Rooflez

[ QUOTE ]
Why not let us pay off our debt and gain influence? Then when we weren't in debt, give us 2x influence for being an Exemplar. Otherwise it seems there's a very narrow use for the system.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I understand it, the intention of the developers was to give exemplaring a very narrow use. Basically it is a tool that allows you to group with more than one person when they are much lower in levels than you are. To keep up with friends that you outleveled, for example, and you'd just as soon play your main instead of roll up an alt.

Under those circumstances, the 100% exp-to-debt-removal and 100% exp-to-influence-otherwise are just extra benefits. I don't reverse-SK to remove debt, I can do that much faster by soloing at my own level. I rSK to group with friends who are too low, or to help a single low-level friend complete missions and story arcs. After they update it I'll rSK to help low-level friends with Task Forces.

If they ever update it to include exp gain that'll be fine with me, it'll be just one more benefit on top of the main benefit that I get, which is the one the devs intended.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I can also play with my friends if I either SK them, or roll a new toon to level up with them. Both are better options to my mind than using the Exemplar system.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well that depends on a few things. If you are level 20 and your friends are level 5 I guess rolling up an alt to team with them is fine. If your main is level 26 and your friends are level 15 to 19 then it isn't as easy. And of course, if you'd rather play your main while you team with your friends, rolling up an alt is a non-option.

I agree that SKing typically gives better rewards, and if you have one friend that you can SK, it's probably the better option for faster leveling. I can kill much faster at 26 with an SKed friend than I can by dropping down to level 15. So usually if I duo with a lower-level friend, we SK. But to complete her missions it's nice to be able to rSK and either work off some debt or pick up some extra influence while we do it.

The only real problem I have with rSK is the one where low level mobs scatter like roaches when you attack, because they treat you according to your actual level. Once they fix that I have no problems with rSK as it is. If they did improve it, that would be icing on the cake.

A 'street fighting' power set would be pretty cool.

I can see where, over the course of time, more power sets will be added for the various archetypes, but it wouldn't be a good idea to rush them in, as they'll require a good amount of testing to make sure they aren't under/over-powered compared to other sets. They're still wrestling with balancing current powers as it is, and dealing with the complaints that come from that.

And just from a pragmatic standpoint, releasing new power sets over the course of time will probably help retain players, by providing something new for them to try before they get bored enough to quit. Gotta keep that carrot dangling . . .

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am level 47 and to get the badges I want for these rewards I have two choices: find a portal mission that contains these enemies and farm it over and over or run around the lower level areas causing havoc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Choice 3: Exemplar to an appropriate level Hero and help them get XP (and work off your debt) while you both get the badge. I know... it's just crazy enough to work.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's what I did, though I wasn't doing it to get a badge. I had the 'defeat clockworks' badge with about 1/20th of the bar full, and was rSKed to a level 16 friend for an indoor mission against clockworks. Our group of five people faced a well-packed mission and by the end of it I had filled the bar to about 85%. Another mission like that and I'll have the badge.

Then it's on to the Outcasts.

No offense, but why would they be expected to check religious calendars when planning to roll out an update to an online computer game about superheroes?

[ QUOTE ]
The purple patch will never be irrelevant until it is removed. Shifting everything downward is removing the purple patch indirectly. Rather then having to essentially redo the game, wouldn't it just be easier to leave the current xp cap ingame and remove the purple patch?

[/ QUOTE ]
If the purple patch is rescinded, then for many players even-con mobs are pretty much useless. But you cannot simply ramp up mission difficulty to make up for this, since not all ATs and/or builds can solo as well. Therefore missions become very bad exp-wise for most players, including those who would prefer to do indoor missions.

Bringing mob difficulty up and increasing exp rewards to match makes indoor missions more challenging without making them overwhelming for less efficient builds/ATs, while still allowing people who can handle tougher mobs to do so for better exp/hour.

If it isn't clear by now (and I don't ever expect a dev to say it directly), they have an idea regarding how long it should take to level, and I think one reason the purple patch was applied was to keep people from getting ahead of that pace. I think that the changes to portal missions are for the same reason, and if changes are made to herding/dumpster diving, it'll be for the same reason. It isn't good PR for them to come out and say it, but they don't want people to level too quickly.

The trick is to find a leveling pace that doesn't lead to people leveling too fast (because then they get bored and leave) or too slow (because then they get frustrated and leave). I don't think you'll see much tweaking made to the leveling grind to make it any quicker aside from stuff like upping mission exp. Because at the moment people seem to be willing to roll up alts when the grind sets in. If they ever get an indication that people are leaving in larger numbers, you just might see an exp bump.

