NinjaPirate

[ QUOTE ]
Actually no. This idea stomps all over those of us that form a group of 8 and then split into pairs to hunt.

[/ QUOTE ]
Er, wouldn't it be just as effective to just make multiple teams? I can't imagine the XP would roll in much differently. Bigger pieces of smaller pie vs smaller pieces of bigger pie.




-np

Game theory states that in any competitive activity a reward must be balanced with risk to the subject obtaining the reward.

That isn't opinion, it's a constant of balanced game design. No reward without equal risk.

The ability to circumvent this process by insulating the rewardee from any risk is indicative of a bad mechanic in the system.

In most games of this sort, deliberately circumventing the risk vs reward cycle is considered an exploit.

It may not have been addressed directly by the game developers yet, but that does not change the fact that such is an imbalance in the mechanics and needs to be corrected to preserve the long term viability of the game.

Indirectly, there is a good amount of evidence that the developers want you taking the risks to get the rewards. Scatter AI was put in to prevent folks from taking out large masses of mobs from a safe position where they can't hit you. Mobs in certain zones were not firing back when attacked, and were fixed. The trick of getting under the terrain so mobs can't hit you is currently grounds for punitive action from the GMs. I could go on.

To put it as plainly as I can, if you want to get the reward, XP, from a mob, you should have to take the risk from that mob as well.


-np

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The award isn't the issue at all. It's the method used to obtain it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correction: The award is both the level advancement and the means of getting there.

Envy most assuredly does apply.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll get the level advancement anyway without using the method at issue here, so no.

And the means of getting there is not something I want for myself either.

No on both counts.

But you seem to deliberately like to twist meanings and intents around so Im done speaking to you about it.


-np

Wonderful sophistry there.

The award isn't the issue at all. It's the method used to obtain it.

Ergo, envy does not apply.


-np

[ QUOTE ]
Your caring and attempting to distinguish it as something bad are indicative of envy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Envy
1) A feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with desire for the possessions or qualities of another.

Jealous:
1) Fearful or wary of being supplanted; apprehensive of losing affection or position.
2) Resentful or bitter in rivalry; envious: jealous of the success of others.

Nope, don't see either of them here.

However...

Indignation
1) Anger aroused by something unjust, mean, or unworthy.


I'll accept being called indignant. Though I'm not actually angry, just annoyed.


-np

The folks speaking out against the stand-inna-tram-and-level activity aren't upset at the reward, they're upset at the method used to obtain the reward.

No envy or jealousy. Envy and jealousy require a wanting to have the same thing, which isn't the case here.


-np

I'll take another tack at the issue, as one of the reasons I voice concerns is because as a sometime RPG writer I am interested in game design issues.

The whole point of a game is for people to play it.

Anything that rewards people to NOT play the game is bad.

Huddling in a safe spot while racking in the XP is NOT playing the game.

It's bad design. The player should be encouraged to go out and fight alongside his buddies, not stand around staring at virtual walls.

--

As for jealousy, being annoyed at freeloaders isn't jealously, it's annoyance.

Analogy: I work at a job. I enjoy it for the most part and for my work I get paid.

If the guy in the next cubicle can sit there and do nothing and get paid even more than me because a higher up in the company is looking out for him, damn straight I'm going to be upset about it.

No, I don't want what he has - that would be jealousy. I want him to work for his pay like everyone else.

Why is this concept so hard to understand?


-np

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To me, no. Then again I define powerleveling as the gain of XP with little or no risk to yourself.
You are in the thick of the fight and are risking as much as the rest of your group.
My main point in this thread has been that you should never get a reward if you are not taking a risk.
Standing around in a tram while someone else earns XP for you is not a risk at all.


[/ QUOTE ]
How do you propose to implement a change like that?
COH in it's current state cannot objectively determine the risk a player is placing themselves in for each and every fight.
Using your criteria, risk is purely subjective and since computers cannot be subjective, your suggestion is unrealistic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, how's this: If you are not in aggro range (or some other close range) of a mob, you cannot gain XP from that mob.

This also solves the problem of folks running around "tapping" all the mobs in a zone and leeching off other folks in that way.


-np

[ QUOTE ]
Im a force field defender. I've often teamed up with people 6+ levels higher than me, un-sidekicked. I would generally, stay very close and keep the person shielded, and use repulsion field to keep enemies on the ground. I have leadership pool and the medicine pool to keep my teammate healed.

Even though I was using any of my offensive powers (not that I could), is this still considered powerleveling?

[/ QUOTE ]
To me, no. Then again I define powerleveling as the gain of XP with little or no risk to yourself.

You are in the thick of the fight and are risking as much as the rest of your group.

