Hello everyone,
I'm Phil "Synapse" Zeleski, a Game Designer here at NCsoft Norcal. I understand there are a lot of questions and some misunderstanding regarding the Merit Reward system. I hope to be able to clear up much of the confusion with this post. I've read every post in this thread and responded to as many as I could. I'd like to do some follow up Q&A afterwards for any remaining lingering questions you might have.
Before I answer your questions, I'd like to give you some information about the Merit Reward system. As most of you understand average (median) completion time is the primary metric we chose to use to determine the how many merits a task would grant. In fact, longer tasks give an additional 5% bonus to the number of merits they award for every 100 minutes of average time. Lastly, we use difficulty as a factor to round out numbers. So, some tasks get bonus merits because of their overall challenge. A good example of this is the Lord Recluse Strike Force. It normally would grant 18 merits due to its relatively short average completion time, however because of its difficulty it gets a +7 bonus granting a total of 25 merits!
Taskforces give an average of 1 merit every 5 minutes of average time (12 merits an hour), Trials give an average of 1 merit every 4.5 minutes (13-14 merits an hour), and Story Arcs give an average of 1 merit every 12.5 minutes (4-5 merits an hour). The reason for this major difference is due to the considerable time and effort Task/Strike Forces can take to set up and complete, so naturally these tasks grant a much greater reward.
Now, I'd like to answer some of your questions you asked:
Poster: EarthWyrm
Q: Is it intended that Flashbacks follow the 1 merit/5 minute benchmark for TFs? If not (most do not seem to, based on testing prior to 11/18), what is the benchmark meant to be?
A: Story Arcs run normally or through Ouroboros do not use the same 1 merit/5 minute benchmark. Story Arcs offer substantially less merits per hour than task forces.
Q: Why is the (non-unique) Steadfast Protection: Knockback Protection 125 merits to purchase, when all other non-unique Pool B recipes are 50 merits, including the Karma: Knockback Protection recipe?
A: This will actually be corrected in a future update. They will both sell for 75 merits each.
Poster: KeepDistance
Q: Would you consider removing items from the merit purchase system that already have direct-inf purchase availability through vendors? (Specifically, I mean SOs and common IO recipes.) If not, what do you see as the benefit to offering them through merits?
A: We understand that there are some players who prefer to not use the invention system at all, so wed like the Merit Reward system to mean something for these players too. Common IO recipes are there for players who dont like to worry about IO sets.
Poster: Mirai
Q: The merit system had been advertised as a way to purchase a wide variety of items, including certain costume parts and badges. That variety is not there. Are there plans to add these things in shortly, or has that strategy been scrapped?
A: The Merit system has a lot of room for growth and items like costume pieces and badges would be a great addition to this system. Well be looking at ways of expanding upon this system in the future.
Poster: Paradox1
Q: The Story Arc merit system seems to encourage us to solo non-TF missions, as running other people's story arcs earns 0 merits (unless we happen to have the same arc open). Is this really the way you want to encourage us to play the game?
A: While only offering Merits upon story arc completion to the owner of the story arc is consistent with our original reward system (only the mission owner earns the bonus story arc XP and gets to choose the SO enhancement) we understand that there is certainly room for improvement upon this. We will evaluate our options on how we can improve the rewards for party members along for the ride on a story arc.
Poster: IronTiger
Q: Why do pool D random recipes cost more than pool C random? The price for a specific pool D is the same to a Pool C in most cases.
A: The cost of pool D rewards are higher due to the significantly higher likelihood of getting the desired enhancement with a single roll. Taskforce reward tables have substantially more items on them than Trial reward tables.
Poster: macskull
Q: What is the intent and purpose of the merit system? Originally it seemed intended to be an alternate, additional, avenue for those who did not wish to use the market, or for a deterministic way to get a recipe you wanted. Now it seems like it's replacing the current system instead of adding onto it.
A: The basic intent for the Merit Reward system is to more accurately reward players for their time invested doing missions. Ultimately, what it came down to is that not all Task Forces and Strike Forces were created equal. Some take 30 minutes, some can take upwards of 10 hours. The fact that all of these Task Forces had been granting the same reward made us realize we needed to incorporate time into the reward equation. Thats essentially where Merits came in.
