I have a Simple, effective solution for farming
By
Another_Fan,
Posted on: 2009-06-08 14:42 in Mission Architect
And yet....we have another one folks!
[ QUOTE ]
My suggestion to simply cut down on the farming with MA, while not completely neutering MA is this.
Don't allow standard critters in custom groups.
sometimes it takes a simple solution. just think of the GARRRWARBL this could have reduced
[/ QUOTE ]
Not signed. I use standard mobs in my custom groups, and I don't farm or write farm arcs.
Eco.
MArcs:
The Echo, Arc ID 1688 (5mish, easy, drama)
The Audition, Arc ID 221240 (6 mish, complex mech, comedy)
Storming Citadel, Arc ID 379488 (lowbie, 1mish, 10-min timed)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
[The Incarnate System is] Jack Emmert all over again, only this time it's not "1 hero = 3 white minions" it's "1 hero = 3 white rocks."
|
Yeah, I don't agree with this. Especially due to the fact that we'll be able to recolor standard enemies in I15.
If it weren't against forum rules to /jranger something, I'd sure /jranger this.
Please explain why and how this resolves farming.
I don't see this effecting farming other than making solo "standard" custom groups.
It still allows solo "custom" groups.
Part of the problem has to do with the construction of custom groups.
On the very basic level it should be clear that custom groups should have the same kind of make-up/characteristics of a "standard" group. It would be easy enough to create a standard "form" for groups that had to be filled-in in order for the custom group to be usable.
Obviously, groups must have at the very least;
<ul type="square">[*]minions, lts, and bosses[*]some creatures with ranged attacks[*]some creatures with flight (reflective or not)[*]Bosses, elite bosses, and AVs should have ranged attacks and/or flight (reflective or flight)[/list]
I tend to think that they should be required to have at least one "support" type critter as well.
I don't see how your idea focuses on the composition of groups other than "standard" critters can't be in them.
I have a several group that is all standard critters and meant to simulate a group that range from level 1-50. They are combination of multiple "standard" groups in order to fill the level ranges in completely. The groups have minions, lts, and bosses at all levels. In order to make the EBs and AV's scalable (when I needed to have these as part of a custom group made of "standard" characters for a 1-50 group - I would create EB's and AV's as needed).
I don't see how I'm using the "standard" enemies in a negative way.
The "custom" group frame work does more to stop farming than your plan does.
If you can't use standard critters what's stops you from making a custom critter that is essentially the standard critter?
The advantage of being able to use the standard critters as part of a custom group is that it drastically cuts down on the file size.
[ QUOTE ]
My suggestion to simply cut down on the farming with MA, while not completely neutering MA is this.
Don't allow standard critters in custom groups.
sometimes it takes a simple solution. just think of the GARRRWARBL this could have reduced
[/ QUOTE ]
What a dumb idea.
This would make people who want to build an all-one-mob map work a little harder during creation of the mission. That's all. If that's enough to deter a Farmer, they ain't much of a Farmer.
Almost all of the farms I've participated in are a custom group. Your fix would accomplish nothing except crippling people's legitimate stories.
You obviously have not been following this issue closely since this idea lacks sound rationale.
/not signed
The development team and this community deserved better than this from NC Soft. Best wishes on your search.
No custom groups should NOT be limited to having all of those types you think are needed "to stop farming". Absurd is the contention that your "solution" would stop farming/have a negative effect on farming.
All your "solution" does is force more restrictions on the authors and increase an already bloated file size.
/not signed
The development team and this community deserved better than this from NC Soft. Best wishes on your search.
Why do people keep trying to come up with "fixes" for stuff that isn't broken in the first place?
The devs have already forced all creatures to have ranged attacks, removed exploits like the Rikti Comm Officers, and nerfed the ticket cap to 15% of what it used to be. I don't see asking for even more restrictions as a particularly good idea.
[ QUOTE ]
Why do people keep trying to come up with "fixes" for stuff that isn't broken in the first place?
[/ QUOTE ]
At this point, I am convinced that it is for the same reasons that people think their stories are better than they actually are. Delusions of grandeur.
The development team and this community deserved better than this from NC Soft. Best wishes on your search.
[ QUOTE ]
Why do people keep trying to come up with "fixes" for stuff that isn't broken in the first place?
The devs have already forced all creatures to have ranged attacks, removed exploits like the Rikti Comm Officers, and nerfed the ticket cap to 15% of what it used to be. I don't see asking for even more restrictions as a particularly good idea.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because there's still an easy way to farm? Because when you select a defendable object, you can get 12 of them to stack on each other? Because there are defendable objects that give +regen status bonus? Because you can get over 1000% regen by doing this?
Don't get me wrong, I love having 12 defendable objects stacked on each other, but I doubt that is what was intended, but then again, maybe it was. At the very least, remove the status effects from all objects.
Fix the defendable "objects" then mate. It is an outlier and should go the way of the other outliers. That is specific and needed, the rest of the suggested by the OP is feldacarb and is not.
The development team and this community deserved better than this from NC Soft. Best wishes on your search.
[ QUOTE ]
Fix the defendable "objects" then mate. It is an outlier and should go the way of the other outliers. That is specific and needed, the rest of the suggested by the OP is feldacarb and is not.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fix the defendable "objects" then mate. It is an outlier and should go the way of the other outliers. That is specific and needed, the rest of the suggested by the OP is feldacarb and is not.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed
[/ QUOTE ]You better sit down, guys.
/Agreed
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fix the defendable "objects" then mate. It is an outlier and should go the way of the other outliers. That is specific and needed, the rest of the suggested by the OP is feldacarb and is not.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed
[/ QUOTE ]You better sit down, guys.
