Discussion: Live Patch Notes - 4/7/10
By
Adeon Hawkwood,
Posted on: 2010-04-07 09:43 in News, Events and Announcement Discussion
<wanders by>
Wow this quickly degraded o.0
Quote:
A lot of 50's already do play AE arcs, this change would only make it so that non-50's would no longer want to play them. It would fix NOTHING.
|
Originally Posted by JJDrakken
Remove the XP, only make it Drop Salvage, Cash & Tickets. Many 50s would then actually go play story arcs, this a good thing. Or they would farm, either way 50s are doing something, instead of collecting dust or random SF/TF.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JJDrakken
Remove the XP, only make it Drop Salvage, Cash & Tickets. Many 50s would then actually go play story arcs, this a good thing. Or they would farm, either way 50s are doing something, instead of collecting dust or random SF/TF.
Im telling you this would fix quite a bit. JJ |
You take away the exp and you lose the draw of the entire thing. Remember it's still a new idea in the game and a "hey come see this!" idea.
I have no doubt that eventually they'll just drop it all exp wise since they are taking a look at rehashing old stuff (posi tf proves that o.0)
Another point: Removing it from Atlas wouldn't do a thing, you'd then get another zone that was stereotypical of being the newbie zone o.0
Again, just my opinions.
Regards,
-C.A.
Quote:
In between "fine and dandy" and "exploit" is "unintended, not generally desirable, but no specific solution that doesn't create other problems or that can be implemented with the resources currently available." The binary distinction is a false dichotomy.|
Originally Posted by Captain Fabulous
But what if tomorrow the devs turned around and say "we never intended this so we're putting in a limit as to how much global defense you have so that you can never hit the soft cap." So then it's fine and dandy today but an exploit tomorrow? Sorry, that's retarded.
|
An example would be the Mag 4 stun in total focus. Castle wasn't comfortable with a boss-stunning ultra-high damage attack long before the power was actually changed (I know: I discussed it with him long before it was changed). However, the devs were not going to significantly nerf a power blasters had when their internal datamining showed that blaster performance across the board sucked**. So for a significant period of time Total Focus was not "fine and dandy" but also not "an exploit." It was too powerful, but possessed by things that were too underpowered. Note that first blasters were given a modified Defiance (end of '07), and then after a period of time had passed Total Focus was revised (mid '08).
** It was only after I found out that Defiance was changing, and *why* Defiance was changing, that in retrospect what Castle said about total focus made complete sense: he basically said that total focus' stun was probably too strong, but that was not a high priority problem until "other issues" regarding blasters were looked at first, once resources became available.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
I'm beginning to wonder if I'm the only person who doesn't necessarily care how much XP my arcs provide?
Quote:
In walks Seismic smash, looks down its nose at old total focus and outright laughs at the new version.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
An example would be the Mag 4 stun in total focus. Castle wasn't comfortable with a boss-stunning ultra-high damage attack long before the power was actually changed (I know: I discussed it with him long before it was changed). However, the devs were not going to significantly nerf a power blasters had when their internal datamining showed that blaster performance across the board sucked**. So for a significant period of time Total Focus was not "fine and dandy" but also not "an exploit." It was too powerful, but possessed by things that were too underpowered. Note that first blasters were given a modified Defiance (end of '07), and then after a period of time had passed Total Focus was revised (mid '08).
** It was only after I found out that Defiance was changing, and *why* Defiance was changing, that in retrospect what Castle said about total focus made complete sense: he basically said that total focus' stun was probably too strong, but that was not a high priority problem until "other issues" regarding blasters were looked at first, once resources became available. |
But I suppose if the dominator version is any indication brutes and tanks (edit: and trollers) will eventually read that news in a patch note as well.
Quote:
I fully understand what you're describing. Sometimes things are designed a certain way and need to be revised in the future. This is fine. But these things are not exploits. They may be poor design decisions or some such, but not exploits.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
In between "fine and dandy" and "exploit" is "unintended, not generally desirable, but no specific solution that doesn't create other problems or that can be implemented with the resources currently available." The binary distinction is a false dichotomy.
