 is always possible, but I think it's probably fairly obvious that what was meant is #1.

Which I don't think any of us - even though many of us "farm" according to the definition *I* use - have a problem with Posi eliminating exploits and enforcing the rules. And I imagine Posi has no problem with us.

I do hope the devs leave in the auto-sk feature of AE - not because I use it a lot (I mostly solo AE) but because I think it's nice that it makes grouping easier.

In fact, I wish they would allow multiple people to be sk'ed to one mentor, but that's another topic.

Perhaps I can rephrase to say that all you can do in most if not all MMOs is hang-out with folks and level?

The "hanging-out" i usually sweep under the rug, as it doesn't involve the pursuit of any change, and it's the pursuit of change (whether that is a changing character or a changing world) that leads to new experiences.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I logged out his SoA was lvl 7, when I got back in 3 or so hours later he was mid 30's. When I asked him exactly how much enjoyment he was getting from watching the xp bar blur past, he was 'well it passes the time but its a bit boring'.
...
We ran some normal MA mishes with some SG toons, including a low level toon from the lad in question, xp was good, we had a good fight, close at times, all had to work together to win but win we did and we felt good for it. That's what I love about CoH/V.
...
All he said was 'well the xp is very slow, gonna take forever to level at this pace' and then he left to go join a farm.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the fear I have about this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

What fear? That you will have fewer people to group with if people who like faster rewards are not forbidden from seeking them?

ALL mmos are pretty mush the same - they are ultimately all about levelling. The only way to fix this is to make the world dynamic, to make the results of players' actions in the world persistent. But that has nothing to do with the current topic.

[ QUOTE ]
I wish the devs would just create a separate tab for farm arcs and be done with it. There's obviously a demand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sir you are a genius. I feel dumb that I did not think of this myself.

Pretty perfect solution.

For what it's worth:

I think from what I have heard that the devs have altered MA - the comm issue I think is no more, and a few other things that we thought could have been things for devs to address, they have.

I think its also important for all folks to really admit that this issue is not and never was about comm officers or any specific method. As I said in the original post at the top of the thread, I think it's basically up to the devs to balance and alter the game as they see fit - and that's a continuing process. That's OK, and to be expected.

But so is the truth that within the range of whatever is currently permitted, for people who want to, to explore ways to maximize the harvesting of rewards. The fact that some folks (apparently quite a few of them) want to pursue maximized rewards is simply no more wrong than the devs chaning the game as they go to continually bring it in line with their goals.

It's like when two people want to split a piece of pie - the common solution is that one person divides the pie in two, while the other gets to choose which half he wants.

Well, the devs get to set the permissible actions in the game, but the players get to choose which actions they use (and where and when they use them). The players each get to decide for themselves how they will play the game, within the framework created, monitored, and adjusted by the devs.

I don't think it gets more clear than that.

Now, that doesn't mean I agree with all the devs' decisions, of course. For example, I thought the massive merit nerf, where they made it take MUCH longer to get IOs made the game much worse - but then again, I had the same thoughts about most of the big nerfs, like ED or the original purple patch. I am certainly willing to admit being that many of the devs' decisions I find great fault with.

But we are talking about something much deeper than that here. We are talking about the base two-sided covenant of MMOing here. First, the devs have the right to continually adjust the game however they want, so long as they realize that their subscribers if made sufficiently unhappy by changes can simply quit. Secondly, the players have the right to play the game in any non EULA breaking way they want, but need to accept that the game itself changes and options possible one day are not necessarily available the next.

If we all simply admit this base truth, we can maybe come to a meeting of the minds vis-a-vis farming, and go back to arguing about things like how badly merits have screwed us. (heh heh)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is, it's not a conflation. It's what Posi actually SAID. Now, granted, that may have been misinterpreted by some, and exaggerated by others, but that's not the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

But here's the thing - we can both agree what Posi *said* because we can go look at it. However, we may have very different ideas about what he *meant*. I think he clearly meant one thing, and apparently you find it equally clear he meant something else. In the absence of further guidance, we are left to arguing intent, reason, and unfortunately semantics.

