[Does anyone just like... play regular?]

When I first started playing a few months ago, I had the same impression as a new player that you had. Everyone seemed to be moving far too fast, and the missions I did seemed to require no teamwork nor cooperation. Most of the game seemed about soloing team content, begging for power leveling in the LFG chat or playing 1 single mission over and over again for hugely imbalanced rewards.

I did start to enjoy the game a lot more when I became more familiar with the plethora of teleport options and ways to get around. And there is still content where cooperation and teamwork are valued, although you have to go out of your way to look for it. Ironically, those teams that moved far too fast for me to keep up at first ended up being one of them.

 

My experience with the community has been similarly mixed. The people in-game, actually playing the game, I have found to be mostly fun and approachable. The forums are much more insular, elitist and touchy, and home to at least a few hardcore vets who have had a very long time to get used to what the game is like and are deeply prejudiced against anyone they perceive as challenging the status quo. Case in point, I actually saw a post here that said something along the lines of (paraphrased) “why does everyone have this fetish for popularizing the game? I just want to have it to myself. I don’t want to have to share it with the class of 2021.” Classy.

 

This forum saw a 6 page debate over asking for tells versus broadcasting for invites to content. And let’s just say that one of the Homecoming developer’s own story arcs opens with a literal super-powered war that broke out over a forum disagreement, complete with suicide bombers and chemical weapons.

 

I don’t want to sound too negative, because for the bad there is, there’s a lot of good, too, and still a lot of unique things you can do in this game and no other. But I can definitely understand that sense of alienation you feel — even as someone who did not play during the game’s time of live service. 
 

[Suggestion: Change to Absorb Pain]

I did like absorb pain for its stated purpose. It's nice to be able to click a hero and instantly put them back at full health.

 

On the other hand, such situations have been very rare in my experience so far. There's saving people from Antimatter's disintegration on a badge run, I guess. It was great on that Posi 1 I did last week where none of the characters had any defenses whatsoever, and I was the only thing keeping the team functioning. The rest of the time, even if someone does die, it's only a speedbump at worst. Hence I don't think this suggestion fixes the issue, because if there aren't more opportunities to heal, then better, different or unique healing tools aren't going to make any difference in the end.

 

Powers that solely benefit others and are useful in only a tiny fraction of the content are always going to be a hard sell. The malus on absorb pain that prevents me from healing myself seems unecessary, too. If anything, it should give me a damage buff because I'm now madder. Personally, what I would prefer to get is more content where healing and especially long-range targeted healing is valuable. NPC's that you have to keep alive under constant heavy damage, enemies that focus fire on teammates, irresistible and autohit damage, etc. Or, make the healing powers dual-purpose - make absorb pain deal damage in an aoe around the target equal to 50% of the HP healed, for example. That would add an interesting minigame of trying to time your heals and judging the target's position to deal good damage.

[Anyone else notice a slowly increasing number of people joining groups just to solo?]

I also think there should be extra rewards for challenge settings. Maybe something like +X% merits for having no insps, +Y% inf for having enemies buffed, etc. And perhaps one day, a "disable level shifts" and "disable incarnate powers" setting with rewards to match.

 

It makes no sense to me that players who enjoy challenge are penalized with slower run times and fewer rewards, while AE farmers are able to make many times the same rewards (inf, drops and exp). More balanced rewards that incentivize a variety of playstyles instead catering exclusively to a handful would be great.

[Who would want to live in Paragon?]

What I would really like is to be able to clean up the city, permanently, for real!

 

You can already do this in Atlas Park. If you do the introductory mission chain straight out of the tutorial, some areas which used to spawn Hellions plotting arson start to spawn PPD patrols instead. This system doesn't seem to have been expanded beyond the starting zones, which is a bit of a pity. Maybe one day, in the far future...

[How do you solo content?]

When I soloed, I looked up the Homecoming wiki, choose a level-appropriate zone, and looked at contacts in it. Then I would do storyarcs from contacts that seemed like people my character would personally associate with. I personally found it interesting to add a roleplaying element of choosing stories thematically appropriate for my character, and when I look back at my list of souvenirs, I can see not just a list of random missions completed, but a hero or villain's career as they rise through the ranks.

