Discussion: Disabling XP No Longer Increases Influence

[QuiJon]

56 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Exemp farms alone were not an exploit on their own, but they definitely were an abuse of that mechanic. There's no good reason why a level 49 mission should give greater rewards than a level 50 mission.

Accept they didn't. You got greating influence by turning off xp. So when I did so I was costing myself Vet xp at the benefit of earning influence. Just like I can turn off influence and earn more XP pre-50. And since emp merits are transferable per account, those are rewards I was choosing to forego in order to earn extra influence. The need to farm influence is dictated by the cost of items in game. So long as someone thinks they should sell a ATO for 10 million or get 25 million for a purple set piece those are the prices they will set which will force people to farm to earn the money. And those that farm will still have the leg up on those that don't to earn those purchases faster. If the true intention was to give parity between those that farm and those that don't then cap the prices on the AH to a moderate level that can be obtained through normal game play. Therefore there is no advantage to farming at all other then stockpiling influence but having more of it doesn't mean I am at an advantage if the person that just runs TFs all night can afford to compete. 

[QuiJon]

1 hour ago, AngelKofsky said:

Then there's really no reason for you to get more than double influence for it with patrol xp

 

Nope, but you can exploit elements of them that don't work as intended, as this was not intended for people to used to solo farm lvl 49 missions with patrol xp giving a never-depleting bonus so that they can farm influence while not playing with the lower level chars and content (what the exemp system is for) That is 100% an exploit. 

Now, seriously I keep addressing you, and you keep replying but not answering my question about Elec affinity.

Patrol xp is finite. You can only hold so much of it at once and even that takes time logged off to build up. But I would imagine one pass through a farm and patrol xp was gone and used up I never honestly looked because I turned xp off. 

 

And the side kick.exemp system was also never intended to allow someone to play so far below their level. So maybe we now need to address all those that join level 50 +4 ITFs with a level 35 with double xp running and get like 5 levels in 60 minutes? Maybe we could say the same thing there that is an unintended consequence of having such a large level gap on a team and maybe we need to start giving diminishing returns on xp when you are sidekicked up? And BTW even if you call the exempt thing an exploit, that required you to leave on xp earning. There was a separate option to turn xp off that also gave a bonus to influence earning even if you were playing at normal level with no exempt and that was was also removed I believe. So please why should I not just get any bonus to influence for chosing to skip xp even at level 50 with no exempt?

 

If all you care about is elec affinity then stop responding to me, I don't care about it in the slightlest. 

 

[DMW45]

30 minutes ago, QuiJon said:

So was it meant to be used doing level 45 Orro flashbacks? Cause that counted as exempt also and now doesn't. It was MEANT to give a bonus to influence for ignoring XP gain PERIOD. Kind of just like how the double xp token is at the cost of influence. 

Exactly.

 

I simply do not understand why 'using' the mechanic is 'abusing' the mechanic, even on a 'level 49' mission

[QuiJon]

1 hour ago, Jimmy said:

(Not directed just at @Crysis, just quoting this for convenience...)

 

There's a difference between earning (or generating) influence and amassing influence. Earning influence creates more money and inflates the economy. Amassing influence simply moves that money around (and actually causes deflation due to the market cut). The assertion being made by myself and many others is that farming was (and still is) the fastest way of earning influence in the game. This fact is not incompatible with the claim that marketeering allows you to amass influence faster than farming allows you to earn it.

 

The economy is not a one-dimensional beast, we have different tools and options available to us to tweak different parts of how it functions. The primary goal of this change was to reduce inflation and adjust the balance of earning influence - because earning influence is what creates buying power, and ultimately drives pricing in the market.

 

I'll repeat my earlier statement: Reducing the effectiveness of crafting and using converters would do nothing but massively drive prices of rare goods up for everyone. We don't want that.

The ONLY way to control what you are saying you want to control is by controlling prices. Much like was done with salvage. There is a reason why most all salvage falls into a price range and it is because the market was seeded with it at a specific price. People have spent a year now farming. They have amassed BILLIONs in influence. Those players already have their money and will still maintain the buying power to out spend anyone they want. Those that marketer will still expect those kind of prices and therefore set those higher prices for their sales. 

 

Hell look at ATOs as a good example. Most no "non supreme" ATO sells for more then like 12-13 million. Essentially the market knows that at a 10m dollar pack price and maybe a drop rate of 1.5 per pack that you are spending maybe 7.5m per ATO. So the only real bonus on the AH is getting exactly what you want. So figure in a worst case scenario of a few million in converters and the market decides that over that amount you might as well just go about it a different way. Same thing now with purples. Where back on live things like immb and sleeps were dirt cheap they are now getting to also be as much as a ragnorok or something because people will buy them and convert them, however as a result ragnoroks are not 80 million anymore just most all of them run around 20 million because they can be interchangeable now. 

