Neiska

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. The internet is going to internet and people are going to be people. But I never made the case about bugs shouldn't be fixed, or that things shouldn't be balanced. My original reply was to the original post that suggested players who enjoyed farming have unrealistic expectations and that's why they don't like random teaming. Some people like farming simply because they find it more enjoyable, or at least more enjoyable than other activities. There is no "right" or "wrong" in this. Different people are going to like different things. That is normal, to be expected in fact. But I do tire of seeing negative sterotypes about farmers and the moment you point out that there is negativity in teaming and that not every "nonfarmer" is a saint then people light their pitchforks.

Thank you for proving my point. I gave an example of a double standard, and you take it personal. All I did was point out that you ignored what he said and addressed mine. But that's fine, you can go on my ignore list too.

According to who? Experiences are personal indeed, but its disingenuous to try to minimalize another's, wouldn't you agree? And I disagree with their original post which includes a bland and open opinion about all farmers. If they are allowed to make opinions about all famers, then I am most certainly allowed to voice mine about the random teaming. Moreover, I find it a little illuminating how you addressed my attributional language, but not theirs. And how is what I said toxic? Everything I said has actually happened. Now I doubt my personal experience is the average experience and I suspect we would agree on that. But it's pretty intellectually dishonest to try to minimize that experience while at the same time ignoring it or pretending that part doesn't exist, or that it isn't part of the equation in play either, or that it would impact a player's decision to play alone or do team activities. And in addition, I would like to point out this is exactly what I am talking about. Someone says something suggestive about farmers and it is given a pass. But anytime someone says something about the other part of the community it's given whatever label is convenient at the time. Even if what is said is true based off personal experiences. Example: "Farmers are bad" - no one but farmers say anything. And, if they do, it's given a rebuttal. But, if someone says "well, teaming can certainly suck too" - Oh, but that language and opinion is labeled as negative, toxic, undesirable behavior. Double standard.

Or perhaps, just perhaps mind you, some of us have already done so and find it to be an unfriendly, unfun, agonizing experience that we have already done numerous times. Personally, my biggest turnoff to "the traditional way" is the GOGOGOGOGO mentality. Every group you join zips off as fast as possible, and if you lag behind it can turn toxic pretty quick. I would rather play at my own pace, doing an activity I enjoy alone, than be corralled into doing an activity I might enjoy with a growing community of randoms that gets worse with time. Here is a short list of things I have experienced - You don't play the meta? Then you are trash. Don't play X, Y, or Z? Trash. Didn't take X power from a set? Trash. You are slow? Kicked. Never done this before? Sorry, the next group can explain it to you. Don't have team teleport or X optional power? What are you even doing here? You play X AT? Garbage. We will kick you to make room for someone else. The best one though? Getting booted from a team because I am deaf and couldn't hear glowies. That one took the cake. In all my online experience I have never had that happen in any other game until now. You want to know why so many of us farmers rather play entirely alone or with friends? That is a hint as to why. 2 years ago it wasn't so bad, but now it's seriously starting to resemble other games like WoW now, with the "git gud" attitude. And if it comes down to it, where I can't just have fun in my own way and have no option than to play with the "gogogo meta git gud crowd", I'll uninstall and play something else. My joy of the game doesn't override the BS that can come with teaming with randoms. So no, I respectfully decline the "traditional" way.

Less "do X or else" mechanics, and less rock-paper-scissors. More solo friendly, in respect to the classes and activities. Some ATs or powersets can be quite a chore to level up alone. More politically neutral, with regards to the storylines and characters. Less nerfing of things just because they are popular. More fixing old problems and less focusing on the new shiny. Better balancing/niche of ATs/Powersets. Overall, it is quite good but there are still things that stand out, especially on certain ATs.

You: "There is no anti-farming narrative." Also You: "You farmers are entitled, petulant, hostile, unfriendly, drama queens! You reap what you sow!" Uh huh. And those against farming have been nothing but reasonable and respectful? Please, spare me. One person can't even post a different opinion or option about farming without 3-4 people dogpiling them. Personally, I think its the anti-farmers who have been more of a drama queen here. It's not the farmers who keep stirring the pot. And you have a funny view of "extending the hand of friendship" with the "Play this way or else" context. I mean, if you consider this respectful friendly discourse, I wonder how you might treat someone you consider an "enemy." Honestly? It's getting to the point where I don't even have to say "I told you so." And besides all that, people can certainly voice their opinion, which may include disagreement or dis-satisfaction with a change or update. And these sort of responses does little to address those concerns or as you call it, "extending the hand of friendship." Constantly attacking people with negativity is not offering them an olive branch, and you of all people claiming such made me spit out my coffee.