Poster: NotPutzing
Q: Have you considered reducing the merit timer slightly from 23 hours or even 20 hours? This would let people do thing at the same thing the next night at the same time. So, if someone wanted to run Friday and Saturday Hami raids at the same time, they wouldn't have to worry about finishing a few minutes earlier than they had the last night.
A: Were aware of the issue and why this would be important to players. Well be looking at this and well try and find a fair solution in the near future. Reducing the timer to 18-20 hours does not sound unreasonable.
Poster: Tempest_56
Q: How much a reduction are we going to see in future changes to merit awards, given that it's been shown that speed-runs of all the rewarding content can be (and will be) run? See: the 25 minute ITF. What failsafes are in place should the rewards for all available content drop to ridiculously low levels, thereby effectively locking out those of us who don't do TF speed runs four-plus times a day?
A: Were aware that there are Task Forces out there that can be completed far faster than they were intended. There will always be groups of players who will maximize their rewards for the amount of time they invest. Any increases or reductions to merits granted will only be done along with ample data supporting this decision. Let me give an example: Currently we show an average completion time of the Positrons taskforce of 235 minutes. If we saw this average completion time, not the fastest times mind you, drop to say 120 or 90 minutes, then wed look into how this is being done. What we could do mission side to fix this, and consider toning down merit rewards if necessary. On the up side, if we see a task that simply isnt giving enough rewards for the time required, well bump that up.
Poster: Beef_Cake
Q: Do you plan on granting merits to normal missions other than arc completion?
A: It is something were looking at, if we decide this is a good way to go well consider different ways of implementing this.
Q: Will you consider letting us increase our Merits awarded by using the Ouroboros Difficulty System?
A: This was a stretch goal for this feature, we hope to have mission difficulty and Ouroboros challenge settings impact the number of rewards players receive for completing these tasks added in future updates.
Q: Wouldn't the casual players running task forces essentially be punished, if and when the data mining shows that the reward should be lowered due to Speed Runners and Farmers?
A: Were going to have a very good reason for decreasing the rewards for a task. Well periodically be doing data mining to check on average completion times. Well consider options with making changes to Task Forces before making changes to the merits awarded, and only do so if we see a substantial decrease in average completion time.
Poster: OfficerZap
Q: Are there any major, easy, exploits that would mean awarding merits to all team members upon completion would not be possible? If not, could you please explain the reasoning for the limitation, and also the impact you think this may/may not have on group vs solo play?
A: The reasoning behind not initially having group members, that are not the mission owner, receiving Merit Rewards is that the original reward system didnt give mission helpers rewards either. However, we understand how some players might perceive this as a penalty for not being the mission owner and we will consider our options on how to best address this issue.
Q: Is it possible to, if not at launch, add purple recipes to the list at a suitable price? If not, could you explain the concept behind excluding these from the list?
A: Its technically possible, yes. However, purple recipes would be so expensive Merit wise due to the statistical likelihood of one dropping that we decided to omit them from the items on the list at this time. That isnt to say we wont ever add them to it in the future.
Poster: Snow_Globe
Q: Would the developers be willing to not only decrease merit drops based on time, but actually increase merit drops? Would there be a commitment to review times on a regular basis?
A: Any decision to increase or decrease merits rewarded for completing tasks will only be done after careful consideration, gathering ample data and reviewing all of our options. Its our goal to periodically data mine task completion times to make sure tasks arent grossly over or under rewarding our players.
Poster: MadScientist
Q: Pool C and D are no longer dropped anywhere in-game. To my knowledge, those will be the only items purchased from stores that never drop in the wild. My question is: What are your goals in making that design move? What do you expect that unique situation to achieve?
A: In the past, completing a Task Force gave you the option to choose a random IO recipe. This rolled on a reward table. All weve done is remove where you roll on the reward table. Instead of it being upon completion of a Task Force, now its purchased from a vendor.
One of the benefits of doing it this way actually gives the players the option to choose rewards from a large amount of task force level ranges instead of whatever one the Task Force would normally use. So, you can spend your 20 merits to roll on random roll from a variety of level ranges (10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-45 or 46-50.)
Q: Do you still plan to go back and revise some of the older, less-popular, grindy-er TFs? (such as Positron, Synapse) Or do you now feel that all TFs will stay as they are and use higher Merit rewards to balance content that's longer or more difficult than players normally would go for?