My main point in this thread has been that you should never get a reward if you are not taking a risk.

Standing around in a tram while someone else earns XP for you is not a risk at all.


-np

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, I'll ask how does powerleveling affect yours, or anyone elses enjoyment in playing City of Heroes?

[/ QUOTE ]

It can affect the long term development of the game by artificially skewing the numbers the devs use to plan future content.

It's annoying in the same way seeing anyone freeload is annoying.

It seriously breaks the immersion of the game.

It encourages an environment of number-crunchers and those only concerned with the maximum efficiency, which if you pay attention to forums and areas which cater to these types is almost always a relentlessly negative and argumentative bunch.

In short, it brings down the game.


-np

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I would alter the mechanics so you do NOT earn ANY XP unless you are in a minimum range of the bad guy you are getting XP from, and thus risk getting defeated by them.


[/ QUOTE ]
Then you are opposed to the existance of sidekicking in any form. Afterall, the developers put it in so you could play with friends that were not in your level range. If they couldn't earn any of the normal benefits from defeating villians, what would be the point of even having sidekicking?

[/ QUOTE ]
Where did I say I opposed differently leveled folks fighting together?

Sidekicked or not, you should be required to be actively fighting the mob you are getting XP from.*

That is all I am saying.


-np

*- Yes, I consider buff/heal activities to be actively fighting the mob. You are right there with your teammates taking the same risks, so it counts.

[ QUOTE ]
There is 'risk' (no matter how small)for the person/people that are fighting the mobs.

[/ QUOTE ]

The person fighting the mobs is not the one gaining the benefit.

How's this? You go do my job while I go watch TV, and I'll take the paycheck. That sound good to you?


[ QUOTE ]
By definition, an exploit in a MMOG is the act of taking advatage of a flaw in existing game mechanics to gain an unfair advantage over other players.
Powerleveling does not fit that definition.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you can come up with a legitimate solid reason why a person should be getting more skilled and powerful while standing around in a tram station staring at a wall, then I will revise my opinion.

Otherwise I stand by my statement. There is little or no risk to the person GAINING THE BENEFIT.

It is manipulation of the internal game mechanics to artificially boost the XP gained. That is all.

Unless you are right there fighting the mob and taking the risk, you shouldn't be able to reap any of the reward.


-np

Powerleveling is pure manipulation of loopholes in the game experience mechanics to get large amounts of XP for little or no risk.

There is no denying this. It is an exploit, pure and simple.

The intention of the game is that you go out and beat up bad guys to advance. There is NO way you can legitimately justify being able to just stand around in a train station doing nothing and gain XP.

Personally, I would alter the mechanics so you do NOT earn ANY XP unless you are in a minimum range of the bad guy you are getting XP from, and thus risk getting defeated by them.

You want reward? You have to accept risk. Period.


-np

Whether or not map patches are derivative is irrelevant.

Cryptic does not want any discussions of game modifications here.

That is all.


-np

One. More. Time.

If you make a map mod or the like...

CRYPTIC DOES NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT.

So don't discuss it here.

That is ALL.

See my earlier posts on the subject if you want to know why, I'm tired of repeating myself.



-np

Perhaps my last post here was too long winded. Okay. Here goes.

Cryptic is taking this stance to avoid potential trouble, not because they are being mean.

They just want to get an official stance that they can point at if there is trouble.

That's all. In all probability, unless you are making hacks that interfere with anything server-side, you probably won't get smacked.

You just can't talk about client modifications here.


-np

People, can't you read between the lines?

Prior to this, the Devs have been fairly consistant about not really minding things like the map patch or the looping sound patch. And saying so on the forums and elsewhere.

From a Customer Servivce, Tech Support, and Legal Department view point, THIS WAS A HUGE FRICKIN MISTAKE.

You start saying it's Okay to modify the client, and suddenly you WILL get a major increase in complaint calls and workload to CS because so-and-so broke their game by applying a third party hack. Tech support gets swamped with trying to figure out what is an actual bug and what is the result of a hack, because in general most bug reports aren't all that clear. And god forbid someone makes a porn or worse mod and then can point at the forums to say, "Hey, the devs support this stuff!" - that is a legal nightmare just waiting to happen.

This is why from DAY ONE the company line should have been to not publically voice ANY allowance of third party hacks or mods, no matter HOW benign they are. Even if they privately liked the mods or aren't going to do anything about ones they see, THEY SHOULD NEVER HAVE SAID SO IN PUBLIC.

And this? I'm pretty sure this is them realizing all this and pulling back to the sensible position of publically disavowing any player mods. I would not be suprised if nothing at all is done to folks that have "safe" mods to their game.


-np