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly believe most people play this game for Fun, not for a challenge. If I want a challenge I will spend more time at work. I am looking to relax with my free time I use for entertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]
But for many people the challenge IS the fun. This isn't like real life, where failing at a 'challenge' could have very unpleasant real-world consequences. Just like any other game, you just drop another quarter in the slot and start again.

I have no real idea how any particular changes in the game affect the majority of players. Maybe the concern from the developers was that many people were already leaving, and the reason behind it was that they progressed quickly, found the higher levels were devoid of much to do, and left out of boredom. Maybe they find that most of the people who complain that they're leaving because they can't level fast enough don't actually leave.

It always seemed to me that the people who spent the most time warning of Everquest's impending doom were the same players who kept playing and who kept buying expansions and who kept putting money in Sony's pocket. When they actually did manage to cancel their accounts, they'd go from message board to message board and hassle anyone who made even a mild complaint, urging them to quit already. And yet, two months later, they'd be playing again.

I think that if the people making those complaints really were leaving, that would have a notable impact on the developers. But much of the complaining seems based on what people THINK has happened, or think is GOING to happen. And often those people quietly continue to play when they find that the changes they worried about did not have the feared impact on their enjoyment.

The developers may simply realize that calling your bluff works remarkably well.

[ QUOTE ]
Oooo boy... funny stuff going on in here. Seriously. Are people that insecure that something as insignificant as an OPTIONAL TRINKET in a GAME upsets them?

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. An optional trinket that serves only as a role-playing device. Which means that if you have objections to the idea behind it, you can refuse to get it and not be penalized in terms of gameplay. And it only has to have political ramifications if you want it to.

[ QUOTE ]
A new Science-oriented player running into nothing but +1 Vahzilok in door missions could get very discouraged very fast!

[/ QUOTE ]
I recall a month or so ago, on the live server, when a mission that I started with two friends at around level 8 or 9 spawned entire groups of clockwork lieutenants. Six to eight at a time. No minions, just Lts. Was interesting to say the least.

And there is still the 'unbalanced' missions, where the mobs near the entrance are +1 and by the time you get to the named mob further in, he is two or three levels below you. That really does kill the fun of a mission, when just getting past the first two or three spawns is a headache, then you breeze through the rest of the mission and barely even notice that you just defeated the named mob that is supposed to be the "leader" of the group that you attacked.

I may hit the test server a few more times to see how my missions pan out. One of my scrapper's indoor missions against clockworks was made slighty more difficult, but it was far from impossible and actually more fun. But since I group most of the time, having group numbers change the difficulty from 'challenge' to 'near-impossible' would not go over well.

[ QUOTE ]
Then change the missions that require clicks on multiple blinkies at the same time so that, if someone chooses to solo the mission, it's possible to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I recall, there is a post from one of the devs in the test forum where they said they would not make it mandatory to take those missions as part of the mission chain that you get from your contacts. You'll still have the option to accept them, but they will not be the only option at any time, so that the solo player can skip them, but people planning to team can still try them.

It's a nice bit of middle ground, it leaves those missions in for groups that want to try them, without hijacking a contact if you prefer to solo your missions-- you won't have to worry about being stuck with one of those missions.

TheAdlerian: In a way kill stealing is much the same. Its legal but its almost like the person is cheating. It's different in that it does hurt the other player but that's not against the rules. I could kill steal my way to the top if I wanted but who wouldn't say that I was cheating.

Kill-stealing has a direct and tangible effect on the victim, unlike powerleveling. Also, the mechanisms in place regarding experience splits makes it so that it will often be much slower for you to try to gain levels by kill-stealing. There are other factors, such as reputation and potential GM action if you happen to KS the same group(s) repeatedly.

THEpunishcrime: where is cryptic's policy of not rewarding people for not playing the game?

I would rather that they not become too zealous in their attempts to stop PLing, otherwise we may wind up with changes that affect people who choose NOT to powerlevel. Fiddling too much with sidekicking in order to close loopholes could wind up penalizing people who use it legitimately, while it only slows down PLers slightly.

Which means that they'd just make everyone upset, and that isn't what they would want. The answer given by Statesman requires only very basic reading between the lines to see what he's saying. He doesn't particularly care for powerleveling, but there's little to do about it, save to make the 30+ game more challenging so that it isn't so trivial to powerlevel people.

[ QUOTE ]
However, my definition of forced group play means that if I cannot experience ALL content as a soloer, then that missing content is forcing me to group.

[/ QUOTE ]
In that case, the game already forces you to group, because some missions require a minimum group size to begin them (Task Forces) and at least one encounter (Hamidon) requires a large number of people working together.