My best guess FWIW is that Posi had two goals in mind: 1) that any imbalances in AE be corrected, and 2) that all missions should at least be dressed up in a smidgin of story. But you are free to disagree with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, that's pretty much how I'm seeing it, too. As always, I have no troubles with farmers, just with exploit farmers, which seems to be Posi's position, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah cool, then, we *are* on the same page.

Buy you a beer?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With the patch that hit test tonight, comms are now minions. Custom mobs all now get a base ranged attack

Wooot...exploits fixed.

Now..the secondary result of this is that now all the custom mobs are standardized based on difficulty setting. Pick your animation basically...so much for flavor.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, blame the mewomeowmeow crowd for ruining it for both creative farm creators and arc writers alike?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could, or you could blame the dves for their choices, or you could blame all the people who made such a fuss over comm officer xp in the first place.

After all, if no one *cared* how fast people leveled, or how much fast leveling was pursued, we simply wouldn't have had these issues either.

No big point here, just a balanced thought.

Hopefully the devs will decide whether comm officers reward too much or not - I am happy with whatever they decide.

I have no attachment to any specific strategy for better xp, and am happy enough even if it is a moving target that the devs continually adjust and update.

I just hope that on behalf on myself and the apparently large number of like-minded others, that those of us who like to find and use the upper range of what's permissible are no longer seen as "the bad guys".

That is not a problem with farming. The problem is apparently these farmers (who are apparently large in number according to your report) either do not have or are not encouraged to use an alternate method of getting the job done - whatever job the communication they are involved in when you notice them is trying to get done.

Make the other methods more effective and they will use them.

I am convinced more and more that the ultimate solution is not to waste time, resources, and life energy trying to ban a playstyle, but to instead acknowledge the sheer numbers of folks wanting to play this way, and give them tools that enable them to do so while lessening any negative impact they might have on folks not involved.

It's like drugs or prostitution (yes, go ahead and poke fun at the analogy) - instead of outlawing them, which doesn't work, admit that any voluntary parties of adult age have the essential right to do *whatever they want* without require permission or approval from others, and in so doing, you can channel and better deal with the fact of their reality.

Don't you think?

It would be interesting to see how many people would call it an exploit if a mission has very effective rewards - and nothing else. No comm officers. No units that can't or don't fight back. Nothing specifically wrong with the mission - just really good xp/rewards with possibly a lame story. I wonder how many people would "report" such an ebil mission.

Hopefully, not many.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, you both are making the common fallacy of "I know it when I see it."

[/ QUOTE ]
Can't I just report it and let a GM decide?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't I just report lame stories and let the GM decide about that?

Can't I just report mission with baddies that I feel are overkill and abusive?

Why don't we ALL just report EVERY SINGLE mission that we don't like, just to see if the devs will be OK with taking it out?

[/ QUOTE ]
What a false analogy. We're talking about reporting possible violations of the EULA, not personal taste. I wouldn't call security just because I don't like the color of one's car. I mean, I could, but that would get me in trouble for abusing the system.

Speaking of which, one can get in trouble for abusing the report system, so I suppose one could report as much as one wanted, if one wants to get in trouble oneself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which I hope these anti-farming nazis run into - but back to your unproven assertion:

Please specifically quote the part of the EULA that you are using as the basis for the reports YOU are making.

Reporting a mission for having a reward rate you do not like, or being "too" monotonous, is exactly thr same as reporting a mission for having the wrong colored car - a matter of taste.

Reporting a mechanic that is too easily abused, like possibly comm officers, is much more defendable.

So again, exactly what part of the EULA do you think being violated? Please quote FROM the EULA.

[/ QUOTE ]



Try Rule 18 of the Rules of Conduct:

You will not exploit any bug in City of Heroes and you will not communicate the existence of any such exploitable bug (bugs that grant the user unnatural or unintended benefits) either directly or through public posting, to any other user of City of Heroes . Bugs should be promptly reported via 'Ask A Question' at http://support.cityofheroes.com.

