Discussion: Disabling XP No Longer Increases Influence

[Llewellyn Blackwell]

7 hours ago, Foxfyre said:

You're expecting the in-game economy to follow normal economic rules.  However you defeat your own premise with the first statement.

"Inflation causes every unit of influence to be worth less per unit, so rampant addition of influence to the exomoy devalues each unit of influence."

If money is devalued, that means thing should cost MORE as each influence is worth less.  However as we've seen everything on the market house currently is essentially dirt cheap - because there's so much of it.

Which means once you restrict the flow of money, the next logical thing to happen is that prices will increase to make up for that lost money flow.

Prices wont go up, because merits exist. If it ever reaches a point were people are trying to get more for a recipe then one can earn via merit liquidation or playing the conversion game, then people will just shift back to using merits to buy IO sets directly. And since we cant trade merits this helps create a stable price cap on things we can trade.

[Troo]

29 minutes ago, Crysis said:

There’s a really dangerous assumption in there and that’s that the player base who prefers AE farming will actually go play TF’s to keep playing the game at ALL.

 

I don’t go eat fish because steak is expensive.  I just eat steak less often and settle on hamburger instead.  This is how life works and using nerfs in MMO’s to attempt to “force resigned compliance” has to my knowledge never worked in any game in history.  People who like it enough to adapt will do so.  Others will just....quit playing or play far less.

 

And this wouldn’t be a big deal if the player base were 100K or so and maybe 10% stopped playing or played less as a result.  But since our max is far less than that and that’s not even figuring the multi box accounts online simultaneously (and it stands to reason MOST of those are farmers), this flawed “Nerf X to drive adoption of Y” model could backfire greatly.

 

Look at all the cool stuff that is included with Issue 26 Page 5.

 

Concerned with folks quitting over no longer being able to abuse an exploit = not much

 

Edited March 31, 2020 by Troo

[Eclipse.]

9 minutes ago, Bentley Berkeley said:

Prices wont go up, because merits exist. If it ever reaches a point were people are trying to get more for a recipe then one can earn via merit liquidation or playing the conversion game, then people will just shift back to using merits to buy IO sets directly. And since we cant trade merits this helps create a stable price cap on things we can trade.

We are a long, long, long way off of IOs costing what there merit cap is AFAIK.

Prices would have to go up about 4x before we got to that point, at least for Purples. ATOs were about 10x increase last I looked, but it's been awhile.

[Wavicle]

15 minutes ago, Troo said:

 

Look at all the cool stuff that is included with Issue 26 Page 5.

 

Concerned with folks quitting over no longer being able to abuse an exploit = not much

 

 

Seriously, the people predicting DOOM are way out of proportion with reality.

[skoryy]

28 minutes ago, Crysis said:

And this wouldn’t be a big deal if the player base were 100K or so and maybe 10% stopped playing or played less as a result.

If y'all gonna over-exaggerate your numbers, go big or go home.  Using any percentage less than 50% is weaksauce.

[ArchVileTerror]

@Jimmy:  "In brief: Our goal is for all playstyles be valid, worthwhile[,] and enjoyable. That's what we're working towards."

 

I realize I'm in the extreme minority here, but my personal playstyle includes decidedly -not- racing to 50.  The removal of bonus Inf hits my playstyle pretty hard, as it was basically one half of my sense of reward and progress in the game.

Unless I've misunderstood (as I haven't had a chance to log in yet, and for-example the removal Double Inf thing instead only affects level 50 characters), then I feel you've missed the mark on your express intended goal with this change.  

 

You also said:  "The imbalance wasn't in the market though - it was in the means of earning currency"  after the statement of  "We’ve made this change to reduce the influence income gap between players who farm and those that do not. The amount of additional influence gained by abusing level 49 missions simply wasn’t healthy for the overall economy of the game, and generally unfair towards those who play standard level 50 content instead of farming."

 

If it's a matter of there being a wealth gap, why not create incentives for high net worth individuals to engage in more charity and in-game financial community support?  Why not boost the Inf gain across all levels prior to 50?  If there was an exploit, why not repair the exploit instead of specifically targeting the Double Inf Option?

 

I would really like to see the Homecoming Team's math behind the decision-making for this.  I realize my own perspective may be too narrow or outright skewed, so seeing the hard numbers might help me understand how the Team came to their present conclusion.  

[Errants]

1 hour ago, Shadowstorm86 said:

I don't like farming (i get bored of it) but I have to do it as the only viable way to get inf to gear up an alt,

No, you do not. It is just the lowest barrier to entry to fund an alt.

 

I self-funded my main, through just playing content, and slowly putting the build together. I THEN started marketeering, and have used that influence earned (before I stopped because of boredom) to fund set IO builds for 4 50's, 2 mid-tier, and 3-4 of my wife's alts.