Given that no player here has access to the actual data, and only know what the Devs who do have access have said, I would argue that everything here is based on opinion or feelings. All we know for certain is how much a player can make doing a certain activity. We (the players posting here) don't know how many people farm, for how long, etc etc.

I don't think it should be called "hate speech", just a difference in opinion. Some can be passionate or aggressive with their argument. But I see more "anti-farm" conversations in game than on the forums, but that's just me.

Alright, the problem stated (not by a dev directly, more so the musings here on the forums) was that there was too much Inf in the market. I don't disagree. And reducing farming pacing can slow inflation. I don't disagree on that either. That said however, That is missing the forest through the trees. If you slow what is gained/created, that doesn't take anything away from what is already floating in the market to begin with. So if the economy is the concern which has been suggested many times, why is only slowing the inf creation seen as the only solution (at least by some here) and not removing what we already (allegedly) have too much of? You can't fix "too much money in the market" (inflation) by simply slowing its creation. At least not in a market such as ours with restricted/limited expenses. I am not saying we need to make costume changes cost 100 mil. Or that only ultra-billionaires should afford bases. But I am convinced that there should be some balancing on the "upkeep" or "cost" for players as well, not just how much INF is created. For I hope we would agree that the majority of costs aside from Enhancements is more or less a drop in the bucket. If you aren't gearing up a character, what you spend is more like a needle in the ocean. Not only that, but it would also be fair to balance the other side of the scales. Not EREGEOUSLY so, but at least looked at and adjusted where necessary. A simple comparison of how much a typical character earns vs spends once they are fully slotted and geared would be a fair comparison, just as comparing AE farming to non-farming activities, and I don't think such is unreasonable. Nor is honest analysis a house fire either. And if people were truly more concerned about the market/economy, then they would be open to such comparisons. If they are not open to even collecting data on such, well, then I would venture to say their main motivation isn't fair market balance. TLDR - We could use more money sinks, even if they were purely optional or cosmetic in nature. PS - An afterthought ~ You made the point of reducing the amount that can be gained by farming, which would increase the amount of farming required to reach whatever goal a person might have. And in the same breath you say adding more money sinks would increase the amount of farming required. Do you not see the irony in this?

I agree, farming is still strong, particularly if you are an active farmer or multiboxer. But for me that isn't the crux of the issue. I would argue that how people discuss/disagree about it does more damage to the community than the AE ever did. Either you agree, or you are "a part of the problem." And that mentality of - "I am right. Those who do not think as I do are wrong" can do quite a bit of damage to a small community such as this. It is human nature I suppose. People will always find a reason to disagree. Or if you have a group of people in the room, there is always an outsider. There is actually a psychology term for this but it escapes me at the moment. Speaking personally though, after this rather tiresome ongoing debate I have noticed that things have come to the point that people are growing apart, instead of together. Some will refuse to interact with others, rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter. And I can't say I blame them for feeling in such a manner. I most certainly won't be eager to play an activity that I personally dislike, with people I regularly disagree with, no matter how big of a carrot is offered. But there is a silver lining though. Things have gotten more peaceful as my ignore list has grown, so there is that I suppose.

The forums are hardly the only method of communication. If anything it is the one used by the fewest people.

Ah, and there it is. You see, people have repeatedly said "we don't hate farmers, we just want to make things equal." But as soon as someone brings up other ways to make people equal, you know, being realistic about the topic and not one sided, (because farming is not the end all-be all factor in play here) you go on about - I never said anything prevents farming entirely as you suggest. I only pointed out that the most vocal part of the forums are decidedly anti-farm, and that there are other means to also make the market more balanced. But since that involves you know, people who are anti-farming having to also make changes as well, it's no surprise they might dislike it. Which proves my original point - It was never about the market. If it was, they could balance more than one option. And the Devs never said anything about the markets, they stated they want all activities to give equal reward, which I can respect and agree with. But then people tend to nitpick about AFK farming vs Active farming, or scoff when I bring up non INF rewards as well. I still have yet to get an answer one way or another if they have ever taken non-inf rewards into their calculations or not (which I doubt.) So spare me your statements that are pure conjecture. You don't have access to the actual server numbers or data, which makes all of this your mere opinion.