 

The rise in prices is not a result of the farmers its a result that people have now learned to not buy the premium. Buy a crappy defense set convert it to a LOTG Global Recharge. But a hold PVP convert it to a pancera proc. Buy a crap heal convert it to a numinas. As a result people on the market are learning to charge more expensive prices for crap and more expensive items are normalizing in their demand. As a result what were once cheap sets are getting more expensive. The only way to combat this if you leave converters as is, would be to cap the price of each range of recipe. Set a top end price for every yellow, orange, pvp, purple, ato, winter, and hami set. (maybe recipies cheaper then crafted) If there is a ceiling on what can be earned then it means the "competitive" nature of the AH works toward the favor of equalizing the buying power of those with not as much money. After all if I have 100m influence and someone else has 1billion influence and we both want a enhancement that caps for 10million then we both have an equal chance to buy it, if he can bit 100,000,001 influence then I am locked out from competing with him. 

[golstat2003]

11 minutes ago, QuiJon said:

 

 

The rise in prices is not a result of the farmers its a result that people have now learned to not buy the premium. Buy a crappy defense set convert it to a LOTG Global Recharge. But a hold PVP convert it to a pancera proc. Buy a crap heal convert it to a numinas. As a result people on the market are learning to charge more expensive prices for crap and more expensive items are normalizing in their demand. As a result what were once cheap sets are getting more expensive. The only way to combat this if you leave converters as is, would be to cap the price of each range of recipe. Set a top end price for every yellow, orange, pvp, purple, ato, winter, and hami set. (maybe recipies cheaper then crafted) If there is a ceiling on what can be earned then it means the "competitive" nature of the AH works toward the favor of equalizing the buying power of those with not as much money. After all if I have 100m influence and someone else has 1billion influence and we both want a enhancement that caps for 10million then we both have an equal chance to buy it, if he can bit 100,000,001 influence then I am locked out from competing with him. 

IF they set the highest price for everything at 25 million I would be okay. I would not be okay if they do this and set the highest price for everything at 100 million. That's NOT what the highest price of items on the market currently are.

 

Not saying you're saying they should do that, but just pointing it out, in case the devs decide to go with price caps . . . That said they won't.

 

EDIT: To be clear nothing they've said in this thread makes me believe the HC devs are considering price caps. With everything seeming to show that they like the Market as it exist in game., as a sort of min game.

Edited April 1, 2020 by golstat2003

[DMW45]

3 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

IF they set the highest price for everything at 25 million I would be okay. I would not be okay if they do this and set the highest price for everything at 100 million. That's NOT what the highest price of items on the market currently are.

 

Not saying you're saying they should do that, but just pointing it out, in case the devs decide to go with price caps . . . That said they won't.

I believe there is an effective price cap of 100m, with the 1m to 1 merit buyin and the ability to buy recipes for 100 merits?

 

Granted, this is far too high, imo.

Edited April 1, 2020 by DMW45

[golstat2003]

Just now, DMW45 said:

I believe there is an effective price cap of 100m, with the 1m to 1 merit buyin and the ability to buy recipes for 100 merits?

Purples currently don't go anywhere near that in reality. I00 mil would be closer to what they were on live. And would be a mistake based on all the comments the devs have already made in this thread.

[DMW45]

Just now, golstat2003 said:

Purples currently don't go anywhere near that in reality. I00 mil would be closer to what they were on live. And would be a mistake based on all the comments the devs have already made in this thread.

Yeah, I do think a 10-15-20-25m price cap on rarities should be a thing.

[golstat2003]

3 minutes ago, DMW45 said:

Yeah, I do think a 10-15-20-25m price cap on rarities should be a thing.

Honestly if the market went away and we went to being able to buy IOs directly (either by inf , merits, emps, astrals, etc) I'd be fine with that.

 

But I think some folks love the market for being it's own mini game within a game. Just like some folks like burning down hoards of mobs with a fire toon.

[Saikochoro]

18 hours ago, Super Atom said:

I cut it down because it was a long reply someone can just go back and read without clogging up the page.

 

I'm arguing my point that influence isn't the problem converters are. I don't give a damn about the nerf other than i don't like when they stealth nerf stuff.

Converters definitely are not a problem. They are one of, if not the, greatest things about the market. They enable limitless supply which keeps prices down, which is good for everyone. They are also basically a gold standard for the market keeping everything in check.
 