 

1 hour ago, Zhym said:

Here are two excellent guides on one way to solo through the blue side and red side content.  These aren't the only way, and they favor the "newer" (and, IMO, better designed) story arcs over the "classic" arcs, but overall I think they lay out pretty good plans for touring the CoH content via the slow path.

 

 

I initially used these guides, but quickly abandoned them in favor of my own research on the wiki. They leave out plenty of good content.

 

Case in point, the hero one omits:

• The entirety of Who Will Die? (10-50)
• The entirety of Pandora's Box (30-50)
• Keith Nance, Jenni Adair & Roy Cooling, which cross-reference each other (all 20-29)
• Agent Watkins (20-29)

 

I would personally suggest these over Synapse, Moonfire, or the Shadow Shard in the very crowded 15-30 and 40-50 ranges.

 

The villainous guide doesn't direct you to contacts that are somewhat out of the way and may require prior setup to access. For example, to be able to do the Slot Machine's 2nd arc (which is mechanically uninspiring, but has a cute twist near the end), you need the Gangbuster badge by level 34 or less. Neither guide mentions narrative elements that could be problematic; for example, in the middle of the First Ward story, there is one mission where your character very unambiguously kills people to progress. That could be a deal-breaker for certain characters but isn't mentioned. These are the kind of tips I'd personally find useful in a "good missions guide".

 

That's not to say that all the suggestions are bad; a lot of them are well-deserved. Just be aware that plenty of info is missing from these guides.

[A Whirlpool Flush]

I would love to see pull-in mechanics like this.

 

Harpoon power someday maybe?

[No Vehicles, huh?]

I would love a longbow Cataphract that I can ride. Doesn’t even need to be dyeable or anything; some hack that replaces the character model with the robot model is good enough (I see it has animations for being summoned, unsummoned and flying, presumably for group fly). 

[Nerf Level Shifts]

I'm not sure why level shifts were even allowed to work outside of incarnate trials in the first place.

 

With IO sets, or even incarnate powers, there is usually a little thought as to which one works best for your playstyle or powersets and some kind of tradeoff involved. With the level shift, which buffs everything by a huge amount, I'm left wondering how exactly this adds to the gameplay experience.

 

Their huge power has far-reaching effects for game balance and the "just don't use it" argument falls flat on its face since there is very strong incentive to use them. If I want to play on a level-shift-less team I have to put up with longer recruiting times, manually check each player, hope they don't equip one out of combat and handle the resultant MMO drama if someone does and I need to deal with it. That's why some people are even leveling characters to 44 and turning off exp there, just to ensure a level-shift-less experience. The reward for this hassle is a lower reward rate (due to slower killing speed) simply because I choose to enjoy the game differently.

 

Level shifts outside of incarnate trials should never have been implemented because they negatively impact the gameplay of a significant minority of players without any benefit to the majority that cannot be accomplished in a more equitable way.

 

Yes, I said no benefit.

• If the content is too hard without the level shift, the player can reduce the difficulty.
• If rewards are too low without the level shift, either because you reduced the difficulty or your kill speed has been decreased, the developers can buff reward rates globally.

Level shifts outside of incarnate content serve no purpose.

[Let Null Gull Lvl Up]

1 hour ago, TraumaTrain said:

Did you know if you go through that whole dialog twice you get the Very Gullible badge?

Hah! A respectable attempt but you’ll have to try harder.

[Anyone else notice a slowly increasing number of people joining groups just to solo?]

This thread has been an interesting read. As a new player, I was never aware of any expectation for me to stick with the group all the time. I mean, I do, especially if I don’t know the mechanics or where to go, or if my character isn’t capable enough to solo yet. But if I know what I am doing and absent any specific requests from the party owner, I do often take things into my own hands.

 

To me, it just makes sense to split up if there are multiple objectives in an area and you can handle them individually. eg. if we’re trying to fill up 6 terminals on Keyes, or if there are 8 Security Chief? and we have to figure out which is the real one, or if whole groups are dying before I can get most of my debuffs out. On maps where I am very familiar with spawn locations, I sometimes move ahead to group enemies the way I think will be beneficial. Nobody so far has taken an issue with what I do, although I do keep an eye on the group and go back if it seems that would be more productive instead.

