Allow a solo player to spawn larger mob sizes.
By
300_below,
Posted on: 2009-04-15 09:22 in Suggestions and Ideas
Scooped.
I imagine soon enough Bill or someone else will cruise through stating that the search function is an important tool (and it is).
yeah. should have searched first.
But seeing as there are 123123123232 threads complaining about the "new" (LOL, really) farm spam I don't think the mods will mind TWO threads making this suggestion.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
This was a bad idea the first time it was posted.
This was a bad idea the last time it was posted.
This is still a bad idea.
It will continue to be a bad idea.
Farming throws off the market. It exploits a very small amount of content with low risk/high reward ratio. It annoys people who don't farm or dislike the idea of it when they get tells asking to farm or pad or bridge.
Farming is not suggested by the Devs. Farming is not a well liked practice and, for that reason, the Devs have consistently altered the way things are handled to -avoid- farming.
Asking the Devs to put something in the game solely for the purpose of farming when they have time and again shown that they don't condone the act is a waste of time. I'll be bookmarking this response to copy-paste to all further farming threads.
-Rachel-
[ QUOTE ]
This was a bad idea the first time it was posted.
This was a bad idea the last time it was posted.
This is still a bad idea.
It will continue to be a bad idea.
Farming throws off the market. It exploits a very small amount of content with low risk/high reward ratio. It annoys people who don't farm or dislike the idea of it when they get tells asking to farm or pad or bridge.
Farming is not suggested by the Devs. Farming is not a well liked practice and, for that reason, the Devs have consistently altered the way things are handled to -avoid- farming.
Asking the Devs to put something in the game solely for the purpose of farming when they have time and again shown that they don't condone the act is a waste of time. I'll be bookmarking this response to copy-paste to all further farming threads.
-Rachel-
[/ QUOTE ]
This idea would would eliminate the 2nd line of your first paragraph. In fact that devs could then make it a bannable offense to send filler or bridge spam if this were in place.
As was stated this would not only be used for farming. It could be used to provide challenge to those who no longer find the pve game interesting or challenging--an argument made by many a pvper.
EDIT: And many of the items on the market are produced by farmers. Specifically purples.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
What happens if a team enters a mission with the new difficulties or are they limited to solo play only?
And whether or not they make claims in the public atmosphere about their views and stances on farming, they've already given the players plenty of tools to farm even better.
As far as messing with the market, I think farming helps the market in more cases than not at all.
[ QUOTE ]
It annoys people who don't farm or dislike the idea of it when they get tells asking to farm or pad or bridge.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the entire point. This would reduce the need to have to broadcast or ask people to farm, pad, or bridge.
They've also made TFs once per day events. Can't get the same reward twice in a day.
They've also been asked in interviews how they'll stop exploiters (which is what farmers are) from gaining max reward at minimum risk.
You can no longer spawn snake eggs in MA arcs.
You can no longer spawn Vampyri Generators in MA Arcs.
You get no salvage or recipe drops from MA arcs.
All custom MA enemies must now have at least 1 attack based set.
All of these things were put in place to AVOID farming of 'easy' content with high rewards.
The Devs are against Farming.
The market does not get 'better' because of Farming. It gets new items, yes, but it also gets millions more influence and infamy, which cause further inflation even though the supply of the pieces in demand are higher.
This is still a bad idea.
-Rachel-
Snake eggs and generators I agree needed to be nerfed for rewards, the same went for portals and portal spawns.
However, for the rest of it?
TFs/SFs are optional.
Use of the market is optional.
Using recipes and salvage is optional.
I'm still irked about the lack of salvage/recipe drops in non Dev Choice MA missions, but they compensated with the tickets, which are very farmable.
They've created several currencies to spread the content and try to reduce farming.
Despite their efforts, farming still exists.
Despite their efforts, farming is still prevalent.
The market works with in the virtual bounds of economic theory. It's like blind supply and demand in an auctioneer-style setting.