They are an incredibly easy source of cash for people who don’t want to convert. They are an even better source for people that do. Converters are the best thing that happened to the market along with recipe fungibility.

Edited April 1, 2020 by Saikochoro

[MunkiLord]

2 hours ago, Jimmy said:

(Not directed just at @Crysis, just quoting this for convenience...)

 

There's a difference between earning (or generating) influence and amassing influence. Earning influence creates more money and inflates the economy. Amassing influence simply moves that money around (and actually causes deflation due to the market cut). The assertion being made by myself and many others is that farming was (and still is) the fastest way of earning influence in the game. This fact is not incompatible with the claim that marketeering allows you to amass influence faster than farming allows you to earn it.

 

The economy is not a one-dimensional beast, we have different tools and options available to us to tweak different parts of how it functions. The primary goal of this change was to reduce inflation and adjust the balance of earning influence - because earning influence is what creates buying power, and ultimately drives pricing in the market.

 

I'll repeat my earlier statement: Reducing the effectiveness of crafting and using converters would do nothing but massively drive prices of rare goods up for everyone. We don't want that.

Ah, this clarification makes sense.
 

I would also like to add in that amassing influence effectively takes it out of the game as well. Unless the people hoarding it give it all away or start spending it, the only impact it has is little more than a scorecard on a spreadsheet. 

[Wavicle]

The reason we're talking about the completely harmless influence change instead of the load of Awesome new toys we got is because there are already threads upon threads in the beta forums of discussion of the toys. They don't need to be talked about anymore, just played with.

[Wavicle]

Just now, MunkiLord said:

Ah, this clarification makes sense.
 

I would also like to add in that amassing influence effectively takes it out of the game as well. Unless the people hoarding it give it all away or start spending it, the only impact it has is little more than a scorecard on a spreadsheet. 

Most people are spending it once they've amassed enough.

Some people probably hoard it for fun, but not enough to solve the problem.

[Crysis]

3 minutes ago, MunkiLord said:

Ah, this clarification makes sense.
 

I would also like to add in that amassing influence effectively takes it out of the game as well. Unless the people hoarding it give it all away or start spending it, the only impact it has is little more than a scorecard on a spreadsheet. 

Only true if the “amassers” ONLY amass and never spend it to amass more.   When they use the funds to buy hundreds of something to drive a price, rather than simply fabricating out of base purchase price of converters, then they can manipulate markets and thus....PvP dynamics in a PvE setting.  
 

I doubt people would enjoy being forced to PvP in Atlas Park but yet....here we are.

[MunkiLord]

Just now, Wavicle said:

Most people are spending it once they've amassed enough.

Some people probably hoard it for fun, but not enough to solve the problem.

People that have 20, 50, or 300 billion are not spending it all. Especially once you start hitting 50 billion and up. That's just not a realistic amount to spend for all but the most hardcore power levelers. And I don't mean to imply that it solves anything, just that it also helps. 

[MunkiLord]

Just now, Crysis said:

Only true if the “amassers” ONLY amass and never spend it to amass more.   When they use the funds to buy hundreds of something to drive a price, rather than simply fabricating out of base purchase price of converters, then they can manipulate markets and thus....PvP dynamics in a PvE setting.  
 

I doubt people would enjoy being forced to PvP in Atlas Park but yet....here we are.

"Never spend" isn't a logical or possible condition, of course they spend some of it. But they clearly spend less than they hoard if someone is sitting on tens or hundreds of billions of influence.

[RCU7115]

22 hours ago, TBN8681 said:

What this means to me (a busy adult with RL responsibilities as many CoH players are) is that it will take me even longer to gather the 25M-35M to buy a single purple enhancement. So this is drastically going to decrease my desire to grind and ultimately I will spend even less time on CoH because it will simply take too long to get even a single purple set. I might be more inclined to play if the chance of purple sets dropping was increased, but as of now, it seems like too long of a grind to build even one hero. 

 

Also, there was nothing keeping all players from farming. The influence imbalance comes from a player's desire to NOT farm. So it's pointless to balance it out when the root of influence imbalance was personal preference. Saying that double influence gain was unfair to players who CHOSE not to farm is invalid and completely incorrect. 

The imbalance also comes from players choosing to play at 0/0, 0/+2, +1/+2  while farmers are running at +2/8, +3/8 and +4/8. The non-farmers also had the ability to turn off xp and gain more inf but chose not to and then complained that they couldn't make money. Free farms were constantly advertised so players could make xp(even more if the did P2W double xp booster) so they could get a higher lvl to be able to make more inf. The non farmers chose to not take the invites because the non farmers wanted to play story content which most is available thru Ouro.

