[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I find most of this thread highly amusing. If people put as much energy into just playing the game as they do into analyzing exactly how to get max exp per second, they'd probably be ahead by now.
It's really not rocket science. If you are on a team and want exp, stick together. If someone falls behind because they are too slow or afk, just don't worry about it. The exp they drain isn't going to be significent in the long run (unless they simply never participate, in which case you just boot them), and they lose more for being akf/slow than you do. It's simply NOT that big an issue.
I'm not really fond of the changes, but I'm less fond of the PLing that has become rampant, especially in PI. Abuse a system, it'll get fixed in a way you don't like and hurt everyone. We see this over and over and over in games like this, and yet people still persist in doing it, then whining when the inevitable hammer is lowered.
The system isn't perfect, but it's not even remotely close to the end of the world. Give it a try on test
before crying foul too much.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats right just get one of these for all your group mates http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ashdiagram.jpg
I put the image there but it does not work on the message board it looks to be busted i followed there code so you have to use the link 
Pinnacle
Langar Thurs-Katana/SR 50; Hejtmane-DM/DA 50
Rogue Spear-Spines/DA 50; Hypnosis-Ill/Rad 50
Sir Thomas Theroux-DM/SR 50; Melted Copper-Fire/Shield 50
Byzantine Warrior-DB/ELA 50;Blade Tempo-50 DB/EA
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, let me clarify the situation with Badges and Defeat tasks. As long as you or any of your teammates are within 200 ft. of the defeated mob, EVERYONE on the team gets credit. This is not a change in Issue 4; this is the way that it currently works.
[/ QUOTE ]
So a lowbie can sit in the safe area of a zone while everyone else goes out and does the hunting... as long as they have a defeat task (which is available on a fairly regular basis from contacts, even after they run out of door missions) so he gets the xp.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what he means. You don't get the XP, but you do get the kill credit. So if you have a kill 30 Council mish and someone on your team kills a Council 400' away, you still get credit towards mission completion, but you do NOT get XP. Similarly, a team member killing a Sorc 400' gets you closer to the Tracer badge, but doesn't give you XP.
And now onto my personal opinions
1) Please consider adding a trivial amount of damage to all debuffs and controls. It's a simple change that will effect gameplay in only 1 way, making sure defenders/controllers get shafted less often.
2) A better solution than the 1 minute death timer would be apprciated. I reiterate my suggestion that after a death you receive debt-relief XP only and that the XP be capped at 1/2 the "cost" of the death. No-one will profit from death XP and legit players will be much less likely to be harmed than with the death timer. (I don't know if that would be hard to code, though.)
3) Pure buffers are still a bit shafted here. I still don't have a better recommendation than the complex solution of being able to credit them for kills done by people they've buffed. Hopefully a good and simple solution for this will come up in discussion
4) Strongly consider making all Rez's/awakens full (or half) rez's to help battle the death timer. Consider also making more rez powes PBAE (like dark's) so healers don't have to choose which teammate gets XP as often.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a player is more than 300 ft. away (an increase of 100 ft.) from the mob when its defeated and did NO damage, he receives no XP.
[/ QUOTE ]What is the limit to how far an enemy can be targeted? In theory, Moonbeam could have a 416.5 ft range (175 ft base * 238% w/6 SO +3 range enhancements).
[/ QUOTE ]
I have in the past used the AR Snipe with an SO Range enhancement plus Build Up and Boost Range to shoot at targets on the edge of visibility (primarily snipers), where all I see is the targeting reticle. I have on several occasions, shooting at white and yellow targets, gotten the "You have defeated xxxx" message without receiving either experience points or influence for the victory.
"But in our enthusiasm, we could not resist a radical overhaul of the system, in which all of its major weaknesses have been exposed, analyzed, and replaced with new weaknesses."
-- Bruce Leverett, Register Allocation in Optimizing Compilers
no sir, i dont like this one bit.
Mahogany Jones - AR/Fire Blaster - Lvl 50
Just wanted to say that I think this is much better than the original proposal. The lengthening to 300' and the "not in a mission" rule definitely help.
I'm still of the opinion that the one minute timer is too short, though. Several people (myself included) have suggested a five minute timer, but I would even go for a three minute one. One minute just seems way too short.
And no, I didn't read the rest of the thread. Once people became more interested in insulting each other than discussing the topic at hand I lost my patience for it. I feel sorry for the poor devs that have to read every word of this thread. 
[ QUOTE ]
Demonac said:
Keep slogging Statesman. I'm hoping your infinite justice will rebalance Hasten next. Follow the numbers... see what percentage of level 40+ characters have it, have it six-slotted, and compare their DPS relative to the ones who don't have it...
