Tripp Hazzard

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heh, I doubt if any rewards for custom criters are going up until months after the Devs feel absolutely sure they won't be farmed.

On the other hand, jacking up the rewards on a particular critter would be a great way to locate any farmers they wanted to get rid of...

[/ QUOTE ]On the third hand, leaving them as is would (and I know I'm going to get flamed for this) tend to discourage building Farm Missions full of nothing but Custom Bosses. Thus reducing the need to identify and punish individual offenders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Building a mission with all custom bosses is not a punishable offense. Castle's all AV mission would be an example of this.

Custom boss farms are kind of funny to me since they are harder and slower to clear than using the standard BM mobs for the same reward. People are such sheep.

[/ QUOTE ]Again, you're reading more into my words than is there.

I didn't say it would discourage ALL Custom Boss missions. I said it would discourage building FARM Missions with them. Though not specified, my reasoning was identical to yours. A mission full of very tough enemies is the antithesis of a "Farm". Anyone who tried to farm that would earn every point of reward they can pull out of it, fair and square.

It's not a Farm if your first reaction is "OMG, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!"

[ QUOTE ]
It is okay and it is a good thing. Don't try to marry exploits/outliers to content that can be farmed in general they are not the same.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not. I never have. I've made the exact same distinction in regards to exploits many, many times. I'm not familiar enough with your usage of "outliers" to say either way.


[ QUOTE ]
In terms of the AV, EB, Boss and LT missions they do not fall into the expliot category nor the outlier category. Castle's all AV mission would be an example of this.

[/ QUOTE ]I've never claimed they did. I'm not sure anyone would call them actual "Farm Missions", either.


[ QUOTE ]
If your point is nobody should be making missions that can be farmed with MA, I would just say that crusade is a total waste of time. People are going to make missions that can be farmed with MA and they will farm them, period. None of those people are in ANY danger of being banned etc... anymore than your average BM or TV farmer.

[/ QUOTE ]My point was exactly what I said: "Farming with MArch content, even custom content, isn't prohibited. Building missions that are specifically optimized for Farming appears to be what's banned. (By which I mean 'designed to maximize the Rewards AND minimize the Effort'.)"

It appears, though, that we are, at least to some extent, actually in agreement on that, and I apologize if I gave the impression I thought you saying the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The Devs have to respond; with nerfs, tougher foes, or code that just plain slows you down

[/ QUOTE ]

Since MA, I've been using an increase in mob size spawn to create tougher foes through zerging in an enclosed area. The problem is, the old way of farming is still there - fill/pad, spawn a map, and solo. I used to do this because it was the only option to create larger spawns for smaller teams. MA has added that extra difficulty into the game for me without touching the other parts of the game for everyone else. I ran radio missions for the first time a few nights ago, and it was boring and insanely easy on invincible.

[ QUOTE ]

Farming affects everyone. I can't prove that, but you know it's true


[/ QUOTE ]
I see that thrown around alot like it's a bad thing. If it does affect everyone, it's in a positive manner.

[/ QUOTE ]Everyone's actions affect everyone else in the game, in some ways. Farming's effects run both ways. Some good, some bad.

[ QUOTE ]
Heh, I doubt if any rewards for custom criters are going up until months after the Devs feel absolutely sure they won't be farmed.

On the other hand, jacking up the rewards on a particular critter would be a great way to locate any farmers they wanted to get rid of...

[/ QUOTE ]On the third hand, leaving them as is would (and I know I'm going to get flamed for this) tend to discourage building Farm Missions full of nothing but Custom Bosses. Thus reducing the need to identify and punish individual offenders.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
COX style farming is here to stay and helps keep a lot of people renewing their subs each month.

Exploit/outlier farming is not good for the game, has been removed and is no longer an issue as of the patch that removed the exploits/outliers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has it, really? Stand in the AE building in Cap Au Diable on Virtue. The LFF and Farm LFM broadcast and local is still there, just not as bad as it was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those people are Boss and Lt farming.

[/ QUOTE ]Which is a Bad Thing? A Good Thing? Okay? Not Okay?

Farming with MArch content, even custom content, isn't prohibited. Building missions that are specifically optimized for Farming appears to be what's banned. (By which I mean "designed to maximize the Rewards AND minimize the Effort".)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Merits reduce the need to get IOs through the Market.

Tickets further reduce the need to get IOs through the Market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm I think the reasoning here was that IOs were "too" expensive for causal players so the devs added a method to acquire them that did not involve the market.

The problem is the devs don't seem to understand how their own game's various reward systems work together and so they therefore undermined the market by REPLACING incidental supply with player filtered supply INSTEAD of adding merits and tickets in addition to the old drop systems for TFs.