A: One of the factors well be looking at when considering making changes to the number of merits a task gives out is the mission itself. The Merit Reward system is going to be going through on going improvements over time, this might mean revamping missions in the future if we feel that is necessary.
Poster: Kitsune9tails
Q: What is the intended relationship between the Merit system and the markets?
A: The Merit system gives players who dont like to fiddle with the markets the chance to buy that IO enhancement theyve always wanted but havent been able to afford with influence/infamy. It also gives players a way to have greater control over supply and demand on specific items by allowing players to buy that incredibly overpriced recipe listed on the Auction House, thus decreasing the demand for the item on the auction house.
Poster: EvilGeko
Q: Will you state right here, right now, that you will not further nerf rewards on content that the playerbase learns to do quicker?
A: We cant do that. However, we can state right here and now that we wont take such decisions lightly. Were going to only decrease rewards on a task if we dont have the option of immediately making adjustments to a Task Force and we find that the majority of players are running the Task Force at a significantly reduced average time than before.
Q: Why not fix Katie and Eden instead of taking away their rewards?
A: We dont always have time between issues to make changes like this. Keep in mind that this is just the first step for the Merit Reward system and is going to be an on going task to make sure Task Forces are where we want them as far as completion time.
Poster: _Synchotron_
Q: Why are merits untradable/unsellable? All the rewards they're replacing had no such restrictions, why these? If they have to be untradable/unsellable, why aren't they account-based, rather than character-based? If you run more than a couple characters at a time, this will fragment your merit pools and dramatically reduce the value of the merits you earn. If its a reward for time played, why should the particular hero I play matter?
A: Merits were designed to represent an individual characters accomplishments and time invested doing missions. Thus, untradeable and unsellable.
Poster: Lemur_Lad
Q: Will villains get more villain only options for earning chunks of merits to balance out the larger number of hero trials and TFs?
A: We will be monitoring this. We want to make sure that a villain doing missions from 1 to 50 will be earning roughly the same amount of merits a hero can earn. If we find a serious imbalance between heroes and villains in the number of earnable merits, well look at ways of improving this.
Poster: TheWeaver
Q: What impact are you expecting the merit system to have on those of us who (for one reason or another) tend not to run TF/SF's?
A: The intention of the system was to also give players who dont tend to run Task Forces and Strike Forces the chance at earning the same high end rewards as players normally running Task Forces, however at a diminished rate. This gives player an opportunity to earn rewards they normally would not have had access to outside of the Black Market/Wentworths.
Poster: Healing_Phoenix
Q: Why is it that the Villain side SF payout is way less than Hero side TF payout? I feel that as a villain I'm being punished.
A: On average Villain Strike Forces take significantly less time to complete when compared to Hero Task Forces. Since time is the major factor when determining the number of Merits a task gives upon completion Villains on average receive less Merits per task, but roughly the same Merits per hour.
Poster: Zombie_Man
Q: Why were Merits not put in Pool A or B drops so that the rule of 1 Merit for every 5 minutes could be normalized to actual play rather than racing toward the end of a multi-part task bypassing content?
A: The 1 merit for every 5 minute rule is for Task Forces and Strike Forces, not for Story Arcs. Story Arcs award players with roughly 4-6 merits per hour (of average completion time) instead of the 12 merits per hour (of average completion time) that Task Forces give. We will be evaluating options of putting merits through alternate means for the future.
I'd like to conclude this first Merit Rewards System Q&A by repeating that the existing Merit Reward System is by no means the final version you'll ever see of it. Just like every system we've implemented into City of Heroes, we're always looking at ways of improving them and making them more fun for a larger group of players.
Thanks for reading,
Synapse
Welcome.
<QR>
I'd still like to know how you think this will impact how teams approach running the content in general, specifically the TF content. In the past, Positron has stated that it was one of the goals to not see players "ghosting" through content and not engaging the enemies in the mission.
It seems that there is no way around the fact that in an effort to maximize rewards, players will feel pressured to complete the missions faster, which can only be done by finding places where you can skip content.
Regardless of actual completion times, is it not also reasonable to view players time as "sessions", whereby although a villain SF might be faster on average, there is no more chance of a Villain doing 2 SF's on a during a given play session than a Hero who just happens to have 1 longer TF to complete.