... I think you can round up two or three who don't have it... just for a control group...
I want to see how close it comes to beating Stamina for the best power nomination.
[/ QUOTE ]
Calling for hasten nerf? die.
Want to end powerleveling just remove sidekicking problem solved. Why have sidekicking? if your not playing with people your level you're missing content!!! o my.. here come the content police.
I've made level 50 by soloing mostly a fire controller, pre 32 wasnt easy. Now with my alts, I do not want to play with out a travel power and thats my choice on how spend my 15$. If I buy a book do I have to read the previous page and be tested to unlock the next page, or can I skip ahead and ruin the ending for myself. If I subscribed to the book on a reoccuring basis, would the author want me to skip ahead? Of course not, they'd lose money. This powerleveling is all about bottom line profits, dont kid yourself thinking that its something else. Cryptic has to be a development constraint on how long it should take for every AT build to reach 50, it sadness me that everything is about money.
[ QUOTE ]
Well..it's much better than before..but STOP TRYING TO STOP POWERLEVELERS! umm..please Don't get me wrong this is much better..but nobody really cares about powerlevelers..
[/ QUOTE ]
I do. If there were a way to make it so that PL'ing was utterly impossible, I would be all in favor of such.
States,
This is a significant improvement over the original proposal. Thank you for listening to concerns expressed here on the boards and making improvements.
But why does it feel like we're always in negotiations with you? You propose this horrible change, then everyone goes nutty on the boards because the change is patently (obvious on its face) flawed. We point out the 16 reasons why it will never work, and... didn't these things ever occur to you?
I strongly suspect you have surrounded yourself with yesmen. The problems is the original 200 foot idea were obvious, and I'm sure at least some of your staff thought so, too. So were they afraid to tell you how and why your idea sucked? (Good thing we're not!)
I know of at least two other times when this has happened: the preposterous mutually exclusive IH/integegration proposal for I3 that was thankfully caught on time, and the (please for the love of god don't do it) currently offered regen changes. Just horrible changes that everyone affected looks at and immediately says, "these are horrible ideas for reasons X, Y, & Z."
Now please turn your reasonable compromise / listening skills over to the legitimate concerns expressed in the extremely long regen thread. There's a lot of good proposals over there for alternate changes mixed in with the trolling and mud slinging.
signed,
someone who's not afraid of being fired by Statesman for telling him when he's wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about the group holds that do no damage whatsoever.
[/ QUOTE ]
Currently - stay within 300 ft.
[/ QUOTE ]
As if he didn't think of that sollution. Gee, you're being so helpful to your community.
What about situations where, as a controller you run in and do your hold that causes no damage but does cause aggro. You don't have a tanker to taunt it off of you, but you do have teammates. You also have super speed, so you run as fast as you can to get away while your teammates pull the aggro off of you.
Or, the extremely common situation that happens to me on almost every team I've ever been on. What about those of us who have to stop playing for a few moments to do stuff in real life like make dinner, etc? In the new system you can't put yourself in a safe place and let your teammates hunt, because they will be getting a significant cut to the total XP unless they hunt in an extremely narrow range. What you'll now see is that any casual player on a pick-up team is going to get kicked off the team if they need to go do anything other than play.
And the power levelers are just going to pl in missions.
This change is nonsense. It does nothing but hurt the average player. It doesn't even inconvenience the plers anymore, since you're letting all XP happen in missions. What're you guys thinking?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm of the opinion that the whole effort in putting for th the measure is a waste of time in the first place. Be as stringent as you like, it's not going to stop Powerlevelers- a group of people who are:
A) A minority, and
B) Do not affect the game for the rest of us in any quanitifiable way.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm normally on your side, Skunk, but I need to say: none of us have the results of the developers queries and reports. We cannot datamine on levelling rates and teaming. Our only evidence is anecdotal -- we really can't quantify anything.
We can probably note trends -- I think it's safe to say that, oh, "more people interested in rapid powerlevelling are involved in instanced missions for herding" -- but we have no idea what percentage of people are doing parked-powerlevelling or how much they're blowing the progression curve.
I'm skeptical about the good this change will do, certainly. It's also quite possible that their queries aren't showing specific situations and are thus misleading. Without looking at them, though, I don't think we can make a call either way.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sok, one thing to remember... statistics are EXTREMELY Subjective. Its very easy to interperate them one way or another.
Remember the Boss XP/HP change? They thought that was a good idea too until it went live and no one could do squat at the higher levels in certain missions and the TV Trial...