Farm Missions are almost by definition an exploit of some bug, whether it's making a Custom Group of creatures that give rewards that excede the reward normally given for that type of creature (Rikti Dolls) or custom creatures that have no chance to damage you (melee attacks only and you have hover). And by making a mission using this exploit, you are communicating it to other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to demonstrate that a farm is a bug - which you cannot, because it is not.

You are done.

Thanks!

[ QUOTE ]
Why pay for a game and subscription to just rush to the end anyway? I solo, play w/ teams and SG mates and have also been running AE mishes since i14. My enjoyment of this game has been tied to exploring the content and diverse set of features offered. It took me 4 months and a 2x-XP weekend to get my 1st toon to 50, and I enjoyed every minute of it. I just don't get why anyone would want to effectively skip to the end. Hmm.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have two different ways in which I agree with you:

First, I *used* to seek out passive farms - where you get to sit in a corner while someone else runs the map, generating XP. I realized soon enough that if this is all I did in this game, there was no point to being in it. The point of this game to me is to enjoy the journey from 1 to 50.

However, in order for it to be considered a "journey", there must be movement. Put another way, I like the journey, but not the struggle to *have* a journey.

Long story short, I still pursue effective XP rates - I see no reason to choose *worse* xp rates, especially when getting a character to 50 just means the pleasure of starting again. But from then on, I (for the most part) do not seek out any levelling where I am not permit to take part in the fun and glory of taking part.

The second and different way in which I agree with you is that ALL these MMOs do NOT let you change the world in any real or semi-permanent sense. You *can't* really make a difference. All you can do is game against your character sheet - that is, pursue changes to your character, whether that be XP/powers, badges, influence, etc. Until we finally get a game in which the things we accomplish *persist* and change the world, all we have left is playing the game with a goal of changing our character. Having a "straight to 50" button would remove the only reason to play MMOs in the first place.

Again, that said, one doesn't have to *dawdle* to enjoy the journey. It's perfectly fine for a player to enjoy getting 3 character to 50 in the time it takes another player to enjoy taking the same journey with one.

Food for thought.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, it's not a conflation. It's what Posi actually SAID. Now, granted, that may have been misinterpreted by some, and exaggerated by others, but that's not the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

But here's the thing - we can both agree what Posi *said* because we can go look at it. However, we may have very different ideas about what he *meant*. I think he clearly meant one thing, and apparently you find it equally clear he meant something else. In the absence of further guidance, we are left to arguing intent, reason, and unfortunately semantics.

My best guess FWIW is that Posi had two goals in mind: 1) that any imbalances in AE be corrected, and 2) that all missions should at least be dressed up in a smidgin of story. But you are free to disagree with me.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, you both are making the common fallacy of "I know it when I see it."

[/ QUOTE ]
Can't I just report it and let a GM decide?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't I just report lame stories and let the GM decide about that?

Can't I just report mission with baddies that I feel are overkill and abusive?

Why don't we ALL just report EVERY SINGLE mission that we don't like, just to see if the devs will be OK with taking it out?

[/ QUOTE ]
What a false analogy. We're talking about reporting possible violations of the EULA, not personal taste. I wouldn't call security just because I don't like the color of one's car. I mean, I could, but that would get me in trouble for abusing the system.

Speaking of which, one can get in trouble for abusing the report system, so I suppose one could report as much as one wanted, if one wants to get in trouble oneself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which I hope these anti-farming nazis run into - but back to your unproven assertion:

Please specifically quote the part of the EULA that you are using as the basis for the reports YOU are making.

Reporting a mission for having a reward rate you do not like, or being "too" monotonous, is exactly thr same as reporting a mission for having the wrong colored car - a matter of taste.

Reporting a mechanic that is too easily abused, like possibly comm officers, is much more defendable.

So again, exactly what part of the EULA do you think being violated? Please quote FROM the EULA.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...why should a majority of the players have their play constrained to make them do what a vocal minority on the forums want?