Also, why are Random drops given at the highest level avaiable for the Recipe if you are a Level 50, for example, but you are able to choose the specific level if you buy the predetermined option? Doesn't this further imbalance the value of a Random drop versus it's predetermined counterpart?
While my impression of the Merit system remains almost entirely negative, you are to be commended for taking the time to lay this out for us. Thanks.
Awesome, thank you for taking the time to answer these questions Synapse!
Some answers were a little vague, but I get what you are saying 
[B]Leading Badge Holder in the City of Community[/B]
Owner & Operator of...
[URL="http://www.vidiotmaps.com/"]Vidiotmaps.com[/URL] & [URL="http://www.badge-hunter.com/"]Badge-Hunter.com[/URL]
[URL="http://net-warrior.mybrute.com/"][B][SIZE=3][COLOR=darkorange]Challenge My Brute[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/URL]
Thanks for your attention on answering us.
Some of the answers were nice news. Some were bad news. I will have to sleep over on these to see if I can resist the instinct to cry dooOOOoom.... (naaa... I actually will never do that! I believe in the devs good will for the game)
** Guardian�s Crazy Catgirl **
************* 22 XxX 10 *************
Yes. I can get lost on a straight-line map.
Hey folks,
Synapse is still fielding questions and/or rounding out on ones already posted. Due to his new status to the boards we will be filtering these out in bunches, mainly because we don't want him to get caught in the wiles of the forums.
There is still much to be done for Issue 13 and beyond so please be patient in your attempts to get responses.
If a question has been touched on but you are seeking more information please quote the question, and then follow up with your additional comments or questions.
This will help Synapse in the parsing and follow up.
Also please be kind, we have many members of our team that we would like to bring out to meet our Community but we are also very protective of them and want them to see the best that our Community has to offer.
Thanks,
Ex
wow. quite an attempt there to answer every question. Normally these Q+As hit a handful (especially a safe handfull) and call it a day. I'm impressed with the level of communication - keep it up!
First and foremost welcome to the forums
I was excited when the Merit system was first announced. After testing it and reading feedback, it's extremely restricting. IMO it should not of replaced random rolls, this system should have been something to add.
I have several alts both red and blue side. I trade salvage and recipes between them as do most players. Now in order to maximize the system I can only bring one hero and one villain as my merit earner. Jumping between toons to earn merits would be the least profitable angle. Understandable merits should that be traded, I don't disagree with that part of the system.
I ask to re-add random rolls to TF/SF, a merit only reward system kills altitus. The random recipe reward at the vendor is great for people who run arcs but have no time for TF's. It gives them access to recipe they otherwise would not have been able to get. The i13 merit system hurts people like me who runs several TFs a day.
In short I love this game, I'm not looking for reason to not play because my toons cannot earn what they used to earn.
I for one welcome more feedback.
Infinity and Victory mostly
dUmb, etc.
lolz PvP anymore, Market PvP for fun and profit
First off, thank you for taking the time to answer some of our concerns about this. One of your answers was actually linked to a question I asked in the original thread, although the reply was to a different post:[ QUOTE ]
Poster: EvilGeko
Q: Will you state right here, right now, that you will not further nerf rewards on content that the playerbase learns to do quicker?
A: We cant do that. However, we can state right here and now that we wont take such decisions lightly. Were going to only decrease rewards on a task if we dont have the option of immediately making adjustments to a Task Force and we find that the majority of players are running the Task Force at a significantly reduced average time than before.
[/ QUOTE ]
My concern is how you determine the majority of players are running at a significantly reduced time, as opposed to the same group of players running the TF or SF more often at reduced times, which causes the majority of runs to have a significantly reduced time.
Because this seems to be gearing the system towards the speed runners, and leaving the "average" player who doesn't stealth the objectives with reduced rewards. This is already shown in the time estimate from the Virgil Tarikoss SF and Eden Trial - an 8-person team fighting their way through each mission will not take an average of 50 or 10 minutes to complete these, so obviously the rewards are geared towards the multiple runs of a smaller group of people.