I'm not saying all non farmers play that way but I believe the gap exist mainly do to  the non farmer player settings vs a farmers player settings. I may be wrong and  wouldn't be the first time nor the last.

[Crysis]

Just now, MunkiLord said:

"Never spend" isn't a logical or possible condition, of course they spend some of it. But they clearly spend less than they hoard if someone is sitting on tens or hundreds of billions of influence.

I’m sitting on tens of billions and 20+ billion builds.  I’m a small fry, but play hours per day normal PVE and hours per week farming aside from that.  
 

I spend far more than I hoard.  And I farm far less than most highly proficient farmer.  I’d say I’m about as average as they get for all activities.

 

But the only real thing of value to spend influence on in this game is an alt’s build.  So I have to assume all average farmers and marketeers alike basically aren’t hoarding more

than they invest in alts.  Of course once invested the influence is out of circulation in all cases.

 

Its just now that “alt investment” model is being entirely disrupted and left decidedly a one party system.

[Wavicle]

2 hours ago, Crysis said:

Honestly I don’t even remember the reason for Patrol XP.  I mean it’s the very example

of “AFK farming” that seems to be the issue that prompted this latest nerf.

Pretty sure Patrol XP was invented (along with Day Jobs, doesn't matter which came first) as a form of offline progression and as an incentive to return to an unplayed alt.

[Wavicle]

2 minutes ago, Crysis said:

I’m sitting on tens of billions and 20+ billion builds. 
 

 I’d say I’m about as average as they get for all activities.

I really don't think that's average.

[srmalloy]

On 3/31/2020 at 8:48 AM, drbuzzard said:

Not sure if this was intentional, but LFG no longer works to teleport you around to contacts (at least solo). 

Odd, it did for me this morning, at least with regard to parking a character in Cimerora.

[MWRuger]

1 hour ago, Crysis said:

Only true if the “amassers” ONLY amass and never spend it to amass more.   When they use the funds to buy hundreds of something to drive a price, rather than simply fabricating out of base purchase price of converters, then they can manipulate markets and thus....PvP dynamics in a PvE setting.  
 

I doubt people would enjoy being forced to PvP in Atlas Park but yet....here we are.

This is damn funny. Good one.

All that does is move from one player to another and doesn't generate inf. In fact, it removes inf from the game. You can't really corner a market when you can really just punch a Nazi to get more salvage or whatever.  Or run an AE arc and spend tickets to get salvage or recipes.

And PvP? Until a marketeer calls me gay and and accuses me of intercourse with my mother, it ain't PvP. 

[RCU7115]

23 hours ago, Daytona Ral said:

So, it I farm, but I'm not min-maxing it. I use an Elec/Elec Brute, because that's what I had when I started and I think making another farmer is a waste of valuable gaming time, and I don't want to try and run one or more alt accounts with farmers on them, because the only real advantage to that is AFK farming, and with the inf nerfs, the devs will be in retirement homes before I have a farmer ready to "afk" farm, and there will be no homecoming.

What seems is going to happen here is that the min-maxer farmers will just make 4 or 5 extra farming accounts, run them all at once, AFK, and bring in enough inf that they'll be able to keep the AH market prices high, and they'll be able to afford the prices. Meanwhile, those of us that were getting by farming on the same account we play on, are going to be the ones getting screwed.

 

I appreciate what the devs do, in their spare time, to keep this game going, but Devs: I wish you'd realize that exploiters are going to exploit, no matter what you do, and that the only people really taking a hit from the inf-nerf are those of us who just dabbled in farming to make what we needed, and not those who are prepared to go to absurd lengths to earn as much influence as possible.

Players are limited to 3 accounts to Multi-box on.

[RCU7115]

On 3/31/2020 at 3:14 PM, Wavicle said:

It SHOULD take a long time to kit yourself out with Purples.  They are the among the highest trophies in the game! Of course it should take a while to get them!

But it doesn't. A farmer can do that in a few hours, now it'll ad a few more that's it. Before the patch it was about an hour to make 100 million on an average farming build. If you know what you're doing you can make a complete set of any IO set within 5 hours of gameplay running missions, not TF's just missons.

[Wavicle]

8 minutes ago, RCU7115 said:

But it doesn't. A farmer can do that in a few hours, now it'll ad a few more that's it. Before the patch it was about an hour to make 100 million on an average farming build. If you know what you're doing you can make a complete set of any IO set within 5 hours of gameplay running missions, not TF's just missons.

I understand, and that's ok.