Sanguinesun

With AE farming, it is (like with various other aspects of the game) tied to the variables around you. 1. Your toon build being optimized for damage output in an aoe fashion to as many mobs as possible (to of course try to clear as fast as possible) while also have a decent single target chain (for boss/Elite boss needs). This does not include skittle chewing or S.T.A.R.T boosters either of course. The often debated tank vs brute argument for example due to the brutes higher damage output but (very much depending on the attack powers mind you) the tanks ability to hit 16 targets with some aoe's vs a brutes 10(causing in some cases the math to favor a tank's clearing) or the tanks capability to build for resistances easier to devote more in damage or other IO set bonus needs for the build and thus thinning the gap damage wise between the two even more(yes this is with the knowledge of tanks/brute changes that occurred a few years ago to already narrow that gap). I've seen people claim their toon is optimal for ae farming BUT then when looking at their builds, seeing that they've taken travel powers(vs other powers more optimal for farming... you can just take an s.t.a.r.t travel instead as if you're a true farming toon, you're never really leaving pocket d or similar ae area really), dont have much in terms of IO sets, no incarnates or incarnates not well done, no accolades or only some related to bettering their builds for farming etc. 2. Their capability (or not) of the toon to clear effectively up to EB's(or not.... some make builds more at ease with up to bosses instead per point 1). 3. The map. Not in terms of whether it has boss or up to EB's but in terms of easy it is to move across(all flat vs extremely varied terrain which can eat movement time), how the mobs spawn in that space on the map(spread out so more time moving between), and how much mobs spawn(or not). It also is a factor in long vs short maps. If you're using shorter maps your time -between- transitioning resets of the maps diminishes your exp for some people vs if their variables with these points factored would better favor bigger maps where they stay longer constantly killing. 4. How the mobs are designed in relation to the AT's damage resistances(or not) as well as trying to (due to the AE limitations) the needs to take various abilities in order to fully get 100% value for minions, LT's, boss, and EB's. Some people design min lt to be 100% for example but fail to make the boss/EB's 100%. You'd only know this from analising the exp/influence rewarded on kill and cross comparing with other maps. One would be surprised how many "oh use xyz map" suggestions have less than optimal xp/inf for mobs OR have dipped into power sets making mobs harder to take down because of what they dipped into. Additionally, some have designed mobs to cater to their play pace/AT style specifically (part of point 5) and thus killing the mobs for them is (as they perceive it) easy but for others that do not do the same as them be much harder or even ineffective. I for example know people who still play some of the older AE FF maps that mobs still have the -def abilities because they chew skittles and other things like there's no tomorrow. 5. Boosts as mentioned above. People, even in guides, speak to -needing- to use those boosts to be capable of clearing as they suggest, but yet they also, especially in influence terms, gloss over how that is an expenditure that (were this like a business) eats into your profits. Some people claim their xyz build, map choice, and those expenditures for boosts still have them have better exp/inf per hour that has them being more profitable in the long run, I dont find the evidence to their claims to be as compelling as they make them out to be. 6. Misc. Experienced boosters people have already addressed, whether they log their toon out(easy enough at AE) at a day job for boosts (rare but some have so many farmers they rotate between them per their day job exp boosted meters). Indom or similar for the higher rates. Etc etc etc. 7. The player. This is one of the main variables that cannot be accounted for and also has a lot to do with how and why there are so many differences in exp/inf per hour that have been seen every time these sorts of threads or discussions on the guides related to them occur. People's choices of clearing routes, their choices in how they chain their attacks, their choices related to other things in above points, their reaction time, their mistakes that may cause them to die or have to take a longer pause in time to get their killing pace back in full swing, etc. -------- So when someone says they use xyz map clearing xyz influence per hour, I think on the above and more variables. Rare occasions I'll test their claims(finding in almost ---every--- case there is a discrepancy in those claims even when following said claim to the letter. When I say discrepancy too I dont mean small ones like a variation of a 10's of thousands or less xp/inf, but in the millions or in much much longer clear times. Human factor mentioned in point 6 can account for some marginal variation or discrepancies but when it much larger, it then starts to make one consider that claims were potentially either inflated or that other variables were not transparent with their claims. With all that said then as a whole, people are going to farm as they wish invariably. There are people for example who pride themselves on farming with blasters or other AT's and even dragging their other toons in multiboxing tow with them on one map, or any other combination of factors. It's then what ever floats their boat really. But always when individuals start claiming they've the most optimal way and throwing out their xp/inf numbers per hour, my spidey skepticism senses start tingling. 😛

Actually AE methods are going to be faster than tot per hour because of: 1. ToT teams having exp diluted from non leagued leeches. 2. Dynamics of numbers of members per team changing often through out the hour(as exp goes up and down). 3. ToT teams that spend (sometimes more than tot'ing) time hunting GMs, which reduces the consistency of the tot exp. 4. Banners, zombie etc events that spawn and have much less exp. etc etc. Even the first week of April's mapserve event is actually faster exp overall(yes even with the zone/side transitions) than the halloween event. For me, if exp optimizing is the core basis, then the compelling evidence still suggests AE is more by a considerable margin.