An example would be the Mag 4 stun in total focus. Castle wasn't comfortable with a boss-stunning ultra-high damage attack long before the power was actually changed (I know: I discussed it with him long before it was changed). However, the devs were not going to significantly nerf a power blasters had when their internal datamining showed that blaster performance across the board sucked**. So for a significant period of time Total Focus was not "fine and dandy" but also not "an exploit." It was too powerful, but possessed by things that were too underpowered. Note that first blasters were given a modified Defiance (end of '07), and then after a period of time had passed Total Focus was revised (mid '08). ** It was only after I found out that Defiance was changing, and *why* Defiance was changing, that in retrospect what Castle said about total focus made complete sense: he basically said that total focus' stun was probably too strong, but that was not a high priority problem until "other issues" regarding blasters were looked at first, once resources became available. |
To me an exploit is something that is knowingly broken, not a questionable design choice. A power that's not working properly (such as a misplaced decimal), some combination of powers or enhancements that yield an unexpected result, etc. Furthermore, I think to call it an exploit one must know they are making something happen that shouldn't. It's a willful, conscious decision to take advantage of it despite knowing it's broken.
For example, there was recently an issue with certain health procs giving more of a buff than they should. This is clearly a bug. But is it an exploit if you're using it? I don't think so, as many probably never realized it wasn't working properly. And it's not like you had to go out of your way to make it happen.
Another example is the stacking bug, whereby you can stack more than one buff by zoning. This is not right and everyone knows it, including the devs. But they have chosen to do nothing anyway. Clearly an exploit as you know it's not normal behavior and yet one often goes out of their way to use it to their advantage (like applying buffs before the team enters a mission and then again after entering).
I'll also admit that sometimes it's not so clear cut. An example here would be when Controllers got containment damage on APPs. An oversight at best, certainly not intended for a Controller APP Fireball to do more damage than a Blaster's. Some probably knew it was vastly overpowered and "exploited" it by using it as much as possible. Most probably never realized it was broken and just thought it was a really good power cause it did a ton of damage. Exploit? I dunno. You could argue it both ways. Personally I would probably say no only because I feel there needs to be a knowing intent, and I think most just didn't have a clue.
*Rewards in Mission Architect missions that contain more than one allied critters will give progressively lower rewards for each additional allied critter in the mission.*
I kinda don't understand why this was done, although I will note that I did test this a while back. If any Ally damages an enemy, it already lowers the exp you get from killing that enemy.
Doing this could make some missions like where you rescue a team of heroes could totally throw off a lot of the game.
RIP: "World's Worst Pickup Group" 
Quote:
You sir, are a gentleman.
|
Originally Posted by CaptainAmazing
I'll just pop in and say my piece.
 Alright I see a couple of you insinuating without saying that there is a certain "Way" to play the game. Get over yourself, we are fit to play the game however we choose. If I want to turn OFF my XP and never level, thats my issue. if I want to NEVER take speed boost, thats my issue. If I want to farm, thats my issue, if i want to Roleplay (god forbid that happen o.-) thats my issue. Forcing your view of moral "right" is not the best way to show your viewpoint may have more value then others. IF I play in a way that IS wrong..then thats the programming/dev teams issue to deal with (as well as support, but support best I can tell is getting swamped with so many "reports" by others trying to show they are playing right and the others wrong they might as well advertise turning in three of your sg for a badge o.-) NOT yours. Stop trying to be the police of this game and enjoy it for what it is, for in the end, save maybe Venture, Dispari, Marcian and a few others, none of the player base has any influence over the way the game goes :P Secondly, if you run into someone who doesn't know how to play the game, how about you take the time and teach them or show them the way. For a game thats supposed to promote cooperation for the betterment of the world (or destruction) ALOT of you people seem to stay in your groups and point and laugh at those that aren't o.0 This is very similar to the "high school" mentality I am seeing spreading like Ebola in the game. I ran into a Tf that knew NOTHING about tactics and instead of getting mad, I explained the base numbers of defense and other such things to them and we worked alot better. While I was doing this, someone "rage quit" 'cuz they should have known "how to play the game by now". Could have used that empath, but we made it through with a few deaths. We're sinking into this festering boil of hatred for anything thats new to us and new players and it will do NOTHING but destroy us in the end faster then we may or may not be decomposing now o.0 Thats all, and of course, just my opinion. Regards, -C.A. |
"PvP Messiah"
Quote:
I don't think they are, and never said they were. I think they were exploitive, in the colloquial sense, but not an Exploit, as in something the devs consider bad faith conduct which is actionable. Or to put it in a less loaded but much wordier fashion, I believe buff bots take advantage of a feature that has an imperfect compromise in its design which was intended to provide more latitude than a fool-proof design would allow, but which the devs hoped would not be leveraged to the point where they would have to take compensating action. That's usually what I mean when I say something is "exploitive" but not an "Exploit."