This change is no different than that... its affecting regular game play without actually harming the power leveller.
w00t Radio
[ QUOTE ]
Or, the extremely common situation that happens to me on almost every team I've ever been on. What about those of us who have to stop playing for a few moments to do stuff in real life like make dinner, etc? In the new system you can't put yourself in a safe place and let your teammates hunt, because they will be getting a significant cut to the total XP unless they hunt in an extremely narrow range. What you'll now see is that any casual player on a pick-up team is going to get kicked off the team if they need to go do anything other than play.
[/ QUOTE ]
Another extremely good common situation that this will effect. Thanks for posting it.
w00t Radio
[ QUOTE ]
States,
This is a significant improvement over the original proposal. Thank you for listening to concerns expressed here on the boards and making improvements.
But why does it feel like we're always in negotiations with you? You propose this horrible change, then everyone goes nutty on the boards because the change is patently (obvious on its face) flawed. We point out the 16 reasons why it will never work, and... didn't these things ever occur to you?
I strongly suspect you have surrounded yourself with yesmen. The problems is the original 200 foot idea were obvious, and I'm sure at least some of your staff thought so, too. So were they afraid to tell you how and why your idea sucked? (Good thing we're not!)
I know of at least two other times when this has happened: the preposterous mutually exclusive IH/integegration proposal for I3 that was thankfully caught on time, and the (please for the love of god don't do it) currently offered regen changes. Just horrible changes that everyone affected looks at and immediately says, "these are horrible ideas for reasons X, Y, & Z."
Now please turn your reasonable compromise / listening skills over to the legitimate concerns expressed in the extremely long regen thread. There's a lot of good proposals over there for alternate changes mixed in with the trolling and mud slinging.
signed,
someone who's not afraid of being fired by Statesman for telling him when he's wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the defense of the Devs. Erring on the side of overcorrection is the PROPER datamining tactic, regardless of its "political" consequences (positive or negative).
Let's say that States decided "to curb this kind of PLing I am willing to take a 1% hit in average legit XP/H, in order to decrease PLing XP by at least 50%." So his hypothesis is that his implementaiton will take a big hurt out of the PLing XP without a big hurt on the non-PLing XP.
If he overcorrects and gets a 5% loss, then he knows he overcorrected. But the important part is that if he sees that at 5% loss in legit XP he gets only a 5% loss in PLing XP then he knows to trash the whole idea: he'll never even get close to his planned goal. he has disproved his hypothesis in a single test.
On the other hand, if he undercorrects and gets a .5% XP loss and a 5% PLing loss, he doesn't know that the idea is completely untenable. Perhaps the legit loss grows linearly and the PL loss grows exponentially.
By overcorrecting the first time he finds out the very first datamine if the problem he's trying to curb actually can be curbed using his technique. Then he can adjust it to see if the collateral damage can become low enough to make it worthwhile.
So it's not only for "negotiation" reasons that you begin such a plan erring on the side of overcorrection. Especially in a test environment.
You really need to add in credit for buffs and debuffs so toons that do no damage still get credit. Defenders are going to hate life if you dont.
It's nice to see the end of power leveling! No more lvl 30 toons asking how to find the cape mish.......lol
(H)Dark/Rad, Rad/Psi, Spine/Regen, Ice/EM, Psi/EM, Earth/FF,
(V)EM/NIN, Bots/FF, Fire/Rad,Fire/Fire, Earth/Fire, Grav/Energy
@Angus.Black
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about the group holds that do no damage whatsoever.
[/ QUOTE ]
Currently - stay within 300 ft.
[/ QUOTE ]
So if you slap a pair of zero-damage debuffs on an AV, the AV gets beaten down to 10% HP with your buffs running, then you catch aggro from the AV and get one-shotted, having done no actual damage to the AV, who runs away so that when the rest of your team catches up to them and defeats them, you're outside the 300 foot range, you get zero XP, even though your debuffs helped defeat the AV?
Perhaps you should change the condition for always getting XP for a team defeat to affecting a target, not simply damaging it.
"But in our enthusiasm, we could not resist a radical overhaul of the system, in which all of its major weaknesses have been exposed, analyzed, and replaced with new weaknesses."
-- Bruce Leverett, Register Allocation in Optimizing Compilers
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about the group holds that do no damage whatsoever.
[/ QUOTE ]
Currently - stay within 300 ft.
[/ QUOTE ]
So if you slap a pair of zero-damage debuffs on an AV, the AV gets beaten down to 10% HP with your buffs running, then you catch aggro from the AV and get one-shotted, having done no actual damage to the AV, who runs away so that when the rest of your team catches up to them and defeats them, you're outside the 300 foot range, you get zero XP, even though your debuffs helped defeat the AV?
