ThatGuyThere

Sturgeon's Law, combined with The Theorem of Narrow Interests.

Of course it's in majority crap. Anyone who ever expected anything else was being completely unrealistic. It's just that the GOOD stuff is REALLY good.

Alright. Let's try this another way. With ED, the devs essentially said that six-slotting (for damage, recharge, whatever) was an 'exploit'. They never meant the system to work that way; they never meant you to six-slot for damage.

But the devs didn't - and hopefully never seriously considered - taking away the Influence, Levels, etc from those who had earned them with 'exploitive' characters. They were clearly considered exploitive - the rules changed to prevent them from ever happening again, at least to the same degree. They broke the system, much like MA Farms do - using exactly the code the Devs put in, in ways the Devs never expected or intended.

But the devs just changed the code, and carried on (admit much gnashing of teeth, and wailing and such). No punishments.

(Also similar to this, the devs said it wasn't WAI long before they fixed it. Did people "stop doing it" ahead of time? I wasn't here, but somehow, I doubt it...)

So - for the "punish them!" crowd - should they have taken away these ill gotten gains? Or was that (as I expect you'll argue) "different" somehow?

Your analogy simply does not hold.

The devs have (in theory) completely created this world, all the physics and interactions in it. IMPLICITY - and we can debate the accuracy of the assumption or not, but it's not an unreasonable assumption - what you can do matches what you're allowed to do.

It's implied - albeit, untrue, but certainly implied - that you can't actually do anything that they devs didn't (ultimately, in one form or another) set in place.

And, even if the current events are an exploit - and I don't disagree that they are - it's entirely UNreasonable to expect nobody to use them, on a "good faith" argument. The devs set the reward scale, intentionally or otherwise. The game intentionally rewards finding the highest rungs of the reward scale. The players are not subverting, corrupting, or modifying the code - they're just using the code the devs provided, in exactly the manner the devs provided, and getting the results the devs did not expect.

I think your anger at the people who have "done this" is gravely misplaced and out of scale.

(I'm not suggesting you be mad at the devs, either. This amounts to a "whoops", a patch, and everyone carrying on about their day.)

A parallel situation - Imagine, though a not-entirely-dissimilar error, Brawl was causing immensely more damage than ever intended, along the rate of a factor of a thousand or more.

Is it an "exploit" to use Brawl, now? I suspect you'd say yes, and I suspect I'd agree. In fact, I don't think anyone would genuinely think Brawl was supposed to do that much damage.

But you seem to suggest that you'd expect players not to use Brawl until it was repaired, because the devs clearly didn't mean for it to do that. I'd expect everyone to use Brawl until it was repaired.

One of those positions would bear more resemblance to what would happen than the other one does.

I've heard of this error before - but your report was much more amusing.

Makes a note to hold off on "Edge of Chaos" badge...

I'd forgotten that second piece of information. Fascinating.

I'll admit I'd often given up characters at about 45ish, because the rest felt like a pretty-much-rewardless slog to scrap out the "last bits", and been motivated to give those characters an extra push because of the upcoming Incarnate Slot.

If I were conspiracy-minded, I have to admit, the timing would be... ...fascinating.

(Note that, with my tinfoil-hat off, I'm sure it's all nothing and a co-incidence. ... ...but it is a fetching hat.)

I actually wanted to emphasize this. There are Forum-people crying for blood over this. These people ... may have the best interested of the game at heart, but seem to be operating with incomplete information.

IF we accept the postulate that a significant percentage of the overall playerbase is engaging in this behavior - and the market results seem to bear this out - THEN we must also accept that a similarly large population base will dislike this being stopped. And if - as some have cried out for - these 'ill-gotten gains' are to be taken away, that would mean a respectable number of players will suddenly log in to de-leveled, locked, or deleted characters - characters they may well enjoy as much as you enjoy your own.

And as far as they're concerned, this would be without warning. And since they were only playing content that - in whole or in part - the devs included in the game, they'd have a legitimate cause to believe they were being punished for "playing the game wrong".

If I were them, I'd quit playing, at least for a while, to simmer over my wound. That seems ... like a very poor marketing idea.

There's nothing in the Mission Architect system, or online in the game, that says, "If you find an arc with a disbalanced rate of return, we may take away the benefits you gain from running that arc". In fact, the game is set up in such a way to REWARD finding and creating such arcs.

You know, and I know, and EVERY forumgoer knows, these are dangerous, long-term destructive, and ultimately game-warping flaws. But it's entirely possible the people using them - and the people who would be punished for using them - don't.*

I think it would be absolutely fascinating to see the "numbers" behind one of these 'exploits'. How many more new characters are made? How many more accounts? How much more playtime is accumulated overall? That'd be fascinating information. I wonder if the devs look at it, or just make assumptions...

TL;DR - The "pitchforks and torches" crowd is making the (seemingly false) assumption they're the majority. I strongly suspect it's the opposite.