|
Originally Posted by Captain Fabulous
I fully understand what you're describing. Sometimes things are designed a certain way and need to be revised in the future. This is fine. But these things are not exploits. They may be poor design decisions or some such, but not exploits.
|
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
I have no knowledge of the devs looking at those powers. But I personally would not specifically design a build on the presumption that any attack that does significant damage would also do a reliable long duration mag 4 hard mez. If the devs asked me to make a list of every power with an oddity or inconsistency that should be reviewed by the powers team, seismic smash would definitely be on the list.
|
Originally Posted by Frosticus
In walks Seismic smash, looks down its nose at old total focus and outright laughs at the new version.
But I suppose if the dominator version is any indication brutes and tanks (edit: and trollers) will eventually read that news in a patch note as well. |
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Ok 4 allies and you can have 40% defense. Slot Manuvers and Combat Jumping and you are at the soft cap. Or take one of those plus a Steadfast. Also this would supply tons of mez protection and you can still set up the attacks for the 4 mobs to only holds that do no damage. If you have high defense already then with 4 allies you can have an additional resist boot of 60% to damn near everything as well as mez protection.|
Originally Posted by hedgehog_NA
damn good thing we all run brutes.
|
If you really want I can do examples for each AT but I think you get the point.
Quote:
Well duh! You just move the road around the pot holes, then you won't have to worry about people hitting them.|
Originally Posted by Lazarus
No, we can very well hate on the Devs for coming up with really dumb solutions that have obviously not been thought through.
I'm becoming rather glad that these people are game developers and not engineers. I'd hate to see what their solution would be for fixing a road with a few potholes in it. |
Edit to add, then you fine anyone who tries to go on the old road to save time because it is faster even with the potholes.
Quote:
Non-damage allies. There were missions that had twenty or thirty allies with only non-damage "forcefield", "sonic", or "ice" powers, and once rescued, those allies would let a character walk around in total safety: a blaster could walk up to a +4/x8 spawn and stand there running "/e teabag".
|
Originally Posted by Arenaz
*Rewards in Mission Architect missions that contain more than one allied critters will give progressively lower rewards for each additional allied critter in the mission.*
I kinda don't understand why this was done, although I will note that I did test this a while back. If any Ally damages an enemy, it already lowers the exp you get from killing that enemy. |
Quote:
Something working the way the devs designed does not mean it was working the way the devs intended.|
Originally Posted by Captain Fabulous
So if tomorrow the devs announced they were nerfing IOs that give defense so that it was no longer possible to reach the soft cap (oh wait... they already did that...) you wouldn't praise the move and cheer that the "exploiters" that were clearly "cheating" finally got their due???
Ironically, those buff bots are available in the mission creator by design. The devs put them there. So why exactly is it an "exploit" or "cheat" to use to the fullest something they purposefully put there that was working exactly the way they designed it. Just like IOs with defense bonuses. Yet in your mind one is an "exploit" and must be crushed while the other is ok because the game is "designed" that way. Dude, can you not see there is absolutely no difference here? |
Even if for the sake of semantics we don't call it a cheat or exploit, it was still something that was being used in a way other than what the devs intended. Do you honestly think they would have made the change if they wanted people to be able to use 30+ buff bots?
Quote:
You shouldn't be. Anyone who claims to be a storyteller and "loves AE" shouldn't care one whit about the rewards their arcs give. If the author is worried that no one will come play cause it offers no reward, then perhaps you should write a better story. As soon as a) your arc becomes normalized due to nerfs, or b) another exploit that is even easier than your own comes along, players that only want reward won't be playing your arc anyway.|
Originally Posted by Psyte
I'm beginning to wonder if I'm the only person who doesn't necessarily care how much XP my arcs provide?
|
The system isn't dead. It's just slowly slipping back into the domain of those for whom it was originally conceived and designed: Those that want to tell a good story. If that means that only a fraction of the entire playerbase is using it, that's just peachy. They're they ones that are enjoying it, and they'll continue to do so as long as there are stories to tell. The players that gamed the system for reward can just go back to the PvE portion of the game and continue on their merry farming way and everyone will be happier for it.