No, that was before my time. I never played live but I certainly heard stories. As far as "what about the new people," those same new players get merits from story arcs, or can sell one rare salvage for 400,000 on the AH and have plenty of INF to get them all the way to 30. I have done many self-found "iron man" runs, and the amount a new player gets is pretty much a non-issue, with or without farming. What it would affect, is the increased expenses for not just new players but for everyone. (thus reduce the inf in the market) And isn't that the purpose of the AE changes? And precisely how many "new people" do we get anymore? I would also argue that INF isn't the end all dynamic, game knowledge is. And the knowledge is there for anyone who cares enough to look it up. If the amount of wealth in the market is the problem, then reducing the amount generated is only one side of the issue. Adding increased costs/expenses is the other side of the balancing mechanism, and I have yet to see any serious discussions about that. And I am going to predict that most people will be against that, even the anti-farmers. Because its easy to point out a problem and shoulder the burden on someone else, but for it to affect everyone equally? We can't have that can we.

You know, if they were really that concerned about the amount of INF being generated there are many other step's they could take to kneecap it. My first thought? Make bases have upkeep costs. You know, all that "x item cost inf" when people are base building? Yea, charge people that once a month. Make people pay rent, or a massive one-time fee to permanently own it. As much as people like to pretend to be economic specialists, they seem pretty narrow minded as far as possible fixes, which seems to be only one solution that they want - NERF THE FARMS! Which to me, that being only one side of the coin speaks volumes when there are a number of possible solutions instead of you know, targeting an activity that many people enjoy. Here, I'll even make a list of suggestions - - make bases pay upkeep costs. - increase the deposit/taxes on market sales. - increase the cost of costumes. - reduce the amount generated from other activities as well. - add a fee to trains/boats. - make recipes cost more. - add a flat cost to all incarnate recipes. And this is just off the top of my head. But I find it pretty telling that no other possible options have even discussed (at least here in the forums.) So the notion that the only concern in play is "wealth generation" is trivially falsified due to no small part only this one single solution being pushed and pushed hard for quite some time now. My conclusions? That it isn't about wealth generation at all, at least not from everyone. I suspect many of the anti-farmers in truth, don't care one whit about the economy, but just dislike farmers well, farming. Which logistically leads one to believe it's not about economy, it's about control. And I don't expect it to end here. I expect more nerfs to (achm) "specific" activities. Which leads me to ponder just how popular other certain activities truly are, if they have to "use the stick" to make some people stop one activity and use carrots to entice or bribe players into other activities. Another point of mention is there is very little "cost of living" or expenses. In a market if you have a net positive gain with few expenses, then no matter how hard you reduce that gain the only thing that changes is the time needed for inflation to take hold. In our context, let's say they reduced AE to absolutely zero inf gain. That still wouldn't solve the issue, it would simply make it take longer to have an impact. If they really wanted to fix the amount of money in the market, they should add upkeep costs and expenses, not just hammer how much money is generated. Speaking personally though? Even if they changed every drop a purple drop in some of those other activities, and tuned it so every npc and critter dropped 1 million inf per kill, I still wouldn't do it. Why you might ask? Because I have absolutely zero desire to play with a part of the community that has all but choked on its spite for myself. Usually, I am quite content to live and let live and ask the same. Apparently, that is too much to ask or even expect.

Most likely, but in hindsight it might have been better for them to spread it out instead of all at once. Or at least announce it and let people brace for it, instead of all at once. But that is just me musing.

Personally, I never had issues with that. But I did find the timing highly suspect. Particularly they were discussing options such as removing EMP merits from the AE at relatively the same brief time period. Which from the farmers point of view, does little to address "we aren't after the farmers, really" concerns. I beg to differ. If you were to spend any great amount of time in the AE and observe to say, what it was like a year ago, or even less time, you might take note of a very different environment. There "are" less farmers now. Both in game, here on the forums, and in the discord, as well as the "farming discords. "But I also suspect that was the aim all along at least for some. And anytime someone points it out its a shrug of the shoulders in reply, with the statement of "people move on." Well, yes, certainly. But to insinuate that the farming changes didn't contribute to that is just absurd. But I also suspect that since they wanted less farming, they pay that little heed. And in some corners since the hardcore farmers were undesirable in the community to begin with, their leaving is no great loss and is actually something to be celebrated. Speaking personally? Some people like to say this community isn't toxic. I disagree. Strongly. I have played many MMOs and online games, from WoW, to Diablo, Guild Wars, Vanguard, etc. And in some ways, this one is worse than all of them. But not in regards to drama, bickering, or forum PVP. But never before in any game have I been asked to validate my RL handicap, and this includes my time in a top end raiding guild. Over a decade of online interaction with other people in video games, and that has only happened to me here. And that really should speak volumes. And this isn't even touching things like the political messaging in the past or actual "toxicity." And yes, there is a growing "Us vs Them" here, even if the "Them" has become silent, or quieter, doesn't mean they aren't there. According to some, they aren't heard or had their concerns addressed anyway, so why bother? Food for thought.