...why should a playstyle that apparently a TON of people are doing be curtailed or attacked just because a few malcontents want them to be forced to do something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are interesting ways to describe the game developers.

By the way, it's not "you must do this", it's "you should not do that".

[/ QUOTE ]

You are apparently conflating what you want from what the devs want - which is common for people in your position.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it that I want?

What is my position?

When did you first realize that you could read minds?

[/ QUOTE ]

I should explain - when you type words down, you reveal the thoughts contained for all to see. Mind-reading not required.

After writing and posting the above reply, I realized that it might be better suited to being it's own thread, (as it's not about the OPs idea specifically), the thread is here:

http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showflat....=0#Post13388041

Thanks.

TO SUM UP:

Some people game for the XP and other rewards. They seek out the most favorable methods of gaining it that are still fun. These people are doing nothing wrong and should be permitted to continue - indeed, cannot be stopped from continuing.

However, some methods of gaining to XP may be considered by the devs to be too successful. When identified, the devs have the option of changing/nerfing such methods. Of course, we all hope that they do not throw the baby with the bathwater, that is, we wouldn't want to cut off our nose to spite our face and have them make a change to the game that winds up hurting a significant number of people's play in order to fix a possibly minor issue.

For example, everyone seems to be in agreement that they do not want the devs to reduce XP in AE to zero, as a prime example of hurting too many people in the pursuit of a smaller goal.

Now, there is a group of people, which I personally believe to be a vocal minority, that does wants to forbid people who play this game from playing the "wrong" way. These people think we "should" all be focused on the story and RP elements, and not on gaining rewards effectively.

There is no defense of such a position. One cannnot support a position of discrimination against players of CoX based on what they enjoy when they play the game or on what they pursue.

That is NOT to say that one cannot take and defend a position that the devs ought to address technique X which possibly gives way too much rewards - such as for example, perhaps comm officers. But it is a very different thing to try to bring to the devs attention pieces of the game that the devs might want to consider looking at for effort/reward balancing than to try to get one's fellow players "in trouble" for prioritizing the pursuit of effective rewards.

To put another way, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE "FARMING". (I define "farming" in this discussion as using in-game methods to pursue maximized reward rates.) No matter what anyone does, there will always be ways to play the game that are more effective at garnering rewards. And what is clearly obvious, there will always be a large group of people trying to figure that out and take advantage of it - perhaps even the majority. THIS IS NOT IMMORAL, THIS IS SIMPLY INTELLIGENT.

It's up to the devs to continually edit, update, and adjust the game to fix any problem they find with it, including places where they think the game is unbalanced. And it's perfectly fine for players to point out to the devs what they feel could qualify as that. But to pursue, harass, and vilify other *players* for simply having the good sense to game effectively using the tools the devs have placed in front of us all is not only entirely wrong, it is entirely naive.

Complain to the devs about things like comm officers, or broken maps, or any other game pieces. But if you don't like how I or anyone else plays a game that we pay for, that we are all playing AS DESIGNED (as none of us are hacking it) then come crying to these boards if you must, but know that if the devs have even the barest smidgen of rationality, they will ignore your calls for a witchhunt. And given the fact that they seem to be permitting farming in its core sense to continue unimpeded, it would appear that they are fully aware that that is how some people play. I suspect their concerns are ONLY about making sure the game is not unbalanced.

To recap, no matter what ANYONE does, it is impossible to balance the game perfectly, there will ALWAYS be choices to be made that yield different rates of reward. And many if not most will frequently choose the better rewarding play style.

One cannot change that without changing human nature and the fundamental truths of reason.

So perhaps we would all be best served by identifying ourselves as one of the following three types:

1) anti-exploit and concerned about bringing to the devs attention portions of the game which may not be balanced
(a rational approach)

2) having fun with the game as it is, and needing no change to it
(which is fine)

3) insanely pro-RP and with a personal vendetta against people who play the game in ways one doesn't approve of
(which is more than a little cuckoo)

Let's also all continue to keep in mind that any "fix" that breaks more than it fixes is not a fix, and in such a circumstance, the better choice is to refrain from applying ANY "fixes" until one can be crafted that does more good than harm.