 

I've never farmed. I've played content at the highest difficulty I find fun (my main solo's most mobs at +2x8, Spines/Ice Scrapper, all my other toons adjust as needed), I TF (I do prioritise WST's, but more for the exp boost than the merits), and I low-key market on all my toons (selling rare recipes to vendor/market, whichever has best offer, craft/convert uncommons to rares for better profit, stockpile of rare/uncommon salvage and vend the rest/all common).

I just now, 6 months after stopping the market, had to dip back into a marketeering role, as my Inf levels had finally gotten "low". I'll do it for a bit, and then ignore it again.

 

Oh, also, all my alts run 2x from level 1 to level 50 - never had issues affording anything, as recipes/salvage/inspiration sales to market/vendor far eclipse the potential Inf gains.

 

TLDR: You do NOT need to farm to afford to kit out toons.

[Saikochoro]

10 minutes ago, Eran Rist said:

No, you do not. It is just the lowest barrier to entry to fund an alt.

 

I self-funded my main, through just playing content, and slowly putting the build together. I THEN started marketeering, and have used that influence earned (before I stopped because of boredom) to fund set IO builds for 4 50's, 2 mid-tier, and 3-4 of my wife's alts.

 

I've never farmed. I've played content at the highest difficulty I find fun (my main solo's most mobs at +2x8, Spines/Ice Scrapper, all my other toons adjust as needed), I TF (I do prioritise WST's, but more for the exp boost than the merits), and I low-key market on all my toons (selling rare recipes to vendor/market, whichever has best offer, craft/convert uncommons to rares for better profit, stockpile of rare/uncommon salvage and vend the rest/all common).

I just now, 6 months after stopping the market, had to dip back into a marketeering role, as my Inf levels had finally gotten "low". I'll do it for a bit, and then ignore it again.

 

Oh, also, all my alts run 2x from level 1 to level 50 - never had issues affording anything, as recipes/salvage/inspiration sales to market/vendor far eclipse the potential Inf gains.

 

TLDR: You do NOT need to farm to afford to kit out toons.

It’s not even the lowest barrier to entry. The lowest barrier to entry is probably turning merits into converters and selling those on the market.  
 

Using converters to convert enhancements to sell also has a lower entry barrier - basically non-existent entry barrier.  It also happens to earn more than farming anyway. Honestly I think farming has one of the highest barriers to entry for earning influence. 

Edited April 1, 2020 by Saikochoro

[RCU7115]

9 hours ago, Jimmy said:

Simply using a level 49 map itself was not an exploit, but was an abuse of the system, which is why it was eventually going to be removed.

 

The exploit was the use of Patrol XP with this option turned on - your influence income increased dramatically without consuming the Patrol XP - and I have no doubt that many players were making use of this without being aware at all. Just fixing that alone would've resulted in a big income drop for farmers, but as this feature was simply not healthy for the game we opted to remove it.

 

Again, you need to consider this change in the context of it impacting everyone. Your income may have dropped, but so has the overall input of influence into the economy. Those who were not making use of this exploit (unwittingly or not) will not actually experience any change in their buying power long-term.

1. I never new of this exploit.

2. Will you now nerf the Reward Merits farmers who convert merits into converters who sell them in the Auction House making millions in 10-15 minutes. ? For Example take away the ability to convert Reward Merits to Enhancenment Converters. There is a thread about posting your speed TF runs which earn merits, I've seen ITF's run in under 10 minutes on live and on Homecoming.

3. Farming is Farming regardles of what and how you choose to farm for example Reward Merits, Enhancement Catalyst, Iinfluence or Incarnate System items.

 

 

[0th Power]

19 pages is too much, can anyone condense it down to 2-3 sentences?

[ForeverLaxx]

Just now, 0th Power said:

19 pages is too much, can anyone condense it down to 2-3 sentences?

People crying "doom" over farmers losing some influence gain and everyone else saying how childish that is.

[Errants]

Just now, 0th Power said:

19 pages is too much, can anyone condense it down to 2-3 sentences?

STEALTH NERFS OMG WE'VE GONE TO THE AMERICANS!!!! I CAN'T AFFORD ANYTHING ANYMORE BECAUSE I HAZ TO FARM!!!   NO U DONT, EARN MONEY ELSEWHERE!!!! - Re. removal of increased xp when level 50 and not earning Inf. - 18 pages worth

 

Wow, cool shinies, thanks dev team! - Re. everything else - 1 Page worth

[Grouchybeast]

2 minutes ago, RCU7115 said:

1. I never new of this exploit.

2. Will you now nerf the Reward Merits farmers who convert merits into converters who sell them in the Auction House making millions in 10-15 minutes. ? For Example take away the ability to convert Reward Merits to Enhancenment Converters. There is a thread about posting your speed TF runs which earn merits, I've seen ITF's run in under 10 minutes on live and on Homecoming.