The problem with the market is supply - prices get cheaper and everyone is willing to use the market when supply is up. When supply is down or merely average, prices are higher and many want to avoid the market, thus further reducing supply.

[/ QUOTE ]
OMG, you're RIGHT!

TICKETS AND MERITS ARE A MARKET NERF!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But I shall STAND STRONG! I shall NOT succumb to the temptation!




fnord

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I beleive they really mean (since there is nothing in this game that requires farming to get) "I have to in order to get x as fast as the farmers do." After all, it's one thing to know you'll get to 50 some day. But when your little brother gets to 50 in ONE day, you're going to want to know how he did it, and you are probably going to want to do it yourself. And if the way to get 50 that fast is not fun, you just shortened your life expectancy in this game.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have often seen this said. But I have never seen anything to prove that it is so. It most often seems to be an article of faith "That there is nothing in the game that requires planning/optimization/special build to achieve"

[/ QUOTE ]Except she didn't say "there is nothing in the game that requires planning/optimization/special build to achieve".

She said "there is nothing in this game that requires farming to get". (Emphasis mine.)

[ QUOTE ]
There is something that you mentioned that seems a little off. What unusally high reward is being gained by those running the BM and TV farms? Can you give a "specific" example of a "current" farm that supports your statement of "unusally high rewards"?

It seems to me what you are referring too is "expliots" being farmed, not farms that are examples of exploits because there are none of those. If you know of any then you need to report them to the devs asap.

[/ QUOTE ](Sorry, I missed this when I was skimming to catch up.)

I only meant that they gave an unusually high ratio of Reward to Effort in comparison to other regular game content. They still must be within the Devs' "acceptable" range, or they'd have been nerfed before now.

I'm sure that if we could measure the average ratio of Reward to Effort for each item of in-game content, it would show a bell-curve distribution. I'm also sure all "Farms" are in the upper portion of the curve.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, per Posi, no one is being punished, but some players are having the levels they got super fast get taken away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do we have a single case of this actually happening to anyone? It appears to me players are still assuming this is going to occur, but every day that goes by increases the chance the devs are going to calm down and be more reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]I would be surprised if all the punishments for past offenses haven't already dropped. I'd also be surprised if anyone fessed up to losing an account, or even just levels, because they'd be identifying themselves as one of "the worst of the worst".

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL if they gave badges people would be farming for it.

[/ QUOTE ]THAT I cannot argue with!

[ QUOTE ]
They boot you.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it's your solo group!

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, you forgot to mention the Forum Cartel. No paranoid conspiracy theory is complete without mentioning the Forum Cartel. -10 points for you.

[/ QUOTE ]If I mentioned the Forum Cartel when I'm not Forum Cartel when I mention the Forum Cartel, the Forum Cartel would note that I mentioned the Forum Cartel when I'm not Forum Cartel and exact the punishment the Forum Cartel exacts for mentioning the Forum Cartel when you're not Forum Cartel when you mention the Forum Cartel.

Given:

The Devs hate Farmers.

PvP encourages the use of IOs.

The demand for IOs encourages Farming.

The availability of "unwanted" IOs on the Market from Farming further encourages the use of IOs.

Merits reduce the need to get IOs through the Market.

Tickets further reduce the need to get IOs through the Market.

Then:

MISSION ARCHITECT IS AN ATTEMPT TO NERF FARMING!!!!!!!!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, per Posi, no one is being punished, but some players are having the levels they got super fast get taken away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do we have a single case of this actually happening to anyone? It appears to me players are still assuming this is going to occur, but every day that goes by increases the chance the devs are going to calm down and be more reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]I would be surprised if all the punishments for past offenses haven't already dropped. I'd also be surprised if anyone fessed up to losing an account, or even just levels, because they'd be identifying themselves as one of "the worst of the worst".

[ QUOTE ]
Seems to me its like saying to your 16 year old daughter that she can't use the car, but then storing the car keys in her purse....set up to fail. Try taking a fresh, juicy, raw steak and placing it only a foot in front of your dog, tell him not to eat it, and then walk out of the room. Then be really, really pissed off at your dog and your daughter and act surprised when they disobey, take no responsibility for setting them up to do just what they ended up doing, and punish them severely (or at least threaten it). Seriously not handled well at all.

[/ QUOTE ]We are (hopefully) capable of a little more self-control than a dog.

We haven't been given the details, but, since the Devs invoked much more serious punishments than in the past, the violations must have also been much more serious than in the past. (Unless you truly believe the Devs were deliberately trying to trick people into violations?)