 

But I have, a few times, run into the behavior I think is being discussed. And in those cases it is very obvious because when you run up to the person to give them a buff, or if you join them to make the split in players more even, they deliberately run away from you or run further ahead with the half-killed spawn trailing behind them. I never could figure out what these people were trying to do. It can’t be to impress anyone, because soloing taskforces at maximum difficulty or killing faster than characters who are still leveling is not hard to do in the first place.

[Salvage Management]

I am not especially experienced, however I only keep rare salvage and salvage used for base empowerment station buffs. Generally, only rare salvage is worth enough to be worth keeping and sorting to me. Common and uncommon salvage can be had on the AH for 150 and 2000 inf apiece respectively which isn’t significant.

 

The only recipes I craft and keep are purples. All other recipes, even if they are for IO’s I want to use, I vendor or sell on the AH. I use a lot of attuned IO’s, and since buying from the AH gives attuned enhancements but crafting does not, I prefer to sell everything and buy back what I want from the AH. 

[Hot Take: DIY!]

Asking for complete builds to copy and use has always felt like asking someone else to pick out all your clothes for you: highly likely to invite disappointment because it’s not what you wanted.

 

I do find it useful to look at builds because they sometimes provide new ideas on how to achieve certain goals. I just don’t copy the entire thing wholesale.

[Dedicated Archetypes]

16 hours ago, Diantane said:

The same goes for the tank. A 50/50 tank will be weak on a team. They won't do much damage and die just like any other player.

 

As a newer player, I quickly learned that in this game tanks, and melee characters in general, have a lot more survivability than required in normal gameplay. There don't seem to be any enemies that hit hard enough to require the defenses they have. Conversely, there are enough low-hanging fruit to increase survivability that you don't need to specialize for it -- a steadfast protection unique and Gladiator's armor unique is an easy 6% def to all for 2 slots; that's almost 4/5ths of a fully enhanced Weave.

 

My first tank was a Fire/SS, which is the defensively weakest armor set, and I was able to solo an ITF at 54x8 on it, on a build that did not have softcapped defense (only 16% def to all). To die on that character I have to mismanage my endurance, or turn on challenge settings like no insps/enemies buffed/player debuffed. That goes to show how overtuned armor defenses in this game are.

 

I do take key powers from the primary on my defenders and tanks, but I prioritize damage wherever possible, usually not by slotting directly for it, but by stuffing attacks full of procs. I find that in this game you can have 75% of two things instead of 100% of one and 0% of the other, and the former is far more effective. That's because you've left out the very important second half of that aphorism up there: "Jack of all trades, master of none, but better than a master of one."

[Lore Pets...pluses, minuses, quirks]

I was impressed with the paper DPS of Banished Pantheon pets until I read more carefully the fine print in the spreadsheet: this DPS was measured by testing against Rikti Pylons. Rikti Pylons apparently count as +0 enemies to level 50 characters. Higher-level enemies resist the -res debuffs that Banished Pantheon apply due to the level difference and will take less damage than expected. The BP are probably still good, but I wonder whether they are "nearly 100 DPS more than the next-best option" good.

[Favorite blue side story arcs and contacts]

I skimmed through the list and didn't see Shauna Stockwell and Eagle Eye mentioned. These two are my favorite low-level contacts by far. They do something that I have found very rare for heroic stories in this game, that is tell an arc suitable for a street-level hero.

 

They're set in the stark industrial wasteland of King's Row, and they actually manage to make the Skulls, a low-level street gang, seem like a credible threat, both to the hero and the city. The Skulls may not be able to lift buildings or punch through concrete, but they ruin lives through addiction, coercion, corruption and terror. There is plenty of flavorful dialogue, and the missions are full of little details and neat touches such as the one where the enemy tries to lay a trap for the hero by showing a completely empty mission map at first! In what other arc can you see druggies queuing up to buy a fix, only to flee when you show up to arrest the dealers.

 

The arcs end on an unresolved note asking you to see Back Alley Brawler's personal story in a solo mission. I always wonder what that was leading up to as it seems to have been planned future content that will never be realized now that live service has ended.

[Ancillary / Epic Pool Proliferation]

If you mean more themes for ancillary pools, yes please! I dearly want something water or ice themed for my cold/water def, etc.