And here's my take on things, quite likely an unpopular opinion - "But X is more/less than Y, and Y was such and such way on live" - Bit of a moot point, seeing that the game went through multiple changes before even HC took the wheel. Moreover, which part of live is this in reference to? As even the final few changes people were disputing. And this isn't remarking upon the fact that A.) Those people who made the decisions on live, have zero input on how HC is ran (to the extent of my knowledge) and B.) This is a different ship, with a different crew, and a different voyage. What was done on Live, or what the original Devs wanted or said is largely irrelevant. "But it's for the good of such and such" - Indeed? And good for who? For you? For me? For the community? The Market? Let's not pretend for an instant that changes have been improvements for everyone across the board, as that would be intellectually dishonest, to start. Secondly, even if we took just the forums as a sampling example, (which I hope we would all agree that forum users are the minority of the player base) it would be plainly obvious that not everyone agrees on what is "good" and for "whom" as well as "what." Even if we assumed that all non-forum users agreed 100% without exception, that would still leave the users here against whatever the point of contest is. In summary, any claims of "good" or "better" and that the players all think in such a manner is pretty questionable. "The players asked for X" - Also moot. Players have asked for many things. I suspect that there are more things that were asked for that have not been added or implemented than those that were. I am not saying it is a good or bad thing mind you, only that stating that a small section of a minority of the player base asked for a particular feature is also irrelevant, given that it's likely that those people are a small part of an already small part of the player base, its just as likely that just as many people were unaware that a change or feature was going to take place until it actually happened. As far as farming itself? I suspect the argument is more complex. Some people like to focus on themselves and their own methods, goals, and aims. And care little for what other people do or what they achieve. Other people feel a compulsion to compare themselves to other people, to create a competition if you will. "X players have more money/levels/whatever than me. It's not fair!" As if there was a race to be won, a trophy to win, or a prize to be awarded. Which by logic stands to reason that those people care more about Controlling others than they do about any sense of balance. And I speak not just of the game itself here, I am reflecting on the different attitudes and mentalities. To summarize - Some people compare themselves to others to measure their own achievements. Others like myself, compare themselves to themselves and where they used to be or where they once were to gauge their success. For those in the first group, I suspect many of the changes made sense. But for those in the second, where we find ourselves having lost ground, be it INF, EXP, vet levels, alts, or just plain simple enjoyment, we lost more than we have gained. And thus the conundrum and arguments. No matter your reasoning or logic, you cannot put pen to paper and show me unequivocally that I am in a better place now than I was a year ago, for you cannot say that that is, only I can. Which this will lead to one of two outcomes - 1. Either a larger population enjoying a shared space, each group or side doing their own thing. But I think it far more likely that - 2. A smaller population of entirely similar minded people all enjoying the same activities, and those that disagreed or felt differently reached a point where there were simply better options. Take from that what you will. The dislike button is down below. I expect the same usual suspects.

Personally my favorite armor set is Bio, but judging by the trend of what gets changed I fully expect that to be next on the chopping block.

Neither. I care more about who I’m doing activities with more than what activity it is. If I’m solo I am not motivated to do either of those things. If anything I am motivated to “not” do them. But with friends? Depends on our mood. With randoms? I rarely team with randoms anymore. More trouble than it’s worth and not particularly enjoyable. I dislike the “gogogogo” play style that seems to be the default now.

Not everyone is going to agree what "the right direction" is.

Some of us have gotten far worse.

Now can I say “told you so”?

But they added DPS, so it can't possibly be a nerf to anyone. Or so I'm told.

I would elaborate but I would rather not derail the thread further.

I agree with @Doc_Scorpion and suggest we let the matter rest. I respectfully disagree with your point, and I can do so without making negative insinuations about your person in an attempt to degrade your argument. So, agree to disagree and let's move on.