Farmers increase supply at a much higher ratio than players that don't farm. Supply means there is a demand in the first place, for things like salvage and recipes. Because not all of the player base uses the market/recipes/salvage, some one has to pick up the slack.
Inflation? Its natural in any market, especially one as confused and controlled as ours. Prior to i13, the only people who needed invention salvage were those players who used IOs. After i13, the change in base salvage destroyed one market that had low prices due to the singular nature of base salvage.
However, the base builders were merged with the IO inventors, competing for the same salvage. Recipes changed too. The creation of merits and removal a RNG reward was a boon, but had some opposition. No longer were all TFs valued alike, instead their values were increased based on the cost of rolls for random recipes. But also, with the introduction of a new currency, players would begin to save up for the specific IOs they wanted.
But that didn't stop TFs/SFs from getting farmed. No, now it created a way to find exploits for min/max effort/reward, like 30 minute Cim TFs and 1 hour or less Posi TFs. It offered a reason for farmers to farm TFs, whose risk/reward/time ratio were pathetic.
Now with the advent of i14 and the MA, tickets are stupid-easy to farm, as is exp. The rewards you can get from the IO rolls and the ridiculous amount of tickets you can earn is very profitable.
The Devs may be against farming, but there is absolutely no way to remove it.
The point Aura and several other forumites have made is to simply reduce the 'annoying' interaction other players may have with farmers, such as being asked to bridge/fill/pad etc.
[ QUOTE ]
The point Aura and several other forumites have made is to simply reduce the 'annoying' interaction other players may have with farmers, such as being asked to bridge/fill/pad etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
The opposition to this makes me think the whole "its the spam" that I'm annoyed at comment most folks keep claiming is the real issue, is BS.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
Also, some characters with powers such as Full Auto + Flamethrower or my SS Tanker with Footstomp + Fireball really enjoy large mobs, even solo, without having to herd groups together.
It is a "Super" game after all. I'm really not biased either way on the farming front. I'd rather not farm and run missions with my friends than farm though. But when it's just me I would like to have this option to increase mob spawns for the reasons stated in my first paragraph.
My WP/Stone has no trouble on Invincible mishes. Sometimes I don't like to team because that tends to make things even easier.
The problem with your point is that you're asking the Devs, who are AGAINST farming and low-risk/high-reward situations (as made evident by the decisions already noted) to make a move in favor of farming. To increase the farming. To make the farming easier. And your only consolation towards the downsides of this suggestion which goes against the Dev's model and intents is:
At least it'll be less annoying to others for me to farm.
It's not a good idea. It will not be a good idea. Argue 'til you're blue in the face (which, while typing, is incredibly hard to do!)
But until you manage to convince the Developers that Farming (Exploiting the Reward System they've put in place) is a good thing you're wasting your time and anoying the Forumites who realize that farming is a surefire way to ruin the economy (what there is of it) and half the reason that we have RMT spammers.
Players need influence and infamy to purchase in game enhancements and alter their costumes. By farming and increasing the supply of Influence/Infamy you're devaluing it massively. The less value individual points of inf have the more people will need to farm for their ability to buy things.
RMTers thrive in this environment BECAUSE they farm inf for sale.
By making Farms EASIER you increase the amount of product RMTers have. You increase the costs of all in game items sold on the market. Even though you're increasing the SUPPLY you're also creating MASSIVe amounts of inflation.
The gulf between the haves and have nots expands further and further.
Ultimately? The Devs are doing their best to squash Farming. But it requires datamining to do. Wouldn't shock me, terribly, if the ITF and Posi TF and others get massive overhauls which make them more difficult by splitting damage types, resistances, and so forth.
Ultimately: Farming is bad.