 

If you mean cross-class proliferation, I doubt that is a good idea. In particular, it would allow some characters to have even more aoe attacks than they already have. It would be fun to have dark oblit on some of my defs but the game does not need any more aoe than is already in it.

[Everything seems to cost too much influence]

5 hours ago, Luminara said:

 

Your comparison was implied to be a triple-box farmer versus an unstated number of players on the ITF.  This is from your first post in this thread -

 

 

Do you frequently have issues recruiting yourself for your solo endeavors and presume that to be the norm?  No?  Then that reference to recruiting indicates that the ITF runner in the comparison is on a team.  Your own words, quoted above, clearly state that the person going through the ITF would be doing so with the expectation of having a team assembled, having had to "spend tine (sic) recruiting".  You failed to specify the number of teammates the ITF runner would have, but as it happens, that number is irrelevant because the math, which is based on the results you provided, indicates that the per player per hour inf* gain is equivalent between the activities in question.

 

Of course, having had your conclusion proven erroneous, again, by the figures you submitted as proof of that conclusion, you're now attempting to change the conditions of the comparison, restricting the ITF runner to a solo environment, disregarding that the multi-boxing farmer is engaging in the equivalent of teaming, and in spite of having previously stated that the ITF runner would not likely be solo.

 

Yeah... no.

 

 

Yet, you believe you can compare the inf* generated by a triple-boxing farmer to a solo player's results.  Because how else are you going to prove yourself right, if not by arbitrarily altering the parameters and deliberately trying to skew things in favor of the farmer so you can portray said farmer as a bad, bad person?  It's not really a team, just because it's three characters on three separate accounts, so why not pretend they don't exist (except that they're receiving extra inf* and drops and typically aiding the farmer in some way, such as spamming a heal or Speed Boost), right?  Right?

 

Wrong.

 

 

Because none of what you've been saying makes sense when examined?  Because none of what you've said has actually been correct?  Because you're pushing a personal vendetta against farmers and accusing them of causing inflation despite the game showing the opposite to be true?  Because you've resorted to changing the parameters of the comparison to "win"?

 

 

A team comprised of a farmer plus two dummy accounts is still a team.  The characters on the secondary and tertiary accounts are still teammates, receiving inf* and drops of their own which is in addition to the farmer's inf* and drops.  The farmer is not creating more inf* than anyone else, as demonstrated in other posts in this thread, he/she is simply keeping more inf* than players who team with other players.  Some farmers might be generating inf* above the curve, others are generating less, just as some *F runners put together optimal teams and blitz through *Fs at blistering paces while others take a more leisurely approach.  It averages out over time.  None of them are generating inf* in such excessive and enormous amounts that the economy is endangered, the farmers are only generating more inf* for their own personal use than the average player, not more inf* than other players can generate via other methods, and that is also not endangering the economy.

 

Any three characters working in concert can make 100,000,000 inf* per hour.  The farmer keeps all of it, the team players share it.  That's the only difference.  Whether it's divided three ways or all goes into one pocket isn't relevant.

 

 

See the paragraph above.

 

 

Yet you felt that non-inf*/non-vendor rewards were important to include as part of the reward structure of farming, to such a degree that you actively disputed every reminder that non-AE content offers more rewards than AE content, or than farming in general.  You made it a point to dispute the claim that farmers couldn't acquire all of the same rewards by farming.  It was important enough that you addressed that more than once.

 

But having merits rewards for completing *Fs/trials/story arcs raised as an example of a reward unobtainable by farming, since farming doesn't complete *Fs/trials/story arcs, requires them to be excluded (now that there's a value attached to those merits).  They're no longer relevant, now that they're relevant.

 

Yeah, that's definitely not a transparent and feeble scramble to maintain an untenable position.

 

But, hell, let's run with it!  If you want to move the goal post from Hackensack to Kolkata, fuck yeah, let's do it!  We'll remove the ~6,000,000 inf* for merits from the earlier calculation.  That still equates to more than double the net earnings for the TF runners when compared to the farmer's earnings in the same time period, 240,000,000 versus the farmer's 100,000,000 after one hour.  That's 30,000,000 inf* per hour per player on the TF (as originally noted by @Bionic_Flea), and at three players, we achieve equilibrium with the triple-boxing farmer.  3 characters on each team, equivalent inf* generation.

