Neiska

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.

A fair point, as well as true I suspect. I feel it's a safe bet to say there have been more changes that were requested, than changes that were not. But that would be quite a lot of data-digging and forum-scavenging to find out either way.

Oh, most assuredly. My point of disagreement was the insinuation that most people asked for change and supported said changes. Given that the majority are silent on the matter (here in the forums and discord), this is false, as well as moot. Someone cannot say more people Supported a change, any more than I might say more people opposed a change, simply because the majority of players have not weighed in either way on the subject in question. As an example, in the Masterminds channel there is 9026 users. After scrolling back 4 weeks I counted roughly 52 different users, or .5%. I didn't even go into what was being discussed, but even if we assumed that every user in the past month of that channel supposed a change, that is less than 1%, at least of the Discord users. Though this doesn't take into account ex-players or people who no longer play but whom are still in the channel, but nor does it take into account players who play but don't use the discord. I suppose the TLDR is that we simply don't have enough data or poof to say anything with certainty, one way or another. I do want to add I am not saying there should be no change at all either. Only that the point "most people liked X change" should not be used, for "any" change.

And here is a picture of the present -

First off, with about 20 Robot MMs fully T3'd or T4'd, and having soloed most of what is possible to solo as a Robot MM, I think I have a pretty good grasp on game mechanics. If you actually read my comments both here and elsewhere, my point never was or is about the before or after, or the change to their DPS. My input has always entirely been about how many powers are available in a build. My objection was never about their DPS. But I will try to elaborate. You have 24 power slots, and 64 enhancement slots available to put where you like. You loose 5 power slots taking the 3 pets and 2 upgrade powers, which leaves 19. You have 1 obligatory secondary power. That leaves 18. Most builds take toughness and Weave, which requires boxing or kick. This leaves 15. Now lets say you want group fly, that takes 3 power picks. This leaves 12. Now lets say you want fold space, down to 9. Now you need Leadership, most take Maneuvers, Tactics, and Vengance. Down to 6. Now you want Haste. Down to 5. This means you have 5 power slots to use, on your secondary AND personal attacks. And this isn't even getting into slotting. My complaint isn't about DPS, and it never was. It is about the limited number of powers in a build. Robots already was pretty tight on slotting, with the lack of a mule power. But now if you want -regen you have to give up already too few power slots in order to include them, as well as the slotting for things like +ACC or END reduction. MMs will never be top shelf DPS, and I don't think they were ever meant to be. Though some can certainly do good or even impressive DPS for a support class, my point is that it is mainly a support class, and this new remake limits the options they have to you know, support. If you want to be kiss-your-elbow top DPS, you might be better off playing something else.

I agree, how many and when are irrelevant, as is the point Astralock was trying to make with the "people asked for this." People asked for many things. Some get worked on, some do not. Its entirely up to the Devs, and IMO, they don't have to validate to us which projects they do or don't work on, but that's just my opinion.

Right then, a few thoughts. 1. "People asked for X" - This is a moot point. How many people? When? On which change? How many people liked it and how many people didn't? Considering that less than half of the people even use the forums and even less use the discord, lets have some fun with math. (pretext: these figures are by no means accurate and are entirely therotical but I am using them to make a point.) Lets be generous and say that 40% of players use the forums. I doubt its even that high, but lets go with that. And lets use a pool of 1000 people for context. 1000 people = 400 people using the forums. Now on any given change, perhaps 1/4th of those people might chime in either for or against it. So that brings us down to 100. Out of those 100, a change seems to be about 50/50 for and against. Some voices are louder than others certainly. But this is just painting a picture for context. This leaves an entirely theoretical 50 out of 1000 people, are openly requesting and supporting a change. I would hardly call 1/20th a validation or a "majority." 2. Robots only "sucked" if you had "moar DPS" tunnel vision. If they were so terrible, why were they one of the most popular MMs played? They were just behind Demons and Thugs for popularity. They were quite strong in support, as a single Robots/Time MM could softcap everyones DEF entirely by themselves, bring a bit of AoE, and some -regen to boot. The notion that the new robots is a 100% improvement for all builds across the board is false. My own Demons and Thug MMs still do more damage than my Robots does, while I lost the built in -regen tool. And forgive me if I don't choose the honor of using precious power picks on -regen, when I can get more mileage out of things like Group Fly, Fold Space, Leadership, particularly on a AT that has a damage and END penalty to personal attacks. The robots remake didn't make them "better," it only gave them something to do. Personally the only upside to the new Robots is the built in heal, which is quite nice for sets like Cold or Sonic. I am not trying to be argumentative or confrontational Astralock, truly. But I do resent the notion that all changes were good, that all were requested by the community, or that everyone likes them. Now I hope we mutually agree that some change is better than no change at all, but it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend for a moment that all of these updates are even popular. (It varies from change to change, as well they should.) But for a growing part of the community, they are starting to dislike more than like changes the more we recieve. For the record, I would appreciate a boost to those who enjoy single player activities the most, and not just a single AT. Because the gap between single player and team play only keeps growing, in particular with regards to the changes in farming. But that is a discussion that's been done to death. I only mention what I would personally like to see, if anyone cared.