I'm also concerned about the cost of several of the rewards and pricing of them. Do you honestly want to say that defeating 20 AVs isn't even worth one single origin enhancement, through two runs at least 24 hours apart of the Katie Hannon TF? Also, a couple of developers that aren't on the rewards team have stated that they had slightly lower estimates for how much effort should go into a random recipe roll, both listing times of around 60-75 minutes. This would put the cost of a random roll at 12-15 merits, which is honestly where I see the average completion time settling into once speed runs are done more frequently on the higher-value TFs.
I'm still wondering how failed attempts are accounted for in the average as well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
it has gone from unconscionable to downright appalling that we have no way of measuring our characters' wetness.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brillig
It's hard to beat the entertainment value of Whackjob Wednesdays.
|
Sure EX!
What we really need is a very nice contact between Devs and us. And a chance to give cookies to everyone! Bring us new reddies, and we will protect then from the trolls (or die trying!)!
And Synapse... Dont worry... We will love you too! (not as much as we love BAB´s... nobody can reach that level!)
Take your time, answer us with all your loving care! And eat some cookies too (Noire makes then!).
*gives the reddies a plate of cookies*
** Guardian�s Crazy Catgirl **
************* 22 XxX 10 *************
Yes. I can get lost on a straight-line map.
I'm still uncomfortable with the mean being used. Speed runners, by their nature, will complete the task more often, pushing their representation in that mean up very high.
It's like a hypothetical population that has half of the group being very short and the other half being very tall. If you count them all as individuals, the mean will split the difference between the average of the short peoples' heights and the average of the tall peoples' heights. Now imagine a quirk in the data gathering that had the short ones getting back in line to be counted again many more times than the tall ones. That would skew the mean far closer to the short peoples' average height.
Would you consider, if the data clumps into separate modes, taking the mean of the short time as a minimum bound, then taking the mean for the farther out clump for the maximum bound, and finally awarding 1 merit per every 5 minutes between those 2 bounds? Just a thought on how to accomodate a greater variety of the playerbase in the 5 minute formula.
"I wish my life was a non-stop Hollywood movie show,
A fantasy world of celluloid villains and heroes."
Thank you for taking time to address some of the issues that may have been perceived with the merit system.
I typically team with two or three people and we try to run one arc per person so that each team member can have available contacts to buy inspirations. The current implementation will significantly cut down on the earnable merits for each team member. I would sincerely like the Development team to consider adding in a smaller merit bonus for finishing a teammates arc. I am fine with not getting the arc XP or Influence bonus, but a small token of "gratitude" shall we say, would make it much easier to keep pace with the rate that we could earn merits at individually. I feel that without some method of enabling all players to earn merits equally you put teaming into the category of "Why should I?" The only bonus for teaming would be the XP and to me honestly I really don't care how long it takes me to level a character. I'd rather have the rewards that I get along the way whether the rewards are merits, IO's, badges, or something else.
Thanks for your consideration.
Tech Support Rule #1 - They will lie to you. Usually intentionally.
[ QUOTE ]
First off, thank you for taking the time to answer some of our concerns about this. One of your answers was actually linked to a question I asked in the original thread, although the reply was to a different post:[ QUOTE ]
Poster: EvilGeko
Q: Will you state right here, right now, that you will not further nerf rewards on content that the playerbase learns to do quicker?
A: We cant do that. However, we can state right here and now that we wont take such decisions lightly. Were going to only decrease rewards on a task if we dont have the option of immediately making adjustments to a Task Force and we find that the majority of players are running the Task Force at a significantly reduced average time than before.
[/ QUOTE ]
My concern is how you determine the majority of players are running at a significantly reduced time, as opposed to the same group of players running the TF or SF more often at reduced times, which causes the majority of runs to have a significantly reduced time.
Because this seems to be gearing the system towards the speed runners, and leaving the "average" player who doesn't stealth the objectives with reduced rewards. This is already shown in the time estimate from the Virgil Tarikoss SF and Eden Trial - an 8-person team fighting their way through each mission will not take an average of 50 or 10 minutes to complete these, so obviously the rewards are geared towards the multiple runs of a smaller group of people.
I'm also concerned about the cost of several of the rewards and pricing of them. Do you honestly want to say that defeating 20 AVs isn't even worth one single origin enhancement, through two runs at least 24 hours apart of the Katie Hannon TF? Also, a couple of developers that aren't on the rewards team have stated that they had slightly lower estimates for how much effort should go into a random recipe roll, both listing times of around 60-75 minutes. This would put the cost of a random roll at 12-15 merits, which is honestly where I see the average completion time settling into once speed runs are done more frequently on the higher-value TFs.