The OP's definition of forced grouping does not seem to reflect yours. My impression from his posts is that he wants to be able to solo, particularly indoor missions, and worries about the impact that influence levels may have on his ability to enhance his powers towards that end.
[ QUOTE ]
Not forced grouping to play the game, true, but forced if I want to experience it all. And making a comment like "deal with it" is hardly constructive and could be used for anything. Bombs are falling in your city, deal with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't recall telling anyone to "deal with it". I presume you are directing this comment at someone else?

[ QUOTE ]
I make no statement one way or the other, except to say that I am concerned about these changes based upon the feedback I have read so far. Therefore, DEV should drop in and answer the question CLEARLY. Is there a Design Decision to remove soloing as a viable option?
( . . . )
I prefer waiting and seeing for myself, rather than making a snap decision based on the negative feedback.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no need to make a snap decision, and no need to wait until your billing cycle refreshes, and no need to rely on the feedback from others, negative or positive. You can copy your main character to the test server and give it a try yourself, and see if the changes make the game unplayable (or no longer fun) or not.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not a debate. If I have the perception that I am no longer rewarded for casually playing the game, then I will no longer play. But I do deserve a direct answer on this issue, and therefore I am asking.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why you think you deserve a direct answer to a question. When a company has almost 200,000 paying customers, giving direct answers to specific questions is a daunting task indeed.

Besides, you provided the answer yourself. With so many people wanting so many different things from the game, the developers know that any changes they make will upset some of their customers, just as NOT making changes will do the same. Either way there is the likelyhood that they'll lose customers who become dissatisfied. They must either follow the almighty dollar, or follow their own creative vision. Neither of those guarantees success, but they're far better than trying to please every possible dissenting voice.

My point was that if you simply complain that you cannot solo, you are likely to be ignored, because after all you can solo. You may not be able to advance as quickly as you'd like, which is IMO a valid concern to bring up. But simply asking the developers not to eliminate soloing won't fix anything, since they don't seem to have any plans to do so.

The key to getting a useful answer is to ask the right question, that's all I'm saying.

[ QUOTE ]
all games must have players present
Plers aren’t present at the game
therefore Plers aren’t playing the game


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think this has been the gist of your argument, unless you define 'present' differently. I presume you mean that the game must have players 'actively participating'. After all, if I just sit at the computer while my character stands at the train station and gets PLed, I don't think this would sit well with you.

I don't think PLing is a big concern for the developers. They are concerned with how easy the game gets at higher levels and as a result of their efforts to fix that, powerleveling will not be as easy. But it will still occur, it will slow down slightly and require a minor change in logistics. That's why I wouldn't worry about other people doing it.

It's like trying to stop twinking, though this game has a pretty good mechanism for blunting the effect. Are you also upset that the PLed character can be given a full set of +3 enhancements to fit out all of those powers that they got by doing nothing? You could call it a form of cheating in the same way that you consider PLing cheating, it is a character gaining access to items that they would not have gotten on their own (at least at low levels before the avalanche of influence rolls in).

[ QUOTE ]
If the game is changed so that I am forced to group, there is no way I can proceed, and that is an issue that concerns me. Challenge is nice, for those who have the time to pursue that challenge.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the reason you get some controversy on this issue, is that people are choosing an odd definition for "forced".

If you are forced to group, it would mean that you could not solo for experience. You would have to group to advance at all.

Most ATs, even poorly built ones, are able to solo. They cannot solo the same mobs in terms of levels and numbers, but they can defeat mobs by themselves and gain experience. They do so much more slowly than more efficient and solo-capable builds, but they do advance.

I think that when people worry about "being forced to group", they are concerned that their solo progression will fall below a certain threshold.

I think that people worried about that issue should complain about that issue directly, instead of wording it as being forced to group. Because otherwise it seems as though you're exaggerating. But pointing out that defeating small groups of carefully selected blue/green mobs is the only way you can reliably advance would probably garner more support from others.

It isn't that you're forced to group, but it could be that soloing is so slow as to be torturous. That's worth looking into for possible changes, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
And I did not say care. I was referring to "cheating". In order for someone to cheat you, you must have something for them to cheat you out of.

[/ QUOTE ]
They do not have to cheat you out of something to be cheating. A person may cheat on a test and their doing so may not really harm you, but it's still cheating. I think you could make a valid case saying that a person being powerleveled would technically be cheating.

The better question remains- how does it negatively affect our enjoyment of the game unless we allow it to? Many people aren't aware of powerleveling going on at all, because there are no direct effects, and even the indirect effect being claimed (that it skews datamined results) may not be occuring because the developers do not datamine in a vacuum, so to speak.