People have been reporting them every day, multiple times a day since the CoC changed. People have been also complaining about it for as long on discord. Its gotten to the point that this happening even this year since the update to the CoC that its less a reflection of their actions and more a reflection of the intentional inactions of the ones who had made it seem this individual would be held accountable this year but that's categorically not been the case.

Except the issue people are getting upset with in the ToT leagues in PI and Kalista Warf is that its 1 person who -NEVER- joins the leagues there and multiboxes their MM's -every year- all day and every day of the event for years now who then teleports away the EB's into the middle of their parked multiboxing mms to kill/tag.

GMs may request that you cease multiboxing during events such as the Winter and Halloween events. If only that was actually enforced. Same person every year multiboxes in PI for 8-10+ hours a day. This year though they've been also dropping on Kalista Warf as well one of their mms. They also teleport away mobs from groups fighting around the motel/spot in KW most usually league at and drop them in the middle of his multi boxing too. But reporting them for it does nothing, like every year.

1. Use mids or the ptr server to test out(as you can spawn any IO and build to 50 for free) to find potential improved builds for your play style. Lots of bonuses from sets for helping endurance management either in recovery boosting or endurance discounting. Just only doing general IO's for end redux isn't as effective as what can be garnered through set use. 2. Incarnates fully done(part of the build stuff in point 1 though really. 3. Improve potential management of your toggles. You dont need to necessarily run all toggles all the time depending on what you've got going. Also be mindful to manage your power use otherwise. 4. Beyond such general things as a whole, we cannot give you specific advice due to your not providing specific build information from which to give you feedback. Every character is different and with different play goals so its really impossible to give much more specific help.

Defense is a get hit or dont get hit. Resistance is a get hit but have the damage reduced due to your resistance values. You needs for either/both really depend strongly on what content you're choosing to play, what AT you're playing, and what power sets choices, etc etc etc. So saying defense equals resistance isnt an accurate way to look at it, really. If you are just casually playing and not doing the high end starred content for example, are not doing tanking duties, and you're on a team, then worrying on defense and resistances is not necessarily going to be something of merit to bother with. However if the above is not the case then it becomes more prudent to hit the specific AT forum subsection and present your build with incarnate choices and your specific play goals to actually then start to garner feedback related to such things in regards to your defense and resistance desires.

Evidence is also compelling that most of the player base doesnt pedestal it either.

Then if this is your basis for character building, anything is ok. You're attempting to blur between statistics regarding min/max performance and your subjective based wants regarding concepts. If you want to play anything, do so. Just accept that not every build of ever AT is going to be variably effective be it on a team or solo, however at the very least on teams, there is a better chance to mitigate(as that was part of the original game development design) combinations that are less effective than others. Expectations regarding soloing then must accept set shortcoming and it is the user's responsibility to find ways around them. This is also not covering of course additional variables within choices such as enhancements, power choices in the sets, use of boosters, what mob groups you're fighting which may be strong or weak against your set combo etc. Point all being. If you want to min/max, then pick well cited min/max'd sets. If you want to build by concept, then do what floats your boat as if its in the game, you can build it and get it to 50. But if you attempt to try to blur the lines between the two, then you're likely to find yourself frustrated. These sorts of threads crop up every so often over the years and the results remain the same. Take that for what its worth too in the context of things...

This will perpetually keep occurring. You're playing with people not bots. Things happen. However, just some people in groups too can be so incompatible with others on the team that said other members of the team prefer to move on to another activity or another team. Of course we do not know which is the case with your teams... perhaps.... As for your seeking fun elsewhere, that's up to you...

Guess what I'm going to state? Yep, still again no right way to defend the wrong thing.

And still no right way to defend the wrong there going on there.

No right way to inanely defend the wrong thing.

Or Joshua's realization at the end of War Games...

As I said in my other post. There are two, distinct, communities with HC: the ones who implement the decisions and the rest of the community. Years of this now have shown how its not going to change, that transparency is intentionally superficial, and worse. It should be changed but it wont change.

I thought spamming sg invites to people was a no no...