Note - I do hope for 'the good of the game' the exploit is patched - but I similarly hope that no 'punishment' for playing is leveled; and my hope for no punishment also comes from wanting what's good for the game.

* - No, seriously. Realizing they're bad for the "long term" of the game requires more thinking about it than most people probably give. Not that they don't realize they're 'exploits' and going to be removed - but they don't realize they're actually bad for the game.

The problem here is you've - completely incidentally - established both an upper and a lower boundry on XP gain.

"We", being all the players, would know (for certain - it's right there in the code!) that "five levels a day" is an acceptable rate of gain. Anything at or under five-a-day is not an exploit; it's working as-intended. And anyone earning less-than-five a day is not "living up to their potential".

...so why do regular missions make it all but impossible for me to earn my "five a day"? If five-a-day is "acceptable", why not let me do it running "real" content, instead of just farms?

It's also worth noting that Golden Girl, having only a single character with no alts, and that character already being max level, is probably not a good person to ask about rules affecting XP gain and / or new characters; I'm pretty sure even she'll admit she's in a position that such rules would affect her ... oddly.

(I'm not discounting GG's opinion. Just saying it's formed under markedly different circumstances from someone with dozens of alts at various levels - and probably differently from the majority of the playerbase.)

(Also note that I think Tickets-For-XP is a great idea worth further investigation.)

/e lightbulb

Got it! Fantastic. That makes much more sense.

Which is also why a thing like Luck of the Gambler +recharge does work - it works like set bonuses.

AHA! Comprehension!

/e heads back into Mids.

For what it's worth, when being introduced to the game, what made me make the leap-of-complexity into the invention system...

...was that is was far less complex than figuring out which SO I wanted.

Sadly, yes. More Tribbles than I can count.

But I'm fairly safe from Klingons.

About once per play-session (obviously, sometimes more, occasionally less), with 2-3 hour play sessions, 2-3 nights semi-randomly during the week. And at least one of those sessions each week is more-or-less pure RP.

(Aside - Yes, I know I <can> run TFs. But they're time commitments; I'd have to hop on, and be on one in 10 mins or less, and I don't want to end up bogging the team down. I do catch one every once in a while; I've done both "new" Posi's, for example.)

I get to market (collect, craft, post, bid) daily, as I read the news online in the morning, with my little one on my lap polishing off a bottle.

I guess I was trying to say I consider my playtime pretty "casual", by the OPs definition. And I adore the market system around here, and it's 50% of what sucked me in.

(The other 50% being the character creator.)

Edit - In fairness to Ms ThatGuyThere, and full disclosure, I do get an 'extra' session some Sunday afternoons, too, but it's maybe once-a-month, ish. My partner is pretty awesome on giving me a lil' extra time here and there.

This was key for me. I often have to play a "highly interrupt-able format", as I have two young children. I need the ability to drop the game, deal with Real Life Stuff for 5-10 mins, and come back.

With this play type, I can't run TFs (well, choose not to, at least) - or, as some might say, "raid", for the phat lootz. But I can certainly play the market, and get pretty-good lootz.

Maybe I can't get the best lootz, but I accept that as someone who can't run TFs, my earning potential is going to be lower.

Hm. You can run TFs, you can't (or, choose not to) market, and therefore your income will be lower.

There's a similarity there.

That is unfortunate!

Oooo, content...

TL; DR - I've started trying to make money in the last ~ 2 months. I'm now a tribillionnaire, and I'm only casually trying. Want Purples? They're doable. Time-consuming, though.

...you mean, like the appendix?

Or (3), characters running (perhaps quickly?) through missions that don't generate Salvage. Why, what missions don't generate Salvage?

On the other hand, if there was a market for, say, Tickets, I think that market would be flush with product, right now.

Just, as a possibility.

Doubtful you have / had my issue. Sent PM though.

He's proposing exactly that - basically, that similar to Common Recipes, everything else is available for a "list price".

I can see an argument for this with regards to Common salvage (not an argument I personally agree with, but I can see the argument).

Anything else that's available for a "list price" is no longer either "uncommon" or "rare", or "very rare". It's just "expensive".

/unsigned

I think the "ATM" part is important. The Dev's have set a (incredibly high!) ceiling to how much purples and PVPs are worth - purples at 10 times the cost of "highly desirable" non-purples, and PVPs at 15 times the cost.

Using 150 M Luck of the Gamblers as the base, this tells us they think purples are worth 1.5 billion, and PVPs 2.25 billion. Right now, these prices are way too high - for some (most, virtually all) of these rare recipes; but notably, there are some that sell at or over that approximate value.

(Note that while the actual Inf price of the recipes involved may change, the ratio - a purple is worth 10 highly desired non-purples - won't. If you don't think the purple you want is worth 10 recipes, get the 10 recipes instead.)