-Rachel-
quick reply
no where has a dev stated that farming = exploiting. period prove me wrong. I am so tired of hearing the devs said this and the devs said that. and no one brings in a link with the quotes and they never pop in these threads and explain anything short of castle defining the word farming as the devs were concerned. prove me wrong pm the dev you think will pop in here and go on the record. They will not mainly because they know that people who participate in farming is a very very large portion of the games subs. This isin't like when some of the same people were telling the pvp teams that left due to issue 13 to get over it. the incredible amount of spam you are complaining about proves that it is a very large portion of the player base. Like i said prove me wrong I have searched and searched for an actual dev post that states their actual position over whether farming is allowed or not. and there is none. There is a difference between them not liking it. and it not being allowed.
RMTers = how much of the population?
Farmers = how much of the population?
With out hard numbers its hard to make a case either way. So far devs have made changes based on an assumed minority of players. Continuing to do so reduces QoL for the average Joe Hero. We weren't making a statement to convince devs that farming is good, but its not as bad as you make it out to be. It is a necessary action because we have a global economic system. Before the advent of IOs and the market, the only thing that could really be farmed was Inf, which had a no sink at all. It was easy to attain all the funding you needed on your trek from 1-50 to afford SOs by level 50.
Ultimately, farming being 'bad' or 'good' is relative. Its a perspective issue and everyone has their own.
Nowhere have I stated that the Developers have ever said 'Farming is bad, M'kay?'
I have pointed to the variety of anti-farming actions they've put into the game.
Want another one? Merits.
Sure, Merits are 'Farmable' But you can earn merits WITHOUT farming and get almost exactly what you want without flooding the market with millions of Influenece you acquired while farming for purples.
The Devs don't like it. The Devs have made an effort to get rid of it in many instances. The Devs will not, likely, make it super-easy o farm just to stop the spamming (which is already against the EULA)
-Rachel-
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with your point is that you're asking the Devs, who are AGAINST farming and low-risk/high-reward situations (as made evident by the decisions already noted) to make a move in favor of farming.
[/ QUOTE ]
How is asking for increasing the difficulty of missions, adding more enemies to each spawn, moving towards low-risk/high-reward? Wouldn't it be high-risk/high-reward? 
( I know what you mean, but if the risk is low then I think the problem is elsewhere.)
As for RMT'ers they wouldn't be here if people weren't taking them up on their offers. Farmers aren't the ones buying off of them.
And as you mentioned they introduced merits so people don't have to farm to get their "gear". So it's not like Farmers have a stranglehold on any resources. Besides what, purples?
I just think the pro's of adding this outweigh the cons myself. And as I posted already, I don't care for farming any missions over and over. I would just like to be able to add larger spawns for some of my characters even when solo, for challenge and efficiency.
QR
I'm neutral to farming. Entirely.
We JUST got something that makes potential farmers able to do what they do in the convenience of Mission Architect, and so forth. Can't you just be happy with the advancements in place? At least for an issue or two?
300:
[ QUOTE ]
no where has a dev stated that farming = exploiting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Rachelthulu:
[ QUOTE ]
They've also been asked in interviews how they'll stop exploiters (which is what farmers are) from gaining max reward at minimum risk.
[/ QUOTE ]
Link or proof please.
Rachelthulu:
[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately: Farming is bad.
[/ QUOTE ]
socio:
[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately, farming being 'bad' or 'good' is relative. Its a perspective issue and everyone has their own.
[/ QUOTE ]
Rachelthulu:
[ QUOTE ]
Nowhere have I stated that the Developers have ever said 'Farming is bad, M'kay?'
[/ QUOTE ]
You said it and I was responding to you, not to some comment you didn't make about something the devs didn't say.
I would like this if only for TEST MODE for my story arcs, especially when I'm trying to test out how my custom group works in larger groups without trying to wrangle in a few extra warm bodies.
Current Published Arcs
#1 "Too Drunk to be Alcoholic" Arc #48942
#2 "To Slay Sleeping Dragons" Arc #111486
#3 "Stop Calling Me"
[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately, farming being 'bad' or 'good' is relative. Its a perspective issue and everyone has their own.