Its just a certain segment of devs that just want to put their mark on content more than much else. Warriors (like council et al before) didnt need revamps but its just in line with said mark making. The new zone concept and implementation is trying to create challenges due solely to the premise that someone feels the game needs more challenging content like with how the hardmodes were impolemented. That said: 1. Warriors(like the other groups before them) dont need a revamp and never did. 2. New zone is a convoluted and overly thought attempt to put yet another erroneous perception of challenge content into to the game. Like the hard modes before it, it's likely going to follow the same results after the novelty wears off. 3. Marine affinity. Its akin to how mcdonalds every so many months(or every month in some markets) takes their already currently made foods, switches around the combinations of them to make a new burger, wraps it in a new colored paper, and pushes the idea to people that its great. Its ok. That's about it. Im not saying its bad. It just that its ok. Likely could've been better had community input been sought during the conceptualization phase of course but that's not permitted with HC. 4. This "open" testing system is just an after-the-fact "check for bugs" only as usual. Community's input by this point matters little else because of the insular and non transparent system that exists that essentially has 2 communities instead of one. In follow up then: Let's be clear, this is intending to present challenge first and engagement second. The backhanded "some prefer less complex experiences" was a pretty similar denunciation against the criticisms that occurred when Hardmodes were implemented and under the perception that this is what the community wants when it was just then and still now, a niche set of the player base that bothered/bothers with it after the novelty of it wears off. Yes, it isn't casual content. That in itself means the majority of the player base wont engage with it. If the priority was truly engagement as you allege, then I think the evidence is compelling that it wouldnt have resulted in this. I get there is also this admitted testing the waters so to speak with "its pioneering a lot of new approaches to things"; and it would be interesting if the community as a whole were more aware of where that may be transparently heading... This also implies that this was first about the mechanics or this challenge-based "engagement", and that how such fits in with game otherwise was/is an afterthought. That's very much a shame. Story/lore shouldn't have to be "snuck in". Again this really is after-the-fact bug testing only and they expressed their reasons for disinterest plainly. Asking them, "what sort of things would interest you enough to try them on a beta" wouldnt have to be asked if we had an open development system that engaged the community as a whole from the start of the process....

Non double exp default server but running the double exp vendor buff, and not power leveling but just running task force and other team content= Between 10-25 hours of play time. Variables tend to be how readily groups get formed and what content is being done, days of the week done etc. Non double exp default server and without the double xp vendor buff= between a third to double more than the above in team content. If its non team content(solo) then considerably longer. Power leveling fastest (reunion or indom)= 4-5 hours with double exp booster. Power leveling on a non default double exp server= 7ish hours or less.

Dont you think you're rather churlishly overreacting there? They complimented your efforts and you respond by lobbing names and insults at them, all because of a forum emoticon of a response by someone else. Why diminish your efforts with such silliness?

Use common sense. Otherwise if you fork around, you're gonna find out.

As I tried to briefly explain before, the differences between a brute and a tank in terms of the most exp-inf per hour still favor a tank but because the differences in inf-exp/hr are rather small (-*-in farmer terms-*-) a brute is just as fine, especially if one already had brutes previously and fully set up for farming prior to both the 2019-2022 range of changes (brute fury nerf, tank damage buff, AOE targets numbers, Aggro changes, -def to fire swords and cascade, AE mission mob powers changes with regards to exp capabilities, and some other things). To someone new to farming who hyper focuses then on min/max from toon to mission to influence per hour etc, and wants just wants a relative bottom line(emphasis on relative), then yes, a smashing lethal farming tank with one of those builds one finds in the guides WITH the proper missions(missions are equally important that some ignore the importance of) would be of merit for their consideration. This is for both Active and AFK toons built for farming(as those who are extremely hyper focused on farming for influence will run 3 accounts for farming simultaneously) (1 active and 2 afk). Additionally, if someone is focused for leveling alts for their primary account, some opt to go to reunion or indom with an active tank on a second or third account, group then an alt from their primary account, and then power level the toon in 4-6 hours on one of those servers(due to the default double exp for the server due to low pop and the start vendor xp buff with it), then transfer (as you get 5 free xfers a week) to some other server they more likely play on(ie excel or everlasting). But again there are -many- brute farm, many who fire farm (Id argue they're still the most common vs S/L) there are many that do not use the more optimal melees opting instead for staff, SS etc, and there are yes even NON Tank/brute farmers that farm (there's been a blapper even who I've seen(though not recently) but as recent as a few months ago as I suspect they play on occassion vs consistently) fire farm. The less min/max optioned, then of course the less infl/xp per hour earned but still there is inf/xp per hour they earn sufficiently to satisfy their wants. So as I said in my other post, its the driver's choice(ie the player's choice) as people will either push to min/max, challenge themselves to find something else to use that they think they can drive better, or just simply have their own reasons otherwise to the contrary. So your question Battlewraith being answered wholly depends on you.

Final Battle of Marvel's End Game pretty well shows to me how you can justify any lore-ish summoning. You had everything from magic to tech summoning things to fight. In other words, the justifications/explanations are only limited by your creativity.

In feedback seen with changes post said changes, typically a "no" isnt commonly given without explanations why. Lack of transparency and filtering "testing/testers" tends to groom a sychophantic situation reinforcing an epistemic bubble of development. Then later only in cases of extreme criticism post implementation does it have the remote chance of being walked back and even then unlikely. In other words, the whole process is one in which most feedback that isnt congruent to the intent of dev's designs is essentially tossed.

This talk of things people will hate and rioting doesnt help the community, especially due to the lack of transparency. Its nonsense that a volunteer community run game has to even run testing in a closed and insular manner first, making a second "testing" open phase where feedback is not uncommonly derided; and then once live, making it implied that those that didnt participate in the testing have no right to criticism.

The people that maintain mids also have a discord. Perhaps ask for support there?