Calling for the Devs to just scrap their years of work on it because you can't gain full xp for a gimped mission would be funny if it weren't sad. Should they give up on PvP, or bases, as well, following your logic? How about shutting down the Rogue Isles once all the red players move over to Praetoria/Paragon? Let's follow this to its conclusion. See how silly it sounds?
Those that care will adapt. Those that don't adapt didn't care much in the first place.
Loose --> not tight.
Lose --> Did not win, misplace, cannot find, subtract.
One extra 'o' makes a big difference.
So I've read about 13 pages of this discussion and I've been struck with a constant thought; I see a lot of talk about farming and how to control it and how it needs to be stopped, but I really have yet to see any good reasoning here.
Now, I admit, I've only been playing this game for about 4 years or so, but I'm kinda under the impression that, from a gameplay perspective, this game is not much different than most MMORPGs. And most MMORPGs are really driven by a behavior most would call farming. I mean, we do repetitious tasks to gain rewards. This is the whole system that keeps us feeding the developers money. If we didn't have new goals we wouldn't keep repeating tasks.
So how is general grinding that much different from grinding with a specific goal? How does it ruin the game for everyone else? Why does it warrant such hatred from player and dev alike?
Oh, and to add to the discussion proper, these continual reductions in the usefulness of the MA system as a valid gameplay outlet are really hurting what is one of this games most powerful assets. The ability of the playerbase to tap itself for content that the devs themselves would probably never think of or have the time to implement is unprecedented in the MMO space. The constant hamfisted alterations to the system in the name of protecting us from farming is poised to destroy one of the things that was keeping this game fresh and innovative.
MA has been my favorite aspect of the game since its inception. The handling of MA has really put a damper on my enjoyment of the game. And that's a bummer.
Quote:
Good post, I was thinking some of this myself after I made mine above. |
Originally Posted by White Hot Flash
The system isn't dead. It's just slowly slipping back into the domain of those for whom it was originally conceived and designed: Those that want to tell a good story. If that means that only a fraction of the entire playerbase is using it, that's just peachy. They're they ones that are enjoying it, and they'll continue to do so as long as there are stories to tell. The players that gamed the system for reward can just go back to the PvE portion of the game and continue on their merry farming way and everyone will be happier for it.
Calling for the Devs to just scrap their years of work on it because you can't gain full xp for a gimped mission would be funny if it weren't sad. Should they give up on PvP, or bases, as well, following your logic? How about shutting down the Rogue Isles once all the red players move over to Praetoria/Paragon? Let's follow this to its conclusion. See how silly it sounds? |
The biggest thing to think about in regards to this sort of thing is that this game is being run as a business. If enough people were NOT feature X and that feature X was causing a problem or was broken, then they wouldn't bother investing any resources in repairing it (I'm thinking base-raids may fall into that category, but I can't be sure as I wasn't here in time to catch any of that). But I would think that if data-mining had showed a large majority of people were base-raiding, they would have invested resources to fix it right there, not just remove it.
Assuming that's true, since they have yet to remove the AE, "enough people" must be using it for them to justify working on it to their bean-counters. Hence it must not be a "waste of resources" to them. I don't care to PvP but I don't consider them working on that to be a waste of resources because obviously a lot of folks out there, "enough" like it.
Quote:
I stopped trying to figure out what the devs of this game wanted a long time ago. I don't think they even know what they want. They tell us they hate farmers, they hate powerleveling, and that the market is out of control, yet they put items in the game that require farming to get, furthering the desire to powerlevel, and do everything they can to limit the flow of rare items that have destabilized the market.|
Originally Posted by HelinCarnate
Something working the way the devs designed does not mean it was working the way the devs intended.
Even if for the sake of semantics we don't call it a cheat or exploit, it was still something that was being used in a way other than what the devs intended. Do you honestly think they would have made the change if they wanted people to be able to use 30+ buff bots? |
So no, I am clearly not surprised they put buffbots in AE only to nerf them a year or so later claiming "we never intended people to use them this way". Really, well how exactly DID you intend for them to be used? And considering the game's history, how exactly could you NOT foresee them being used in a manner you now claim is inconsistent with your intent?