3. Farming is Farming regardles of what and how you choose to farm for example Reward Merits, Enhancement Catalyst, Iinfluence or Incarnate System items.

 

 

Jimmy already answered this:

 

4 hours ago, Jimmy said:

Right, OK. I did answer this, albeit indirectly.

 

It's certainly not an 800 pound gorilla, and not something we're trying to hide or obfuscate in any way. It's a deliberate part of the economy working as intended right now.

 

Basically: Those people marketeering? They are turning the supply of low-demand goods into high-demand goods, thus lowering the cost of those high-demand goods for everyone. That's a net positive for the economy, specifically a net positive for the average player interacting with the economy. Anything we do to remove or damage this process would cause prices to skyrocket. We don't want that.

 

However if your argument is that it should be simpler or easier to engage in this process? That's a reasonable one, and certainly something we might look at in the future.

 

I'd add that Farming is not Farming, regardless.  For example, turning reward merits into converters and selling them on the market is a process that actively removes inf from the game, and this therefor the exact opposite of the issue addressed by the new change to exemplared XP.

 

 

[Vald]

Hope the influence nerf is a weird april fools day joke 😞, I mean with little game time I have was a good quick option to gather the funds needed now its cut in half

Edited April 1, 2020 by Vald

[Eclipse.]

26 minutes ago, Saikochoro said:

It’s not even the lowest barrier to entry. The lowest barrier to entry is probably turning merits into converters and selling those on the market.  
 

Using converters to convert enhancements to sell also has a lower entry barrier - basically non-existent entry barrier.  It also happens to earn more than farming anyway. Honestly I think farming has one of the highest barriers to entry for earning influence. 

Marketeering and farming are -- in my experience/opinion -- FAR lower barriers to entry than trying to make a build off of merits.

It'll largely depend on the hours you can play, but in my experience it can take well north of an hour to get even a POPULAR TF started after about 8pm local for me (PST), which is typically about the earliest I can get on.

Honestly, I've probably spent 2-3x as long LFG when trying to do a TF than the TF themselves take, and it's extremely rare (again, in my experience) that people stick around for more than 1.

Unless I was going to solo the TFs.

I'm not out here farming all the time - but the thing I like about it (and for me, this change is really minor, honestly) is that I can control it entirely on my own. I don't have to worry about finding people.  If I have an hour or 30 minutes to play I know I can make progress, etc. I just can't do that with merits, sadly.


Edit:
To be clear, IDGAF about the Inf/XP change, personally.
I think it's silly, since it effects non farming things as well, but I'm not offended by it.

Edited April 1, 2020 by Eclipse.

[Super Atom]

The issue here is... Why weren't you transparent about this change before just kind of doing it? I get some people would be mad but you just kind of sneak nerfed something and that's not cool.

 

Also; The market place is done significant harm by converters, not farming. Converters have destabilized the market for many IO's that otherwise wouldn't be in the 1-3 available range. If you're truly and honestly worried about the market, it's time to just seed it at a fixed price and call it a day not stealth nerf influence farming a year later.

[Ironblade]

6 hours ago, Houtchmaster said:

As someone who does not have a lot of influence since rejoining the game, and who is trying desperately to save up influence in order to purchase named enhancements for heroes, this influence change hurts me. I don't have billions to draw from, and now it seems, the difficulty of saving up will (to my appearance) be twice as hard =/.

Fortunately, you don't need billions of inf.

I have a couple hundred million across my characters, after fully IO'ing several of the higher level ones.

This involved exactly ZERO farming.  I find farming to be simply tedious, so I don't do it.  Fortunately, no one needs to.

[Super Atom]

Just now, Ironblade said:

Fortunately, you don't need billions of inf.

I have a couple hundred million across my characters, after fully IO'ing several of the higher level ones.

This involved exactly ZERO farming.  I find farming to be simply tedious, so I don't do it.  Fortunately, no one needs to.

 

This is also the real truth. Farming is boring, just get a good group and roll +4/x8 (if you can't solo it) and you'll make more then enough money for your alts and get to see something other than the same map and enemy group.

[Peerless Girl]

23 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

The issue here is... Why weren't you transparent about this change before just kind of doing it? I get some people would be mad but you just kind of sneak nerfed something and that's not cool.

 

Also; The market place is done significant harm by converters, not farming. Converters have destabilized the market for many IO's that otherwise wouldn't be in the 1-3 available range. If you're truly and honestly worried about the market, it's time to just seed it at a fixed price and call it a day not stealth nerf influence farming a year later.