[ QUOTE ]
Some people will always have much better builds and tactics, Stateman. You can correct AT balance issues with changes to the difficulty - like making things tougher so they last long enough for tankers and controllers to matter - but if you make the game so hard to deter PLing, you'll also deter weaker players.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that the game allows people to make builds that can be considerably weaker than others. But the point being made is that the mid-30s game can be remarkably easy. What I'm reading from Statesman's comment is-- the spawn sizes are being based on a group of 2 (PLer and PLee), but because the PLer can easily handle the extra mobs, the PLee doesn't need to be involved in order to help defeat the mobs quicker.

Many of the FotM builds that trivialize the game are wa-aay over the top, power-wise. I read posts from players who are taking on 10 to 12 mobs that are 4 or 5 levels above them and beating them without much risk. Ramping up the difficulty so that they can no longer do that shouldn't be so bad that it would penalize less efficient builds. It may bring those hyper-efficient builds more in line with them.

[ QUOTE ]
My idea of Non-Combat System (just a guess)
Guides/Escorts ("Where is ICON at???/Can you get me to the Mutant Store?")

[/ QUOTE ]
Escorts? /perk

"I can be your friend."

"Really?"

"Yeah, just 5,000 influence per hour."

o_O;

[ QUOTE ]
PLing allows you to put together builds that nobody in their right mind could have leveled using the normal route.

[/ QUOTE ]
The respec mission will allow the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
Well after all of this I would love to here what the designers have to say! You can tell by the amount of posts that this topic is of interest to many people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Powerleveling will always be a controversial topic.

The developers will not try to stop powerleveling aside from fixing some things that they consider to be exploits. Trying to stop powerleveling would probably have a much more negative impact on non-powerlevelers, since it's likely that they'd wind up inadvertently nerfing legitimate leveling methods. It isn't worth it to a developer.

Keep in mind that what is being changed about the current exploit will only have a very small effect on using it to PL, because aside from one factor it IS a valid leveling method. Right now, to provide an example, this is what is happening:

- Level 34 player forms a group with level 2 player
- Level 29 player sidekicks the level 2 but doesn't join the group
- Level 29 stays with the level 2 in some safe area while the level 34 player solos
- The level 2 player gains exp approximately on the scale of a level 2 defeating level 5 or 6 mobs, since their effective level is 27 or 28. The level 29 stays out of the group in order not to leech any experience from the level 2.

What is being changed is that in the scenario above, the level 29 would need to join the group. That's it. They can still do what they're doing and they can still powerlevel the level 2, it will only be slowed down a small amount.

Since powerleveling doesn't really affect other players, aside perhaps from offending their sense of (pick one- fair play, ethics, entitlement, etc), and since "fixing" the issue would probably create more problems than it solves, it isn't something that developers are likely to worry about.

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. So this is the kinda guy the pro-PL'ers are defending. I am speechless. An anti PL point made by a PL'er. I love it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see that he made an anti-PL point. He explained that he was PLing his friends, who have leveled other characters to high levels (beyond 30 at least from what I gathered) and didn't want to bother with the lower levels on their alts. I think that is the situation for many or most PLers.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I assume that things in a game this complex take time to change.

[/ QUOTE ]
While it doesn't surprise me that they're looking to close some loopholes, do not expect powerleveling to disappear. There is a point at which trying to eliminate powerleveling can hurt other players by placing barriers in the way people legitimately want to level or play.

Most MMOGs have fixed flaws or bugs or exploits that allow very fast leveling with little effort or risk, but they have never removed them all, and people will powerlevel. That is one reason why it's better not to let it bother you, because people will find ways to powerlevel and if you are banking on the developers to eliminate it entirely, I don't think that will happen.

[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]
I hadn't even considered that side benefit, it makes the "xp range" a good idea. I'd make it considerably more than melee range, perhaps just outside of sniper range to not punish players who use snipe attacks as part of their arsenal. It's a long enough range not to harm the occasional player who is a bit out of range from the group for any reason, while still forcing team members to be within a reasonable range of the fight to get exp.

And it would limit the ability to farm exp by quickly moving through a zone and zapping groups of mobs before others engage them, in the hopes that they'll finish them off.

It would provide an interesting exp "cheat", in that you could group up with a bunch of people then go off and solo, and you'd get full exp/inf for each kill plus a bonus for grouping, but I think that overall, it solves more concerns that it creates.

[ 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 ]
I think the "minimum range" being referred to there is distance from the mob, not a level difference.