/Agreed
[/ QUOTE ]
In this case I really hope you all don't get what you are wishing for. While it would amuse the heck out of me to see authors going nuts because a nice feature got nerfed at their own insistence, I happen to enjoy fighting waves of lieutenants or bosses around objects.
P.S. it isn't duck or rabbit season it's baseball season
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fix the defendable "objects" then mate. It is an outlier and should go the way of the other outliers. That is specific and needed, the rest of the suggested by the OP is feldacarb and is not.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed
[/ QUOTE ]You better sit down, guys.
/Agreed
[/ QUOTE ]
In this case I really hope you all don't get what you are wishing for. While it would amuse the heck out of me to see authors going nuts because a nice feature got nerfed at their own insistence, I happen to enjoy fighting waves of lieutenants or bosses around objects.
P.S. it isn't duck or rabbit season it's baseball season
[/ QUOTE ]
So do I, but if they feel it needs to be nerfed, it's going to be nerfed no matter what we want.
[ QUOTE ]
Please explain why and how this resolves farming.
I don't see this effecting farming other than making solo "standard" custom groups.
It still allows solo "custom" groups.
Part of the problem has to do with the construction of custom groups.
On the very basic level it should be clear that custom groups should have the same kind of make-up/characteristics of a "standard" group. It would be easy enough to create a standard "form" for groups that had to be filled-in in order for the custom group to be usable.
Obviously, groups must have at the very least;
<ul type="square">[*]minions, lts, and bosses[*]some creatures with ranged attacks[*]some creatures with flight (reflective or not)[*]Bosses, elite bosses, and AVs should have ranged attacks and/or flight (reflective or flight)[/list]
[/ QUOTE ]
Npt signed either.
I have a custom group in the arc Im currently working on that has just 5 critters in it, all bosses. The each appear just once. I don't farm, and I don't write farm arcs.
Stop advocating nerfs to my storytelling options, please.
Eco.
MArcs:
The Echo, Arc ID 1688 (5mish, easy, drama)
The Audition, Arc ID 221240 (6 mish, complex mech, comedy)
Storming Citadel, Arc ID 379488 (lowbie, 1mish, 10-min timed)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
[The Incarnate System is] Jack Emmert all over again, only this time it's not "1 hero = 3 white minions" it's "1 hero = 3 white rocks."
|
If i were to be asked for a sugestion as to what to do to further discorage/limit farming in the AE; it would be to kill the Auto-SK function. That said, I'm fairly removed from the issue, and I would have to do some serious reasearch into how that function was being used before I implemented it.
[ QUOTE ]
Because there's still an easy way to farm? Because when you select a defendable object, you can get 12 of them to stack on each other? Because there are defendable objects that give +regen status bonus? Because you can get over 1000% regen by doing this?
[/ QUOTE ]
Woah, Dayum. That does not sound right at all, stacking objectives, youch. I'd let the Devs know about that one if I were you, looks like a bug.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because there's still an easy way to farm? Because when you select a defendable object, you can get 12 of them to stack on each other? Because there are defendable objects that give +regen status bonus? Because you can get over 1000% regen by doing this?
[/ QUOTE ]
Woah, Dayum. That does not sound right at all, stacking objectives, youch. I'd let the Devs know about that one if I were you, looks like a bug.
[/ QUOTE ]
I did
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because there's still an easy way to farm? Because when you select a defendable object, you can get 12 of them to stack on each other? Because there are defendable objects that give +regen status bonus? Because you can get over 1000% regen by doing this?
[/ QUOTE ]
Woah, Dayum. That does not sound right at all, stacking objectives, youch. I'd let the Devs know about that one if I were you, looks like a bug.
[/ QUOTE ]
I did
[/ QUOTE ]/em thumbsup
[ QUOTE ]
If I were to be asked for a suggestion as to what to do to further discourage/limit farming in the AE; it would be to kill the Auto-SK function. That said, I'm fairly removed from the issue, and I would have to do some serious research into how that function was being used before I implemented it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Guess what? Remove the Auto-SK feature and do you wanna guess what will happen? People who are using it to PL are just going to start broadcasting "LF Bridge!" and it'll just add to the clutter in broadcast that so many people complain about as it is. The Auto-SK feature really does about as much good as evil, it allows teams of varied levels to play together; there are many people out there who have friends of varying levels who couldn't team together without the Auto-SK feature.
Also, events like Champion's Tanker Tuesday can benefit greatly from the Auto-SK feature. Recently, they came to the Guardian server and I ended up on a team that was so varied in level that, no matter how we tried, we couldn't get the SKs to work where everyone would get XP. We went and ran an MA story, but didn't do one that Auto-SKs, so we went through half of the first mission with half of us getting no experience, eventually I decided that it just wasn't worth it and logged off to another toon. This would always be the case if you take away the Auto-SK feature, people who want to play together despite level differences would not be able to do so. This is not something that should be stopped, the devs created the sidekicking system so that players of different levels could play together; the Auto-SK feature really just expands this.
Yes, it has the unintended effect of allowing people to PL others without a bridge... but is it really that hard to find a bridge? I know plenty of people who have perma-46's specifically to bridge. The only thing that removing the Auto-SK feature would do is bring more people to AP and increase the amount of broadcast "spam".
@Johnstone & @Johnstone 2
ediblePoly.com
All my characters
My suggestion to simply cut down on the farming with MA, while not completely neutering MA is this.
Don't allow standard critters in custom groups.
sometimes it takes a simple solution. just think of the GARRRWARBL this could have reduced
On Justice
Global @Desi Nova Twitter: @desi_nova Steam: Desi_nova. I don't do Xbox or PS3