 

Do you want to change the conditions again?

 

 

What you consistently fail to accept or admit is that it's not how much a farmer generates, it's how much everyone generates that matters.  Farmers don't park themselves in the AE and farm the same map over and over again because the inf* generation is higher in AE farm maps, they do it because it's easy to build for those maps and the inf* they generate doesn't have to be split 3-8 ways.  It's not more inf* overall, it's more inf* for them, and it doesn't impact the economy to any measurable degree because it's just not relevant in comparison to the vastly greater amounts generated by significantly greater percentage of the population doing everything else.

 

But you categorically refute that because you're completely focused on the individual gains.  The big picture doesn't seem to exist for you.  You just will not see it.  You're so determined to prove that farmers are a cancer that you've thrown away all reason, logic and credulity in pursuit of that goal.

 

 

You've consistently failed to do the most basic math to support your conclusion, and you really should've done that before you posted the first time; your attempts at defending your position have been tantamount to "Nuh uh" and "I'm rubber and you're glue"; you display no facility for deductive or abductive reasoning; and you clearly have a personal agenda warping your perspective on the subject.  You're a threat to yourself, not to me.

 

 

I don't farm.  I mention that in this very thread, but apparently even the effort of reading the thread in which you're posting is too much research work for you.

In light of the GM’s post I will make this my final reply.
 

Look, there are two separate issues I am bringing up:

 

1) farmers increase the amount of inf in the economy, and this leads to higher prices.

 

2) farmers gain vastly more rewards (considering both inf and non-inf rewards) than players of other playstyles.

 

Merits should be considered in 2), but not in 1). Does that seem clear now?

 

Beyond that, your argument rests on nitpicking and technicalities like considering a multiboxing farmer a “team” of 3 players, a stretch of the definition only possible with the elongation control power set. You say that what matters is how much inf the entire playerbase is generating. True, but why are conclusions from individual reward rates not able to be extrapolated to the playerbase as a whole? If farming generates more inf per unit time per person, and increased inf supply leads to higher prices, every player who farms instead of participating in some other playstyle leads in a small way to higher prices. The absolute size of the effect would depend on how prevalent farming is (anecdotally, very), but farmers would be the largest cause of inflation on a per capita basis. You’re free to prefer the former metric if you please, but you’ve disproved nothing.

 

You claim it’s long been proven that farming does not cause inflation, and yet you don’t supply any proof of that, despite your lofty talk of proof, research etc. Are you talking about the conclusions of discussions from back when this game was still a live service game? If so, I don’t see how they are relevant. As I understand, the market back then was vastly different (P2W store goods were previously part of the game’s monetization scheme, etc.). You can’t draw conclusions from that economy of long ago, and apply it to this one.
 

You accuse me of having some agenda against farmers, despite the fact that I have said in this thread that there is nothing inherently wrong with farming. Just for the record, there will always be players attracted to repetitive grinding, and that’s completely fine. My problem is with the balance of rewards and the idea that certain playstyles deserve vastly more rewards than others. It doesn’t matter what playstyle that is.

 

Finally, if you dispute that comparing reward per player is relevant, that’s fine. You don’t have to agree with me. But when you distort commonsense definitions of what a team is, open and close your posts with personal attacks against my intelligence, and fling all kinds of wild and unproven accusations against me like disinformation and spreading FUD, an argument in good faith is impossible. Next time, if you actually have any facts, leave your condescension and toxicity at home.

[Everything seems to cost too much influence]

1 hour ago, Luminara said:

 

If you scroll up a bit, you'll note that @macskull expanded on my post with additional calculations and information.  In that post, using the numbers you provided (plus some which you omitted), the team of eight players generates the same quantity of inf* in ~15.62 minutes that the farmer needs an hour to generate.  We can also extrapolate that it only "requires" two players to equal the farmer's inf* generation rate per hour, as opposed to "an entire team of players", based on that same analysis, which, again, uses the numbers you provided.    You proved yourself wrong.

You're so focused on forcing everyone to accept your assertion that farmers cause inflation that you're overlooking, or deliberately distorting, facts which refute that assertion.  Farmers might gross more than individual players, but the economy isn't based on the actions of individuals, but the sum of all actions of all players.  What farmers do is, in reality, a drop in the ocean, because they don't comprise a significant portion of the player base and their best efforts are only really impressive when viewed at that individual level.