For example, if they were taking down exploitative arcs and the creators were putting them right back up again, and if they were also being told those arcs were prohibited, and the creators continued to put them right back up again, those people would have demonstrated that they had absolutely no interest in playing by the rules. In the real world, that kind of open defiance gets you removed from any real world game, why not this one? (That is, however, speculation. We don't know the exact details of what kind of behavior they felt warranted terminating accounts. Only "using exploits in their arcs" and being one of the "most egregious" abusers of the system.)

It's more like giving your teenager the keys to car, and telling them not to break any traffic laws, then finding out they went street-racing with it. For the tenth time.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not antifarming, per se.

I do beleive games should be designed to reduce the effects that farming has on an MMO.

Some people love farming and can farm all day without burning out and hating the game. I have no proof, but I beleive these people to be a minority.

Most people who farm, farm to get shinies faster, not because they enjoy the activity themselves. They find themselves repating an unpleasant activity over and over because, in the words of many farmers on these boards, "I have to in order to get x."

What I beleive they really mean (since there is nothing in this game that requires farming to get) "I have to in order to get x as fast as the farmers do." After all, it's one thing to know you'll get to 50 some day. But when your little brother gets to 50 in ONE day, you're going to want to know how he did it, and you are probably going to want to do it yourself. And if the way to get 50 that fast is not fun, you just shortened your life expectancy in this game.

That's bad for the game.

The Devs don't hate farming because of the effect on farmers; they hate it because of the effect it has on non-farmers who want to emulate the farmers and burn themselves out in the process.

Here is another example from this very game:

A guy joined this game during 'meow wars'. HThe friend who recruited him saw him gain over 20 levels in 3 hours. He then asked Guy if he was having fun.

Guy replied that the game was boring because the enemies were too easy.

They then took Guy into some tough missions, and had some rollicking skin-of-your-teeth encounters. Afterward, they asked Guy if he was having fun NOW.

Nope: the xp was too slow.

THAT is exactly the nightmare scenario of every MMO Dev everywhere. A player who CANNOT enjoy your game because of farming. THAT is what the Devs want to prevent.

Therefore, Farming, like every other form of min/maxing in any MMO, shoud give a small enough advantage that it is not devastatingly destructive to 'normal speed' content.

The Devs simply cannot create new content faster than players can consume it. The MA can, but only if it does not also make things worse itself, by accellerating those players to the speed of plaid.

[/ QUOTE ]I am in 100% agreement with this post. THIS is why I said more than a certain amount of farming would hurt the game.

I believe that certain amount that's "Too Much" is somewhere ABOVE the amount supported by the regular game Farms. I believe that if we were allowed to build Farm Missions in Mission Architect, then it would exceed that "Too Much", and end up hurting the overall game.

Too Much of ANY playstyle would hurt the game.

(PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT anti- ANY playstyle. I am anti- excess.)

[edited to remove nested quotes]

[ QUOTE ]
I see nothing wrong with how you or anyone else is playing the game, aside from the RMT'ers. Cheers.

[/ QUOTE ]Copy that. Welcome to the game!

My take (before I read anyone else's responses):

Farming: running content repeatedly for the Rewards (XP/Inf./Prestige/Drops/Etc.).

Farmer: one who Farms frequently or even exclusively.

Farm: any regular game content that Farmers run frequently, usually because it gives an unusually high level of Reward for the overall Effort involved in running it. It has not been created specifically for the purpose of being Farmed, and, while any content can be Farmed, only the content giving the highest Reward Levels is generally referred to as an actual Farm.

Farm Mission: any Mission Architect mission created to be Farmed. (I use this term to distinguish MArch Farms from regular content Farms. MArch Farms are actually designed to be Farmed. The regular content Farms are not designed with the intent of being Farmed.)



Farming hurts the game in some ways, and helps it in others. A certain amount of Farming won't hurt the game in the long run, but if it were allowed to increase beyond that level, it would drive non-Farmers away from the game, and make the game more Farm-oriented overall. The Devs feel that this would be bad for the game, and I agree with them.

If we were allowed to build Farm Missions in MArch, the overall level of Farming in the game would increase. Eventually, it would lead to the harm described above.

If they allow Farm Missions now, then later say "Okay, there's getting to be too much Farming, so we're going to remove all Farm Missions from the Mission Architect, and you're no longer allowed to build them", the resulting storm would make the one we just had look like a light drizzle.

Thus, "No building Farms in Mission Architect". If you want to Farm, use non-Farm MArch content, or use the regular in-game Farms already available.

[ QUOTE ]
The comm officers werent a bug. Except in the most insane of senses.