Make sense everybody? I think ALL of us agree that the devs can and should continue to make the game better in whatever way the devs define "better" - and if that includes making sure that the reward rate stays within a certain range, that's the devs' choice to make.

The concomitant piece of that is, however, that any player is welcome to play the game anywhere within that range - even if it is consistently toward the good side of that range.

The second concomitant piece is that it is up to the devs to explicitly define that range - hopefully by adjusting the game itself so that it is not possible to achieve results outside of it, but at the VERY least, by giving enough specific guidance so that the players can obey the devs' rules. After all, no rational human being can expect a driver on a highway to obey a speed limit that is kept secret.

This sums up the state of things vis-a-vis effective gaming in CoX, often called farming. There is clearly nothing wrong with it. If someone has a problem with farming as an act, they are either 1) having a problem with an area of the CoX mechanics or programming that might possibly benefit from an alteration (in which case, make suggestions to the devs) or 2) have a problem with the fact that some people play the game differently from them (in which case, come to these forums and cry, I guess)

One final note: It is true that effective gaming can have secondary effects that may possibly not be desired - people have mentioned the possibility of deletrious and unwanted market effects, and of course, the spam issues.

To some extent, in an MMO, one can not be completely free of the negative effects of being in a game with a massive population. However, the secondary effects are themselves entirely covered by what I have written: if the devs see a problem, they are encouraged to alter the game to fix it, so long as that alteration does more good than harm, of course. For example, perhaps they might rebalance the various drops, or have a special broadcast channel created for broadcasting for teams, etc.

This is a good thing - we want the devs attending to any real issues and also increasing our quality of life in the game. But never think for a moment that there is any possible way to address these secondary issues by forbidding players from pursuing effective reward rates - that not only will not happen, it quite simply can not.

As long as there are choices to be made, there will be people working together to make those choices as effectively as the system permits. That will ALWAYS happen.

It's up to the devs to decide what those range of choices should be.

It's up to NO ONE to decide what ways to play the game are acceptable, except for each individual player.

QED.

[Edited for spelling mistake.]

TO SUM UP:

Some people game for the XP and other rewards. The seek out the most favorable methods of gaining it that are still fun. These people are doing nothing wrong and should be permitted to continue - indeed, cannot be stopped from continuing.

However, some methods of gaining to XP may be considered by the devs to be too successful. When identified, the devs have the option of changing/nerfing such methods. Of course, we all hope that they do not throw the baby with the bathwater, that is, we wouldn't want to cut off our nose to spite our face and have them make a change to the game that winds up hurting a significant number of people's play in order to fix a possibly minor issue.

For example, everyone seems to be in agreement that they do not want the devs to reduce XP in AE to zero, as a prime example of hurting too many people in the pursuit of a smaller goal.

Now, there is a group of people, which I personally believe to be a vocal minority, that does wants to forbid people who play this game from playing the "wrong" way. These people think we "should" all be focused on the story and RP elements, and not on gaining rewards effectively.

There is no defense of such a position. One cannnot support a position of discrimination against players of CoX based on what they enjoy when they play the game or on what they pursue.

That is NOT to say that one cannot take and defend a position that the devs ought to address technique X which possibly gives way too much rewards - such as for example, perhaps comm officers. But it is a very different thing to try to bring to the devs attention pieces of the game that the devs might want to consider looking at for effort/reward balancing than to try to get one's fellow players "in trouble" for prioritizing the pursuit of effective rewards.

To put another way, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE "FARMING". (I define "farming" in this discussion as using in-game methods to pursue maximized reward rates.) No matter what anyone does, there will always be ways to play the game that are more effective at garnering rewards. And what is clearly obvious, there will always be a large group of people trying to figure that out and take advantage of it - perhaps even the majority. THIS IS NOT IMMORAL, THIS IS SIMPLY INTELLIGENT.