 

I and others have looked at your numbers and come to the conclusion that the math, based on your numbers, completely disputes everything you've said.  The evidence you're attempting to support your position with has had the opposite effect.  Let it go.

 

You're looking at the earnings of an 8-player ITF in total. Have you considered how much inf 8 farmers generate? If those 8 players weren't on an ITF, they could all be farming, you know.

 

My comparison was one player farming versus one player on a task force. You cannot compare the inf generated by a single farmer vs an entire task force, because you are not controlling for the number of players. I don't know why this needs to be explained. Farming creates ex nihilo far more inf per player per unit time than any other activity in the game. This increases the amount of currency in circulation which then leads to higher equilibrium prices.

 

In my original post, which was meant to show how much inf farmers inject into the economy, I indeed did not include the value of the 26 merits. This is not an omission. Merits create tradeable goods out of thin air, not inf (and therefore, do not increase the amount of inf in circulation, and hence do not contribute to higher equilibrium prices, which was my original thesis).

 

If we're comparing overall rewards of different playstyles, which is a separate issue from inf creation and prices, then it would be right to include their value and I did neglect to do that; I may also have been unclear which I was talking about when casually referring to the earnings of farmers vs other playstyles.

 

However, as I previously mentioned, I consider all economics arguments (including any supposed benefits farming has on the economy) a distraction from the fact that the playstyle of farmers is vastly more rewarding than most others for no reason. And I don't see why anyone should have trouble with me pointing this out; the farmers themselves readily admit to it, some in this very thread, no less.

 

Quote

Chill, they're not damaging the economy in the least.  You can put the pitchfork and torch down.

 

I love this comment because I think it shows what you really see in me: a threat.

 

I have repeatedly said that 1) nerfs to AE alone are not desirable because farmers will just move on to the next, slightly-less-lucrative thing; 2) what I hope for is a comprehensive review of all reward systems in the game, that incentivizes different playstyles and content; and 3) I expect this will never happen. No nerfs are forthcoming, just because Miss M made a post pointing out that farmers print money. I merely saw a comment asking where all this inf comes from so I pointed out the the activity that creates the most inf, per player per unit time, in game.

 

So chill, you won't lose your 100 M/hr golden goose. You can put the pitchfork and torch down.

[Lore question: robots]

4 hours ago, Techwright said:

When fighting various factions that use robots, notably Sky Raiders, Council, and Fifth Column, I occasionally see a robot in charge and/or referred to with a rank and name (Lt. Smith, etc.).  I've seen this in both missions and radio missions.

 

 

It's clearly someone remote-controlling the thing from a sunny beach in the Maldives. What, you people still put on your costumes to do villainy?

[Everything seems to cost too much influence]

3 hours ago, aethereal said:

Marketing gives the best rewards in the game.  Farmers prefer to farm because they dislike marketing, not because farming gives better rewards than marketing.

 

(In much the same way, I don't farm because it doesn't appeal to me, not because I think that running solo mission arcs is more efficient than farming).

 

That said, the market would be vastly different if it weren't for farmers, and it's not clear that marketing doesn't depend on farming in some way.

 

As I said earlier, I think the fact that you can make more money off the market doesn't excuse the imbalances in AE farming vs. other rewards. One part of a system being more imbalanced doesn't erase other flaws in the system.

 

Personally, I consider profiteering on the market less disruptive than AE farming: it earns only inf, not exp, and hence has no way to get certain things like empyrean merits, incarnate salvage etc. You can't level from the market, and the profiteers at least have some reason to, eventually, venture out of the auction house. You can probably pay someone to powerlevel you -- but that's dependent on farming existing in the first place. Farming is potentially a one-stop shop for everything, and that's an advantage you can't quantify.

 

Do I think the market needs changes? Yes, but what I would actually love to see is a thorough revision of reward systems, with the goal of rewarding different playstyles and incentivizing a wider range of content -- which this game has never had and will never have. I am under no illusion that nerfs to marketing, or in fact, AE (I've seen posts in the suggestions forum that even removing exp from it entirely) in a vacuum will achieve this.