Perhaps you should change the condition for always getting XP for a team defeat to affecting a target, not simply damaging it.
[/ QUOTE ]
That will be a mission so the 300' foot rule will not hurt you it is the 1minute timer on res you get screwed on
So basicly everything they done is this Defender/controller bad you need to only play Tanks/blaster and scrappers no one else needs to apply
Pinnacle
Langar Thurs-Katana/SR 50; Hejtmane-DM/DA 50
Rogue Spear-Spines/DA 50; Hypnosis-Ill/Rad 50
Sir Thomas Theroux-DM/SR 50; Melted Copper-Fire/Shield 50
Byzantine Warrior-DB/ELA 50;Blade Tempo-50 DB/EA
OK. I've read a few more posts, and have a better understandi8ng of whats going on.
Go for it States, sounds ok to me. If it doesn't work on test, you'll have time to tweak it.
Only one change. Give my characters (and my characters only) 1000 * the normal xp for each defeat. lol. I've been playing since May of 2004 and my highes level char is 25. (I only have limited playtime between work and family)
Ok this is better but still flawed IMO.
Now it's good to team when doing indoor missions or instanced missions but street missions (kill 50 Malta) should be done solo for most effective results. Pretty harsh if your a squishy *shrugs*
[ QUOTE ]
I like the suggestion that holds do 1 pt of damage. Or 0.01 pt. I don't care. As a scrapper and tank enthusiast, I like my targets still. The hold that stopped them is as valuable as my hit.
Make debuffs do 0.01 pt of damage per tick of time. See above.
[/ QUOTE ]
And every single sleep power in the game gets instantly nerfed. Right now, a Rad/Psi Defender can hit a target with Will Domination, put them to sleep, drop Radiation Infection and Enervating Field on them, and then they can take the time to fire off Psionic Lance. Make debuffs do damage, and the moment you set one on a sleeping target, they wake up.
"But in our enthusiasm, we could not resist a radical overhaul of the system, in which all of its major weaknesses have been exposed, analyzed, and replaced with new weaknesses."
-- Bruce Leverett, Register Allocation in Optimizing Compilers
Pilcrow,
I like your suggestions, but I have some concerns.
[ QUOTE ]
1) Please consider adding a trivial amount of damage to all debuffs and controls.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't this cause a problem with aggro? Even if a player were to throw a smoke grenade and do 1 damage to each villain, he/she has still basically just aggroed the whole mob.
[ QUOTE ]
2) A better solution than the 1 minute death timer would be apprciated. I reiterate my suggestion that after a death you receive debt-relief XP only and that the XP be capped at 1/2 the "cost" of the death.
[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, I agree with the "death exemp" proposal, though I don't really see a need for an XP cap. However, this is probably a major change to the code, so extending the death-timer to 5-minutes may be a good short-term solution, though it doesn't solve everything (see below). Maybe with Issue 5 we can see the "death exemp" option put into the game.
[ QUOTE ]
3) Pure buffers are still a bit shafted here.
[/ QUOTE ]
Only because of the death timer, correct? The "death exemp" solution would ultimately solve this problem, I think.
[ QUOTE ]
4) Strongly consider making all Rez's/awakens full (or half) rez's to help battle the death timer.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure how I feel about this. I think the disorientation effect would also have to be removed for this proposal to be implemented effectively. At that point you're pretty much drastically changing the function of the awaken insps -- might be necessary, but I would resist the urge to change awakens in favor of implementing the "death exemp" solution in Issue 5.
[ QUOTE ]
Consider also making more rez powers PBAE (like dark's) so healers don't have to choose which teammate gets XP as often.
[/ QUOTE ]
You bring up a good point in that teammate rez selection becomes more difficult for rezzers with the addition of the death timer. Again, the "death exemp" solution would be an answer to this.
NewScrapper
I wonder if we will start seeing messages about being too far away and not getting xp(like the instanly annoying SK messages).
If not then there sure need to be a way to know you are still in range of the team.
This change still sounds pretty horrible, I would hate to see it go live.
[ QUOTE ]
Sok, one thing to remember... statistics are EXTREMELY Subjective. Its very easy to interperate them one way or another.
[/ QUOTE ]
I definitely get that. I also know that I couldn't powerlevel my wife's toon like I did if this change goes into play (at least without making it more trouble than it would have been worth), so it definitely would affect that particular type of PLing. How many people engage in that vs. herding or the various other methods? Is it enough to affect the game?