[/ QUOTE ]
And that's how the Devs use it. In what you call "the most insane of senses." As a farmer, you have enough experience with the game, and enough knowledge of the history of the game, to already know that. And to know that that's how the Devs enforce it.

You can disagree with that. That's fine. That's allowed.

But that's how the Devs use it. Those are the rules the Devs expect you to follow. If you choose not to follow them, fine. That's your choice, and you actually are free to play the game however you want to. But if you choose not to follow the rules, the Devs and/or Game Moderators have the option of applying ANY punishment they feel is appropriate. So if you get thumped because you didn't follow the rules, accept it and move on. If you can't do that, then either don't break the rules, or don't play.

[ QUOTE ]
The user agreement pretty much says what everyone of them does. The user has no recourse, the company can do whatever it wants, any portion of the above that is overriden by local and state laws in no way shall invalidate the rest of the document, the company reserves the right to have all adjudication in a friendly jurisdiction.

[/ QUOTE ]Frankly, I agree with you here. Nor do I think you even exaggerated it to any significant degree.

Regardless, it is still part of the rules of the game that you are expected to follow, and if you can't accept that, you shouldn't play.

Please note that I didn't say that you HAD to follow everything in it. Only that it is part of the rules, and if you choose to play in a way that violates it, then the Devs and/or Game Moderators have the option of applying ANY punishment they feel is appropriate.

Again, if you cannot accept that, you know what your options are.

Frankly, I think you're more than smart enough to be able to understand that if you take risks in your playstyle, well, occasionally you're going to get thumped. You may even lose something that you worked pretty hard to get. I also think you're mature enough to step back, cuss a little, and then shrug it off and go on.

[ QUOTE ]

What you are saying is that the devs make changes in the game because they are not WAI. If you use these not WAI parts of the game you are exploiting. The devs changed EM, thus it was not WAI. Every player that used EM prior to the change was an exploiter.

[/ QUOTE ]
NOT what I said, here or anywhere else.

Exploits are defined in the RoC as "bugs that grant the user unnatural or unintended benefits". Actual game history shows that, in this usage, the Devs apply the term "bug" to a wide range of things. That is why I hae frequently used the phrase "bug/glitch/loophole/quirk of the system/whatever that grants unnatural or unintended benefit", because it more accurately reflects the various things that the Devs have called exploits.

I also claimed that anyone who has played the game for a significant amount of time is able to make a pretty good guess as to whether or not something is likely to be considered an exploit by the devs. Anyone who claims to be a "good" farmer, and to have been farming for "a long time", is absolutely capable of recognizing that the Devs would call the Comm Officer farms exploits.

[ QUOTE ]
What he was saying is there is a difference between something that needs change and a code exploit. Comm officers giving too much xp was not a code exploit, it was an oversight by the devs that they knew about long before they changed it. A simple MOTD saying "dont do this or else" would have taken care of all the debate. Simple as that. It wouldnt be retroactive punishment, simple deal with those that ignored a popup that everyone logging in would have seen. End of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]You can define "exploit" as only a code exploit. But that is not how the Devs define it, as already shown.

The Comm Officers giving "too much" XP may have been an "oversight". Building Farms designed to take advantage of that "oversight" is still an exploit.

Although, unfortunately, Positron used the phrase "retroactive punishment", they actually aren't punishing anyone retroactively. To be retroactive, the punishments would have to be applied before the acts being punished occurred. That's not the case. Maybe he really meant something like "retroactive rules". In that case, the actions would have to have occurred before the rules were put in place. Since the rules against exploitative behavior were put in place when the game was released, that's also not the case. "Retroactive" was an unfortunate choice of words, but it actually just doesn't apply.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've played the game long enough to know the rules. You are smart enough to be able to follow them. Whether you will admit it or not, you know the Comm Officers were an exploit. Whether you will admit it or not, you also know whether you abused the system so badly that you are at risk of being banned for it.


[/ QUOTE ]

See castles definition of farming.

I don't even want to go into the lack of definition or guidance on exploits.

[/ QUOTE ]And how does EITHER of those statements relate to the quote? You just continue to make my arguments for me. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look there are no "rules"

You can't list them you can't point to them the developers can't even agree on them. Thats how it relates.

I'll even go further, if they actually start trying to enforce rules they haven't enumerated, in any great degree it won't be pretty for this game.

This game even after 5 years still has potential but its the same potential that has been untapped all this time.

[/ QUOTE ]
City of Heroes Rules of Conduct.

City of Heroes User Agreement, aka Terms of Agreement, aka End User License Agreement (EULA).