Hello again Cobalt, I would like to point something out though. It is fine, even very admirable to say "the door is open and we have seats at the table." The thing is though, that ship has already sailed for some. Simply because many who post a differing opinion here in the normal forums is dogpiled, downvoted, or insulted. (but to be fair, both sides in any issue is guilty of all of those things.) As an example I fully expect the usual suspects to downvote this post without even reading my full thoughts or reply here. And after my one and only attempt at taking part in the Beta for my favorite powerset in the game, I most certainly won't be offering my thoughts on a change again, much less share the "ideas table" with the same people. But my point is, is you are more or less asking people to get into a pool filled with sharks. I mean, just how welcoming do you think that would be to those like myself who often have a differing opinion than what is touted as popular? I can't imagine that environment is any better than here in the normal forums, I would expect it to be worse. Speaking purely for myself, I fully expect if I were to take part in the "ideas" discord, there would be eyerolling from some, and downvotes from others. I imagine some would trip over one another to refute or disprove any suggestion or idea I might have, regardless on what that topic is, or what my opinion might be on it. I mean, I have had posts downvoted when I did nothing but thank another player. Perhaps you haven't seen it, but "that" is the level it's gotten to. If what I had to say or thought on any given issue wasn't respected here then why would it be any different there? I even offered an olive branch, and as of yet still seem uncertain if they are willing to live and let live. Our input might be seen and measured by you the staff, and I thank you for that. For the consideration, even if the reply is a simple "no" or "we want to go a different way." Just knowing that a different opinion was seen and considered is enough for most. It's just the silence we see that can be so frustrating at times. I do admire the staff and all you do, and all the time spent. Even if its features I don't personally like or activities I don't enjoy. Because a dead server is far far worse. A game where there is no advancement, development, grows stagnant and people go elsewhere. And I don't think any of you are bad people. Or even think that those I often disagree with here are bad people. Only passionate about what they care about, and sometimes rude. But I can live with that. But I most certainly won't be collaborating with them if they neither respect me as a person nor my opinion on upcoming changes. Best wishes

Honestly I was thinking more like 10-15 or so minutes, not seconds or even a few minutes. Purely my own personal opinion here but if someone is afk 10-15 mins then perhaps they could log out. I am not saying a booter every 2-3 mins.

Oh I agree that it is likely a small part of the community that might be causing issues. And I do know you weren't accusing me of anything but I appreciate the confirmation. I do wonder though if an "farming boot timer" is an option, if its the "mega afk farmers" that's causing the majority of the problems. I have little knowledge in that, but I assume such a boot timer may not be able to tell the difference between keystrokes and/or autocasted powers. I mean, we have boot timers now outside of missions do we not? I do wonder how difficult it might be to tweak it to help with this issue in some way. I can't speak if it would or would not. I mean, even when I 3 box, I have to alt+tab over to them and pilot them at least once a minute, either to help heal, pop a rebuff, use an incarnate power, and tab back. Even my afk'ers arent 100% fully "afk." But I lack the scripting skills to know if a boot timer could tell the difference between that, and by an auto-casted AOE going off every 30 seconds. But that's just me musing.

Yes, and I understand where that argument is coming from, reducing the amount of money going into the economy. First I will repeat my earlier question since it seemed to have gone under the radar - are non-money rewards doing non-ae activities, taken into account when balancing the rewards of each activities? Merits, Salvage, Badges, Accolades, Titles, etc? Or was it a strict money gained vs money gained comparison and adjustment? Secondly, I think one thing might have escaped the staff when adjusting different activities - you took a straight 1 vs 1 comparison of an activity and made adjustments accordingly, but what may have escaped your consideration is the number of players doing each activity. As an example (using purely theoretical numbers here) - 1 person farms for an hour and makes 100m Inf, vs 8 people running ITF's for an hour and each makes 25m, "creating" 200m Inf in total, not counting the other non-money rewards they might accumulate. Now these numbers are entirely theoretical, but I am using them to try and illustrate my point. I would argue, that if you are considering the balancing of rewards per activities, vs the amount of money being created, that the ITF's make more "In total", but not "per player." HC is simultaneously trying to balance both the wealth being "created" as well as the "balance" awarded for doing each activity, but that is a multi-sided problem. There are far more non-farmers than there are farmers. I truly do appreciate the forethought going into protecting the in-game economy from the staff and steps taken to slow inflation. But I think the actions that were taken might have missed a few important factors, such as non-money rewards as well as the number of people who do each activity, as well as for how long. Taking X (money gain in AE) and comparing that against Y (money gain in non-AE) and balancing rewards around that alone, exempts many things as suggested above.