[Everything seems to cost too much influence]

8 hours ago, Luminara said:

 

 

The foundation of your premise is flawed from the outset.

 

For example, your hypothetical comparison of a farmer generating 100,000,000 inf* per hour versus 10,000,000-12,000,000 inf* per hour for a "kill most ITF" doesn't clarify the conditions of the comparison.  A farmer triple-boxing versus a single character on a full team is what your suggested comparison implies, and that would grossly skew the metrics involved to make it appear that the farmer was generating ten times the inf*, when in actuality, the inf* generation would be equivalent for the activities, with the difference being the ITF inf* split eight ways, rather than all going into a single pocket.

 

Your comparison fails to account for the 26 merits rewarded for completing the ITF.  Yes, the farmer can collect Empyrean merits for achieving veteran level milestones and exchange those for reward merits, but the character on the ITF can acquire those Empyrean merits as well and the ITF reward merits in addition.  That equates to roughly ~6,000,000 additional inf* for every character on the ITF, and potentially more, depending on how they use those merits, that wasn't included in your comparison.  That increases the average inf* generation from 10-12,000,000 inf* to 16-18,000,000 inf* per participating character, netting a total of 128-144,000,000 inf* for completing that TF (28-44,000,000 more than the farmer generates).

 

You're throwing out numbers with no qualifying data, and either failing to account for all variables or deliberately obfuscating the results.  People here actually look at the facts.  People here test things.  And people here have had this discussion numerous times in the past, so they're not easily hornswoggled, or unlikely to notice that you missed some very obvious points.  If you'd like to be taken seriously, post some real data, not wild guestimates presented as gospel or deliberately disingenuous comparisons intended to incite FUD.

 

You are fundamentally wrong when comparing the earnings of farmers vs. other playstyles. The fact that it requires an entire team of players to exceed the earnings of a single multiboxing farmer is proof of how much vastly more farmers earn, and has implications for which kinds of playstyles are incentivized and which are discouraged. You're not only neglecting to consider the difference in individual income, but also ignoring non-quantitative factors, such as how farming is AFK-friendly (while other playstyles are not); farming is solo-friendly, while task forces are less so; etc. Before you accuse me of disinformation, failing to look at the facts, or missing obvious points, look at your own post first.

 

But if you disagree with my premise that rewards from AE farming are disproportionately greater than those of other playstyles, you don't have to take my word for it. Farmers, by their own admission (in this thread no less), make far more rewards than those of other players. You can find @Ukase's claim of 51 M inf/hr for a solo AFK farmer. I'm sure you'll be able to produce 51 M inf/hr while solo and AFK on a task force, story arc, etc.

 

I'm certain you've had this discussion many times in the past. I don't expect farmers to change their minds on a reward system that disproportionately favors them; they have a vested interest in claiming that the current system is fine. But expecting to hoodwink me by comparing the rewards of a single player vs. a full team, and then turning around and accusing me of deliberately obfuscating facts is simply condescending. If you aren't going to argue in good faith, why bother?

[Everything seems to cost too much influence]

45 minutes ago, Bionic_Flea said:

I also don't buy the argument that farmers insist on 10x the influence rewards.  Influence is magically created when a player defeats an NPC.  Influence is also magically created when a player completes a story arc or TF or sells an item to a vendor.  Every player gets the same amount per kill, per completion, and per sale.  The difference is the speed in which those tasks are completed.

In terms of rewards, there is no difference in being able to kill 1 critter and receive 10 inf instead of 1; or being able to kill 10 critters 10 times as fast, and receiving 1 inf for each. Either way, both result in a reward rate of 10 inf/unit time, which is the metric that must be considered (in the same way that DPS is the generally relevant metric for damage, rather than the damage of any specific hit). Farmers may be advocating for the latter over the former, but the net result is still that they want their playstyle to be vastly more rewarding in comparison to most others, for no reason. Oh, and they can AFK farm, too.

 

The equilibrium prices are determined by the relative rates of inf generation and elimination. When the rate of inf generation is higher, more inf enters the economy and prices rise generally because there is more money to spend. When the rate of inf elimination is higher, inf is removed from the system, and people are less willing to pay high prices because less inf exists now and inf itself has value as a commodity (P2W powers, super packs, etc.)