Honestly I'm so sick and tired of the hypocrisy. The endless carrot-on-a-stick is finally breaking my last nerve.
Now that jelly beans have been nerfed I await Cathedral of Pain once more
Quote:
Nothing in this game requires farming to get. It may not drop for you within a timeframe or in a quantity that you find acceptable, but statistically, it will drop eventually.|
Originally Posted by Captain Fabulous
I stopped trying to figure out what the devs of this game wanted a long time ago. I don't think they even know what they want. They tell us they hate farmers, they hate powerleveling, and that the market is out of control, yet they put items in the game that require farming to get, furthering the desire to powerlevel, and do everything they can to limit the flow of rare items that have destabilized the market.
|
You don't need purples. You don't even need IOs. I have several characters who get along just fine with SOs, as we did for 8 issues. The market and the invention system really are optional.
My characters at Virtueverse
Faces of the City
Quote:
I don't. I'm not changing any of my arcs on account of this.
| Anyone who claims to be a storyteller and "loves AE" shouldn't care one whit about the rewards their arcs give. |
Current Blog Post: "Why I am an Atheist..."
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days when Victoria reigned!" -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
Thought I'd try gathering some hard data from testing. This is what I found:
Character used: a level 7 archery/nrg blaster on default difficulty.
Control: killed a +0 Skull minion outside the Kings Row AE. 16xp.
Story arc used: #67335
Mission 1: 4 combat allies, 4 noncombat hostages, player SK'd up to level 15
+0 Vahzilok (non-custom) minions solo'd by my character consistently earned 7xp (43.75% normal exp).
If allies helped, the exp was further reduced proportional to the damage inflicted by the allies.
Mission 2: 3 combat allies, 3 noncombat hostages, player SK'd up to level 15
+0 Clockwork (non-custom) minions solo'd by my character consistently earned 9xp (56.25% normal exp).
If allies helped, the exp was further reduced proportional to the damage inflicted by the allies.
Mission 3: 2 combat allies that are gradually spawned as triggered objectives as the mission progresses, 0 noncombat hostages, player SK'd up to level 20.
+0 Freakshow (non-custom) minion solo'd by my character before any allies were spawned earned 16xp (100% normal exp; low sample size though).
+0 Freakshow (non-custom) minion solo'd by my character after 1 ally was spawned earned 14xp (87.5% normal exp; low sample size though).
+0 Freakshow (non-custom) minion solo'd by my character after 2 allies were spawned earned 13xp (81.25% normal exp; low sample size though).
If allies helped, the exp was further reduced proportional to the damage inflicted by the allies.
I don't have any specific conclusions on this, except that I do think combat allies are double-penalized due to the general reduction in exp for allies being in the mission at all, plus additional reduction in exp when they do damage to mobs. My feeling is that this change was probably intended to target the buff bot allies that are present in many current farms, and this double-penalty to fighting allies is perhaps inadvertant and excessive. My personal opinion is that perhaps fighting allies (i.e. allies that attack normally and do damage) should be excluded from the calculation that reduces overall exp based on allies in a mission, since they already reduce exp for every point of damage they inflict.
@PW - Police Woman (50 AR/dev blaster on Liberty)
TALOS - PW war journal - alternate contact tree using MA story arcs
=VICE= "Give me Liberty, or give me debt!"
Katie V reports in her testing results that "Release Captive" objectives now reduce exp also, apparently counting as Allies for this purpose despite having no combat ability. I find it difficult to believe that Release Captive objectives penalizing exp is intentional. I hope that gets corrected.
[Edit: also "defend an object" and "escort" ... it does not make much sense for those to cause an exp penalty.]
@PW - Police Woman (50 AR/dev blaster on Liberty)
TALOS - PW war journal - alternate contact tree using MA story arcs
=VICE= "Give me Liberty, or give me debt!"
Awww....
I got excited when I saw a patch applying and rushed here to see what it was....
...just an AE fix. Darn it...
I suppose it had to happen since the Atlas AE was building up steam again. I guess the Devs want to keep Atlas free farming. (How about removing the AE building from Atlas instead?)
I saw someone on the first page worrying that new players won't learn to play the game right due to the AE farming....here's hoping we are getting that many new players.