Repeatedly explained. It was part of an exploit, and exploit fixes don't go into the patch notes during beta, only after being fixed on live. This isn't really about "market issues" it's about Influence inflation. This is what happens when you slap reply without reading the thread (or at least the dev replies) first.

[DMW45]

4 minutes ago, Peerless Girl said:

Repeatedly explained. It was part of an exploit, and exploit fixes don't go into the patch notes during beta, only after being fixed on live. This isn't really about "market issues" it's about Influence inflation. This is what happens when you slap reply without reading the thread (or at least the dev replies) first.

Removing it entirely was not apart of an exploit fix.

Edited April 1, 2020 by DMW45

[Super Atom]

5 minutes ago, Peerless Girl said:

Repeatedly explained. It was part of an exploit, and exploit fixes don't go into the patch notes during beta, only after being fixed on live. This isn't really about "market issues" it's about Influence inflation. This is what happens when you slap reply without reading the thread (or at least the dev replies) first.

I read the dev replies and i don't really care what their reason for sneak nerfing something is. I don't like it, I never said they never responded i just said it wasn't cool. Don't accuse people of not knowing how to read if you can't. There's no real reason for it to be an "Exploit" since it's just been a thing for 7 years of their time as being in charge of what does and doesn't happen in this game. It's a game change at that point and it's also something that could have been discussed since it's not the primary source of influence "inflation" as you call it which is just absurd in the first place since merit farming/converters are 100x worse.

[DMW45]

The stealth of it is what bothers me--I mean, I could understand an exploit fix, but this explicitly goes beyond that.

 

They fixed an exploit, and removed a mechanic entirely, without giving people an opportunity to give feedback on it beforehand.

 

If they wanted to look at inflationary things, they could have looked at market fees and increasing them and the like as well.

[SwitchFade]

5 hours ago, Coyotedancer said:

And the "unaddressed issue" is exactly what you mentioned in your own post a few minutes ago, Jimmy... And what Doc actually summed up pretty well in his. 

 

If the idea you guys are going for over-all is to make everyone feel like they're on a level economic playing field, then it's going to take addressing more than just the INF-earning potential of farming. You're also going to have to look at the other eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the room. Marketeering. Which is going to be a proverbial can of worms.

 

This probably isn't the thread to do that with anything approaching depth or detail, granted... but it IS an issue if your intention is making players feel like they don't have to do anything but regular play to get goodies at a reasonable rate when they interact with the in-game economy. That was my only real point in bringing it up, and one that you (And others... you weren't alone in that-) kept basically ignoring to repeat the Inflation point, even after I specifically said that WASN'T what I was actually talking about, That was the bit that makes me feel like it was a deliberate deflection.

I'm very sorry, that's not how economics works.

 

An inferior good trends inversely to a normal good 

 

Marketeering takes inferior goods and converts them to normal goods, thus increasing supply of normal goods, which will lower prices of normal goods by causing surplus.

 

Think of it like this: there 1,000 Honda Civics and 1 McLaren. The Honda is 20k and the McLaren is 2mill.  Convert 900 Honda to McLaren. The McLaren will now be in surplus and will sit unsold. Prices lower to the point the McLaren surplus sells off or suppliers leave the market. That's equilibrium.

 

So, flipping io's to other io's is a good thing. In fact if you instantly flipped all io's to LoTG tomorrow and there were 100,000 of them, they would sit until suppliers lowered the price to 10k each, and they sell off.

[Coyotedancer]

Just now, SwitchFade said:

I'm very sorry, that's not how economics works.

 

An inferior good trends inversely to a normal good 

 

Marketeering takes inferior goods and converts them to normal goods, thus increasing supply of normal goods, which will lower prices of normal goods by causing surplus.

 

Think of it like this: there 1,000 Honda Civics and 1 McLaren. The Honda is 20k and the McLaren is 2mill.  Convert 900 Honda to McLaren. The McLaren will now be in surplus and will sit unsold. Prices lower to the point the McLaren surplus sells off or suppliers leave the market. That's equilibrium.

 

So, flipping io's to other io's is a good thing. In fact if you instantly flipped all io's to LoTG tomorrow and there were 100,000 of them, they would sit until suppliers lowered the price to 10k each, and they sell off.

Way to completely miss the point.... but hey, you got to lecture someone about economics, so I guess you got some fun out of it.

[Errants]

10 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

It's a game change at that point and it's also something that could have been discussed since it's not the primary source of influence "inflation" as you call it which is just absurd in the first place since merit farming/converters are 100x worse.

Except that merit farming earns merits - doesn't had inf to the system. Converters use merits (no inf) or are bought off the market (established as deflationary due to market fees). Both help create rare items in larger quantities than normally dropped by RNG.

That's the opposite of causing inflation. Farming causes inflation because the farmer toons substitute inf for time/merits/effort.