It's up to the devs to continually edit, update, and adjust the game to fix any problem they find with it, including places where they think the game is unbalanced. And it's perfectly fine for players to point out to the devs what they feel could qualify as that. But to pursue, harass, and vilify other *players* for simply having the good sense to game effectively using the tools the devs have placed in front of us all is not only entirely wrong, it is entirely naive.

Complain to the devs about things like comm officers, or broken maps, or any other game pieces. But if you don't like how I or anyone else plays a game that we pay for, that we are all playing AS DESIGNED (as none of us are hacking it) then come crying to these boards if you must, but know that if the devs have even the barest smidgen of rationality, they will ignore your calls for a witchhunt. And given the fact that they seem to be permitting farming in its core sense to continue unimpeded, it would appear that they are fully aware that that is how some people play. I suspect their concerns are ONLY about making sure the game is not unbalanced.

To recap, no matter what ANYONE does, it is impossible to balance the game perfectly, there will ALWAYS be choices to be made that yield different rates of reward. And many if not most will frequently choose the better rewarding play style.

One cannot change that without changing human nature and the fundamental truths of reason.

So perhaps we would all be best served by identifying ourselves as one of the following three types:

1) anti-exploit and concerned about bringing to the devs attention portions of the game which may not be balanced
(a rational approach)

2) having fun with the game as it is, and needing no change to it
(which is fine)

3) insanely pro-RP and with a personal vendetta against people who play the game in ways one doesn't approve of
(which is more than a little cuckoo)

Let's also all continue to keep in mind that any "fix" that breaks more than it fixes is not a fix, and in such a circumstance, the better choice is to refrain from applying ANY "fixes" until one can be crafted that does more good than harm.

Make sense everybody? I think ALL of us agree that the devs can and should continue to make the game better in whatever way the devs define "better" - and if that includes making sure that the reward rate stays within a certain range, that's the devs' choice to make.

The concomitant piece of that is, however, that any player is welcome to play the game anywhere within that range - even if it is consistently toward the good side of that range.

The second concomitant piece is that it is up to the devs to explicitly define that range - hopefully by adjusting the game itself so that it is not possible to achieve results outside of it, but at the VERY least, by giving enough specific guidance so that the players can obey the devs' rules. After all, no rational human being can expect a driver on a highway to obey a speed limit that is kept secret.

This sums up the state of things vis-a-vis effective gaming in CoX, often called farming. There is clearly nothing wrong with it. If someone has a problem with farming as an act, they are either 1) having a problem with an area of the CoX mechanics or programming that might possibly benefit from an alteration (in which case, make suggestions to the devs) or 2) have a problem with the fact that some people play the game differently from them (in which case, come to these forums and cry, I guess)

One final note: It is true that effective gaming can have secondary effects that may possibly not be desired - people have mentioned the possibility of deletrious and unwanted market effects, and of course, the spam issues.

To some extent, in an MMO, one can not be completely free of the negative effects of being in a game with a massive population. However, the secondary effects are themselves entirely covered by what I have written: if the devs see a problem, they are encouraged to alter the game to fix it, so long as that alteration does more good than harm, of course. For example, perhaps they might rebalance the various drops, or have a special broadcast channel created for broadcasting for teams, etc.

This is a good thing - we want the devs attending to any real issues and also increasing our quality of life in the game. But never think for a moment that there is any possible way to address these secondary issues by forbidding players from pursuing effective reward rates - that not only will not happen, it quite simply can not.

As long as there are choices to be made, there will be people working together to make those choices as effectively as the system permits. That will ALWAYS happen.

It's up to the devs to decide what t hose range of choices should be.

It's up to NO ONE to decide what ways to play the game are acceptable, except for each individual player.

QED.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...why should a majority of the players have their play constrained to make them do what a vocal minority on the forums want?

...why should a playstyle that apparently a TON of people are doing be curtailed or attacked just because a few malcontents want them to be forced to do something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are interesting ways to describe the game developers.

By the way, it's not "you must do this", it's "you should not do that".

[/ QUOTE ]

You are apparently conflating what you want from what the devs want - which is common for people in your position.