[ QUOTE ]
Remember the Boss XP/HP change? They thought that was a good idea too until it went live and no one could do squat at the higher levels in certain missions and the TV Trial...
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep. They were addressing a definite issue -- the game gets too easy overall at higher levels -- with a fix. It turns out that fix caused more problems than it solved.
That's where I'm coming from: I can't say that this will have a widespread impact on XP Leeching or not. I think there's been lots of good reasons mentioned why this fix may cause more problems for people just playing the game... and quite possibly more problems than it's worth.
I think that arguments that "this won't affect powerlevelling" have no basis, since we don't know how many people are doing this particular type of powerlevelling. Arguments that "this won't stop powerlevelling" are true, but pointless -- this fix isn't intended to stop all forms of powerlevelling, just help prevent "stand in the store and leech" type.
Arguments that "this is going to damage team play a lot" are perfectly valid, IMO, and that's what people against this change need to show. How will this hurt your team play?
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't seem to be a minority to me... I get at least 1 "wanna bridge" tell each time I log on.
[/ QUOTE ]
Funny, in all the time it's taken me to reach level 44 I've received all of one genuine PL request. and one that might have been such a request, but I'm honestly not sure I could verify that. In any case, do wht I do, and not only with PL tells, but with the MAJORITY of chat related annoyances that have NOTHING to do with PLers at all: /ignore.
Really, if you think eliminating (if it were even possible to do so) this small cross section of the gaming populace is going to lessen your /tell related annoyances by any significant degree, then I'd have to say you're sadly deluded.
Idiots exist, in game as they do in life. They aren't confined to the ranks of Powerleveling players either. I you can't cope with this fact I'd strongly suggest not walking out your front door in the morning.
[ QUOTE ]
People said Kraken farming wasn't affecting the game in any way. Oh, look! Kraken farmers got the XP for the Sewer trial nerfed!
[/ QUOTE ]
Who pressed the nerf button on that one? Was it the Powerlevelers? No?
Well that's good to hear since it makes absolutely no sense to me why they'd shoot themselves in the foot like that. I do believe it was the Devs that pressed the nerf button.
It's been said by others, I'll repeat it here: Powerlevelers have NO apreciable effect on our gaming experience- however what DOES have a definite quantifiable effect on our gaming experience is ham-handed, futile, vindictive crusades by the developers to stamp out what really is a minor annoyance, if it can be called that at all.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm of the opinion that the whole effort in putting for th the measure is a waste of time in the first place. Be as stringent as you like, it's not going to stop Powerlevelers- a group of people who are:
A) A minority, and
B) Do not affect the game for the rest of us in any quanitifiable way.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm normally on your side, Skunk, but I need to say: none of us have the results of the developers queries and reports. We cannot datamine on levelling rates and teaming. Our only evidence is anecdotal -- we really can't quantify anything.
We can probably note trends -- I think it's safe to say that, oh, "more people interested in rapid powerlevelling are involved in instanced missions for herding" -- but we have no idea what percentage of people are doing parked-powerlevelling or how much they're blowing the progression curve.
I'm skeptical about the good this change will do, certainly. It's also quite possible that their queries aren't showing specific situations and are thus misleading. Without looking at them, though, I don't think we can make a call either way.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, certainly some of what I'm saying here is based on anecdote, conjecture and on hypothesis....
....then again, so is the very DEFINITION of the term "powerleveling".
Really, what is "leveling too fast"? And if you can't define it, in an equitable way that satisfies all parties involved, then how can you possibly expect to target it in a fair and equitable way?
Because to me, that's what this measure represents: a hasty attempt to zero in on a porton of the playerbase that cannot easily be defined in the first place.
Good response, all in all though, I understand what you're saying here. I just think that the whole issue is rather muddy to begin with, and not worth pursuing with the sort of fervor it's being pursued with in the first place.
And I'll stand by that.
[ QUOTE ]
Uhhh... Why are we even going through all this? I'm with the people who suggest tightening the level restrictions on xp now. Have characters beyond a 6 level difference that are not SK'd or Exemp'd get either minimal or even no xp. Problem solved. All this seems to be really overcomplicating the issue.
[/ QUOTE ]
They already get a "pittance" of xp.
Not my word. It was Positron's I swear, and this was months back.
Actually if you take a look at it, they get more or damn near the same xp if they are sk'd to the median level of the team and not to the lowest.
In the bridging scenario that is being used, the bridge is getting better xp relative to their level than the person being bridged because the sk brings the median down closer to them. That is why people beg to bridge now.
Sailor eX
"Not in the face!"
<sigh> Viv says its no longer "all me".
http://wendy-mags.mybrute.com/