EVERY game has rules.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've played the game long enough to know the rules. You are smart enough to be able to follow them. Whether you will admit it or not, you know the Comm Officers were an exploit. Whether you will admit it or not, you also know whether you abused the system so badly that you are at risk of being banned for it.


[/ QUOTE ]

See castles definition of farming.

I don't even want to go into the lack of definition or guidance on exploits.

[/ QUOTE ]And how does EITHER of those statements relate to the quote? You just continue to make my arguments for me. Thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You thus have the knowledge and experience to recognize that the Comm Officer XP was more than "a bit high." And to recognize that the Comm Officer maps would be considered exploits.


[/ QUOTE ]

You see there is the whole of it. I didnt't play with MA in closed or open beta. As far as I could tell with the auto SK feature in place xp and ticket rewards for MA were and still are off the wall.

They keep bouncing aroud nonsense land.

P.S. The no range attack and the comm officers were brought to the devs attn in open beta and publicly on these boards. They chose to go forward with that as working as intended.

[/ QUOTE ]You know what? I don't really care anymore. You are picking and choosing only the bits that you WANT to respond to, and avoiding the rest. You have made it very clear, by your own actions, that you are not willing to stand behind your own words, and have a serious, rational discussion about them.

You've played the game long enough to know the rules. You are smart enough to be able to follow them. Whether you will admit it or not, you know the Comm Officers were an exploit. Whether you will admit it or not, you also know whether you abused the system so badly that you are at risk of being banned for it.

The Mission Architect is a new system, and it has a new rule, specifically for the Mission Architect: "Do not build Farms." You are smart enough and experienced enough to be able to follow that rule, if you want to.

If you don't want to, fine. It's your choice, play the game however you want to.

But if you (or anyone else) choose to play outside the rules, sooner or later, you WILL get thumped for it. When you do, don't moan and complain and whine about it. Don't claim you "didn't understand". Don't claim you "didn't know". Don't claim that because the Devs didn't make it so you COULDN'T break the rules, it's not your fault that you did.

You are the only one who decides whether or not you follow the rules. If you choose not to, you are the only one responsible for whether or not you get punished for it, because you are the one that chose not to. If you can't handle that, then Don't. Break. The Rules.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is just idiocy. I play this game to escape from responsibility not take on more.

[/ QUOTE ]
Cool. If you can't accept a reasonable amount of responsibility for your own actions, you have two options. Quit the game or play in terror. The devs aren't going to go over it pixel by pixel with you. Deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This IS what it boils down to really.

Put up or shut up. Either leave the game in a ragequit or just shut up and play nice and accept the rules as they have been presented. If they're not clear enough for you, then either play however you want and be prepared for the consequences of your illiteracy or simply leave the game. It's your choice. But you're NOT going to get your way and have the devs say "we're sorry, we think farming and powerleveling is great and we're just going to let everyone do whatever they want". It isn't going to happen. You can't win this fight. Deal with it.

[/ QUOTE ]Smurch, you are 1000% right.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. How about responding to the WHOLE post, rather than cherry picking one item? Are you trying to say that you had no idea at all that the Comm Officers were behaving in an unintended manner? What did you mean, then, by "out of whack"?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL you mean you don't just know what I meant ? By being out of whack. What I meant was that they were a bit high in the rewards and would probably be brought down. No big deal its something that has happened often.

2. Fast leveling leads to burnout is the mantra behind all these decisions. Without that you just have him being random and arbitrary.

[/ QUOTE ]I strongly disagree with you about #2. But that's not what I'm interested in.

You are a farmer. By your own words in other posts, you have been one for "a long time". And you consider yourself good at it. I have no problem with accepting that claim at face value, nor do I consider farming inherently "bad" or "evil".

But, because you have been farming for a long time, and you are good at, you have plenty of experience with what constitutes a "normal" level of experience gain, and with the highest levels of experience available in the regular game.

You also have plenty of knowledge about what sorts of things are considered exploits by the Devs.

You thus have the knowledge and experience to recognize that the Comm Officer XP was more than "a bit high." And to recognize that the Comm Officer maps would be considered exploits.

You also have the knowledge and experience to know that the use of exploits is prohibited, and has been since well before the MArch was released.

So explain to me how, because the Devs did not specifically TELL us not to use the Comm Officers that way, there was no way you could know that doing so was breaking the rules?


Edit: I realized that my final statement could be interpreted as saying that you used the Comm Officer exploit yourself, but I have no evidence of that.

Allow me to rephrase my final statement thus:

Explain to me how, because the Devs did not specifically TELL us not to use the Comm Officers that way, doing so was not breaking the rules?

Post deleted by Moderator 08