[/ QUOTE ]
And the Developers have made motions to stop it, they're constantly pulling farming missions off the Architect. They've stopped the 'easy' enemies from being created.
So yes. It's a matter of Perspective. But the perspective that matters the most is the perspective of those who write the game. Change their perspective from Bad to Good and then we'll talk about it.
The OP listed 3 'Pros' and 0 'Cons' for his idea. This obviously shows that it was less than fully thought out.
Here are some Cons for you.
1. Economic crash. As the Influence/Infamy farms expand further by the ease of farming caused by this change far more influence and infamy will hit the market. Inflation will skyrocket.
2. Social interaction will drop off. At least with the current situation of 'forced teaming' the farmers have to invite people to the team. Which means at least NOMINAL interaction.
3. Purples and Rares will become more common. Not really a 'Con' to most farmers, but it's really bad for the game when you think about it. Without challenge what's the point? Ever beat a game solely on the basis of having cheat codes? Ever play it again for more than five minutes?
4. The Gulf of Haves and Have Nots becomes Larger. As it is some people will turn people down for teaming unless they have specific power choices or IO sets to boost their abilities. Expand that further by the perceived 'requirement' of farming for inf/IOs.
5. Boring. Farming is an incredibly boring CHORE to some people. Doing the same thing over and over for no reason is work, not play. It becomes stale and dull. This could (and likely would) lead to a drop-off in players once the economy gets to the point of farming being required to buy set pieces (Thanks, Inflation!)
So yeah. You're looking at an economic crash leading to the eventual death of the game through a logical process of perceived need through the implementation of your idea.
-Rachel-
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with your point is that you're asking the Devs, who are AGAINST farming and low-risk/high-reward situations (as made evident by the decisions already noted) to make a move in favor of farming. To increase the farming. To make the farming easier. And your only consolation towards the downsides of this suggestion which goes against the Dev's model and intents is:
[/ QUOTE ]
Emphasis with caps YOURS!
that statement says the devs are against farming. stop saying what the devs beleive by intepreting their actions. They are fully capable of coming here and saying whether or not we can or cannot farm in this game. I challenge you or anybody else to get them to come here and put me in my place. You cannot quote the devs when they have not put anything on the record. castle is the only one who has even touched on the subject. and all he did was explain their definition of farming. he didnt sayfarming was an exploit. he didn't say farming was not allowed. All any of the devs want is for us to not find exploits and abuse them. farming is not an exploit.
Rachelthulu
All of your points are made off of a false assumption that the Devs are against farming, and your wrong, they are against exploiting, and all of the things you have pointed out about the changes the Devs made are to stop exploits, not farming, but farming exploits.
Stop thinking that farming = exploit because your wrong.
Think about this, if the Devs were truly against farming, then they would have put a hard stop to it by now. Ok?
Get over it
This will be my last post in this thread.
Farming is exploiting the system.
When people farm they look for an enemy that is little threat to them with a high reward value.
An Example would be:
Fire tankers look for foes that are not highly fire resistant but deal damage they are resistant to.
They then look for these foes at level 50 and exploit the system by repeatedly 'almost' clearing the mission in the hopes of rare drops. Then they restart the mission, pad, and repeat.
High rewards, Low risk.
You can apply this to any Farming build. Find a foe who cannot resist your powers and is less of a threat to yourself than others: Defeat, reset, defeat rinse repeat.
This is an exploit. Hence why the developers put a maximum aggro cap (Warwolf dumpster diving, anyone?) and diminishing returns. The game provided no challenge yet the rewards were being delivered as if a high risk situation were put into play.
So I'll tell you what. I'll /sign on this idea.
Provided that the Devs have some way of determining what powersets a player has and scaling all rewards (drops, influence, XP) against their foes. So someone with High Energy Resistances who fights a (primarily) energy damage using foe will get less rewards based on the lowered risk he's under.