I'm still wondering how failed attempts are accounted for in the average as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Welcome, Synapse.
The above states a concern of mine very well, as well.
Say - to be ridiculous about it - someone finds a way to run a "Speed Quarterfield." Ok, stop laughing. They finish it in, say, 1 hour. 80 (from memory, not looking it up ATM) merits.
He gets a group together. Every day, they run a SpeedQ. Others find out. Soon there's an average of two Quarterfields an hour being completed. It's the same, say, three groups of players, just switching characters. The normal player, who rarely touches it, finally decides to run one, taking six to eight hours over two or three days. Their "average" is pretty much lost in the data, I'd think.
To counteract this, why not - while in a Task Force - award a merit to everyone in the group for, say, every 250-300 enemies defeated? That way, when "SpeedQ" is inevitably nerfed because "it can be done in an average of an hour and a half," those who slog through are getting more of a reward, instead of being *dis*couraged to use their time on this TF? Sure, the speedsters (no offense ) might get more merits in the end - but for each run, the "regular" players are getting more per TF.
QR
That looks like a good half-day's work (being conservative) pulling together those answers. Thank you for the effort. I know that my major concern - the potential for reward reduction over time - is one that you addressed pretty well, without painting yourself into a corner.
Nicely done, and welcome.
My postings to this forum are not to be used as data in any research study without my express written consent.
Welcome to the City of Heroes, Synapse! 
Playstation 3 - XBox 360 - Wii - PSP
Remember kids, crack is whack!
Samuel_Tow: Your avatar is... I think I like it
First I want to welcome the person representing the Hero that assigns my absolute favorite Task Force* in the whole game. Some may call me crazy, but I absolutely love, LOVE, LOVE, [u] LOVE! [u] the Clockwork , they are like little metal kitties, so damn cute! I just want to reach into the screen pick up a Gear or an Oscillator and snuggle him!
Anyway, Welcome Synapse!
My comments about the merit reward system are this...
1) I absolutely love Memphis_Bill's suggestion. Though I would like to see it (for task forces only) to be around 200-250 defeats, rather than his number; in addition to a small bonus upon completion (say 5-10 merits).
2) Someone suggested having merits drop at 0.5% chance at all times, thus adding to the possibility of a random "treat", while just doing every day stuff (hunt missions, safeguards, etc). However, I think that post got nuked, or edited... I however think that is a great suggestion; do you guys have any plans on doing something like this?
3) Giant Monsters: Its very annoying to get a group of people to take out certain GM's (Lusca i.e.). Are there any plans for doling out a MINIMUM amount of merits for defeating a GM, something pleasant, yet small enough to not encourage farming (I am not including the general Monster Isle DE monsters in this suggestion,). My suggestion would be 5ish, maybe 7 for Lusca.
Thanks for your clear and concise responses that you have already provided, and welcome!
*Synapse = Favorite TF
Eden=Favorite Trial
LRSF = Personal Favorite SF
Yay someone else with a ski name!!!
No one goes there anymore, it's too crowded...
"The potato goes in the FRONT."
Yeah, I'd echo the concern about a majority of 'fast TFs' being run by the same groups of players repeatedly and often, rather than by everyone and at the same intervals. This is especially true because average players who are likely to generate average times will play less, and do taskforces much less often, than 'powergamer' type players.
Ie, if average people do perhaps one regular-speed TF X per week, a farmer or power-gamer who does three 'fast' TF Xes per day, everyday (by alternating characters), will generate twenty fast "time samples" to the average person's one normal time sample. How will this be dealt with and accounted for, especially in a manner that will be fair to average players and in light of the fact that the optimal-reward oriented TF players will simply move on to the next piece of optimal content if their current content is made unoptimal?
At what point, basically, will 'adjustments' based on relatively small numbers of people running the content quickly, stop?
Additionally - villains need more SFs. Really, I expect it's going to be ridiculous how much easier getting merits will be for heroes as compared to villains.
"Experience is the mother of good judgement. Bad judgement is the father of experience."