 

What the various vendors do is set a ceiling price beyond which the equilibrium cannot rise further, the ultimate ceiling being the conversion of inf to reward merits directly (1 M inf = 1 merit). You won’t see runaway hyperinflation in this game the way some real-world economies experienced, because it’s not possible. However, below that level, farming can certainly raise the equilibrium and result in elevated prices.

 

I also think there is a separate effect where farming increases demand for IO’s by mass-producing high-level characters who will all now desire enhancements. This generates demand, and increased demand leads to higher prices.

[Everything seems to cost too much influence]

6 hours ago, Dazl said:

Where the heck are you coming up with this? Farmer's aren't asking for anything special. Farming has already been nerfed. If you want to make influence then you need to be marketing. Farming anymore is just good for power leveling alts.

I already gave details in my original post, but in short, a kill-most 54x8 ITF produces something like 10 to 12 M inf. The best active farmers that I know of can reach about 100 M/hr. That’s as much as 10x more.

In terms of exp, my experience is that 1-50 takes approximately 20 gameplay hours (on my characters that do not turn off exp to stay within the range of specific contacts). A good farm gets you there in about 2-3h — again, up to 10x faster.

 

Then, you need to consider that farming can be done AFK and is much easier to multibox with than other playstyles. Most other playstyles are not scalable to this extent. 

 

Farmers don’t give up anything in exchange for this. You can unlock incarnates in AE, and you can make and buy incarnate salvage by powerleveling through vet levels and getting empyrean merits. (In fact, I recently read discussions on these forums about the economic viability of power leveling new alts just to claim empyrean merits: you’d level throwaway characters to vet level 18, which is the last level that gives 20 empyreans, then mail them to the character you want, and those merits are in turn convertible to other rewards not directly available from AE.) The only thing that can’t be obtained from AE farms is badge credit.

 

Past nerfs or no, the fact is that currently, farming provides rewards many times those of most other playstyles. Farmers may try to downplay it here, but they aren’t really hesitant to extol how much they earn and how fast they level when trying to convert new players to their playstyle. As for comments that profiteering on the market makes more money, I think that’s  just whataboutism.

[Everything seems to cost too much influence]

1 hour ago, Grouchybeast said:

 

That would be a fair question to ask, except that most content in CoX does get played.  Everyone in the game isn't in AE.  People are playing TFs, running story arcs, soloing and teaming,  It continues to be true, as it was even on the live servers with their much more inflated market, that simply playing the game provides more than enough inf to equip characters.   As the saying used to go on the old forums, the game rains inf, all you need to do is hold out a bucket.  (And a much smaller bucket, now, since IO prices are in some cases literally orders of magnitude lower.) Farming is entirely optional.  I assume that most people who farm are doing it because they enjoy it as an activity, not because they feel forced into it.

 

I'm sure that every piece of content in the game has been done at least once, by the completionists if no one else. However, failure to properly incentivize content means that ease of participating in different kinds of content, and hence support for different playstyles, can vary widely. On Excelsior, which is the most populated server, it's surprisingly hard to assemble a team for Graveyard Shift (the newest hero storyarc) and the reason is pretty simple -- it doesn't offer any notable rewards. That's why systems such as merit diminishing rewards and the WST exist: to help players who want to run content that is less popular, and because content being worth playing both intrinsically and for rewards is objectively better than this being not the case.

 

I don't doubt that people exist who do farm for fun; repetitive grinding does appeal to some players, and it was a hallmark of the earliest generation of MMO's. There is nothing inherently wrong with this kind of gameplay, provided that rewards are properly balanced with respect to the rest of the game. Ultimately, the problem lies more with the fact that farmers are fighting to demand the special privilege of having their playstyle award vastly more (up to 1,000% as much) rewards than players who choose to enjoy the game differently.

 

 

 

[Well, devs, my favorite TF is no longer fun to solo.]

I was on a 54/x8 enemies buffed ITF and my fire/ss tank with double Rage (so over +50% tohit) was still missing. Granted, I don't know if the "enemies buffed" challenge setting also gives them +def. I was quite surprised to see def that rage could not punch through.

 

I think the more effective solution is debuffs! The same TF, same settings, but with all corruptors/defenders had no more than the usual amount of misses.