-Rachel-
[ QUOTE ]
Rachelthulu
All of your points are made off of a false assumption that the Devs are against farming, and your wrong, they are against exploiting, and all of the things you have pointed out about the changes the Devs made are to stop exploits, not farming, but farming exploits.
Stop thinking that farming = exploit because your wrong.
Think about this, if the Devs were truly against farming, then they would have put a hard stop to it by now. Ok?
Get over it
[/ QUOTE ]
The devs recently gave that buff to Infernal's Demons/Behemoths, and changed the Family's salvage drops to Tech. Both of those seem like movements AGAINST farming.
[ QUOTE ]
1. Economic crash. As the Influence/Infamy farms expand further by the ease of farming caused by this change far more influence and infamy will hit the market. Inflation will skyrocket.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm. Stop assuming so much. Your claim involves the use of an optional tool. Inflation doesn't affect vendors, who sell enhancements, specifically SOs, to which the game is balanced. Not IOs.
[ QUOTE ]
2. Social interaction will drop off. At least with the current situation of 'forced teaming' the farmers have to invite people to the team. Which means at least NOMINAL interaction.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, assuming that the largest portion of our player-base are farmers. This is wholly untrue. Why should you have to be forced to team anyway? If you want to work solo, why should you suffer having small spawns when you can obviously take on larger ones.
[ QUOTE ]
3. Purples and Rares will become more common. Not really a 'Con' to most farmers, but it's really bad for the game when you think about it. Without challenge what's the point? Ever beat a game solely on the basis of having cheat codes? Ever play it again for more than five minutes?
[/ QUOTE ]
And with the proposed difficulty spawn size slider, we would get more challenges. Are you proposing that IOs are akin to using a Game Genie?
[ QUOTE ]
4. The Gulf of Haves and Have Nots becomes Larger. As it is some people will turn people down for teaming unless they have specific power choices or IO sets to boost their abilities. Expand that further by the perceived 'requirement' of farming for inf/IOs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Really? You just said purps and rares will be more common. Common means there's more supply. Higher supply means lower demand. Your assumptions are getting pretty wild.
[ QUOTE ]
5. Boring. Farming is an incredibly boring CHORE to some people. Doing the same thing over and over for no reason is work, not play. It becomes stale and dull. This could (and likely would) lead to a drop-off in players once the economy gets to the point of farming being required to buy set pieces (Thanks, Inflation!)
[/ QUOTE ]
And to others, they like it. Who are you to judge and determine what other plays like? Get off your high horse about it. Just because you think its a chore doesn't mean everyone thinks that.
Suggestion: (Assuming this can be done without it being a coding nightmare).
Allow a solo player to spawn larger mob sizes.
Call it a new difficulty rating of (after invincible): I'm not married to the names.
Insanity (Challenge Rating: 6)
All mob spawns are spawned as if there are 6 players on the team. Whether the entire map is revealed is irrelevant. ALL mobs on the map, seen or unseen would spawn with the right number. More bosses per spawn.
Demonic (Challenge Rating: 7)
All mob spawns are spawned as if there are 7 players on the team. Whether the entire map is revealed is irrelevant. ALL mobs on the map, seen or unseen would spawn with the right number. Nearly all the spawns are bosses.
Despair (Challenge Rating: 8)
All mob spawns are spawned as if there are 8 players on the team. Whether the entire map is revealed is irrelevant. ALL mobs on the map, seen or unseen would spawn with the right number. All of the spawns are bosses.
Pros:
1. No need to no longer spam in ANY zone for fillers/anchors/padders, etc. as they would no longer be needed.
2. You could invite folks who like to destroy huge numbers of mobs for challenge (some pvpers and some pvers like this) simply for the challenge and not cause you need fillers.
3. The devs could then make it against the EULA to spam the airwaves for fillers, as they would no longer be needed.
Good idea or bad idea? What are the cons against this?
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!