[ QUOTE ]
3) Giant Monsters: Its very annoying to get a group of people to take out certain GM's (Lusca i.e.). Are there any plans for doling out a MINIMUM amount of merits for defeating a GM, something pleasant, yet small enough to not encourage farming (I am not including the general Monster Isle DE monsters in this suggestion,). My suggestion would be 5ish, maybe 7 for Lusca.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not a redname, but maybe I can take a shot at this one for you.
The merit system already has a reward for fighting GMs (note that this is only Giant Monsters, not the Monster DE) of 2 merits for anyone that would qualify for the badge.
This is posted in the Meritorious Measurement thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
it has gone from unconscionable to downright appalling that we have no way of measuring our characters' wetness.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brillig
It's hard to beat the entertainment value of Whackjob Wednesdays.
|
[ QUOTE ]
I'm also concerned about the cost of several of the rewards and pricing of them. Do you honestly want to say that defeating 20 AVs isn't even worth one single origin enhancement, through two runs at least 24 hours apart of the Katie Hannon TF? Also, a couple of developers that aren't on the rewards team have stated that they had slightly lower estimates for how much effort should go into a random recipe roll, both listing times of around 60-75 minutes. This would put the cost of a random roll at 12-15 merits, which is honestly where I see the average completion time settling into once speed runs are done more frequently on the higher-value.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is also my primary concern. If I run a TF now, does not matter which one, I can always choose an Enhancement at the end rather than a random drop. If the typical or even speed TF won't drop enough Merits to purchase even a common IO I'm going to feel slighted somewhere. I can understand that the Devs don't want this to become open season on the rarest recipes but for those of use who do not always goob to the last decimal point some reward should be in order.
[ QUOTE ]
To counteract this, why not - while in a Task Force - award a merit to everyone in the group for, say, every 250-300 enemies defeated? That way, when "SpeedQ" is inevitably nerfed because "it can be done in an average of an hour and a half," those who slog through are getting more of a reward, instead of being *dis*couraged to use their time on this TF? Sure, the speedsters (no offense ) might get more merits in the end - but for each run, the "regular" players are getting more per TF.
[/ QUOTE ]
I REALLY like this idea though not sure about the number of defeats per Merit. If the Devs want to reward players who are willing to play the content and slog through ALL of the bad guys in every TF then merits awarded by defeats is the way to go IMHO. The 'speed freaks' can play more TF/SFs a day and get more reward for the completion but normal players can enjoy almost the same amount of reward over the same period of time because they dig through all of the baddies.
I can't see the coding being tough either...the counter that tracks defeats for Badges already does this.
"Comics, you're not a Mastermind...you're an Overlord!"
[ QUOTE ]
Before I answer your questions, I'd like to give you some information about the Merit Reward system. As most of you understand average (median) completion time is the primary metric we chose to use to determine the how many merits a task would grant.
[/ QUOTE ]
Part of the issue here is that the casual side of the playerbase who doesn't do the eden trial in 10 minutes get majorly shafted by this methodology.
Using the median means that effectively you are probably ignoring the time taken by 90%+ of the players that do some of these trials/TFs because the other 10% or less run them 50-100 times as often.
Some sort of middle ground is needed here. I like the eden trial, it used to take me an hour and a half or so (I'd usually be playing with people who wanted XP and fun, not just a quick TF drop), similar to lots of other TFs. Post I13, why bother, it's not so much fun that it's worth spending that time for 2 merits instead of 25. Previously it was the same random recipe.
It's true. This game is NOT rocket surgery. - BillZBubba
QR
I've very thankful for the feedback, but I still feel that the devs have still danced around the market effects of this decision. Further, they've made it clear that they will nerf rewards based on players getting better at content.
That's very disheartening. I'll wait and see how it turns out.
But I'm going to ask again:
What about the market? Do you care about the players who enjoy that aspect of the game? Do you have any plans for how to address the supply issues in the market that this system will cause for Pool C and D drops?
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Hey all,
I have been reading the thread that Ex set up with all your questions about the Merit system, why we are doing what we did and what our future plans for it are.
Phil "Synapse" Zeleski is the guy with all the answers. He and I have gone over your questions and he speaks for the entire design team on this subject.
With that said, take it away Synapse...
Positron
Follow me on Twitter