Discussion: Disabling XP No Longer Increases Influence

[golstat2003]

39 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

And our judgement was different.

 

At the end of the day, the change was being made - no amount of discussion would've changed that. Our view was that opening that up would not only have spread knowledge of the exploit, but it also would've distracted from other features we were actively seeking feedback and testing on.

As far as I'm concerned (and for the good of the release being as bug free as possible) this was the absolute right call. Carry on team.

[golstat2003]

13 minutes ago, phocks said:

Then I would have set aside some time after page 5's release to put the change up for testing so it could get that focused window. I disagree heavily with that sort of rigidity, but even if it were only a few days (to minimize spread) and mostly a formality (because the changes were mostly solid), the transparency of forewarning for something you know is going to be a big change is just good PR.

 

I respect that this is all volunteer work, but the people who are still sticking around and playing and giving their time and feedback do it because they're passionate and invested, too. Don't trample over that investment in the rush to do what's "healthy."

From what I get from all the dev statements the change was going out no matter what. What exact would you have been testing related to the change? 

Edited April 2, 2020 by golstat2003

[Obus Form]

@Jimmy and GMs, thank for fixing the exploit.  Separately, thank you for releasing a new powerset, and diversified costumes, all in 1 patch  Even more separately, thank you for freely running this game, server and working logistical problems without our knowledge.  We players thanklessly live in a sandbox that you run, maintain, and sweat over.

 

Especially in this time of self-isolation, your game, new power set, and costume features, as well as your attention to playerbase forums is exceptionally professional, appreciated, and above what I dreamed when I heard of your COH relaunch. 

 

From 1 human to the next, thank you =).

 

 

[Dazl]

Putting farmers and marketers aside (I have a farmer too and I'm fine with it). Doesn't this hurt the casual player a bit more in a different way? If you only had a couple hours to play and you wanted to earn the max influence per session to kit out your level 50 toon, doesn't this hurts that player in a big way as well? I can understand applying this to AE content, but is it necessary for general content, which it seems we would all like to see encouraged?  

[golstat2003]

1 minute ago, Crimsonpyre said:

Putting farmers and marketers aside (I have a farmer too and I'm fine with it). Doesn't this hurt the casual player a bit more in a different way? If you only had a couple hours to play and you wanted to earn the max influence per session to kit out your level 50 toon, doesn't this hurts that player in a big way as well? I can understand applying this to AE content, but is it necessary for general content, which it seems we would all like to see encouraged?  

To be fair, they have said they would be monitoring the effects of the change.

[Oubliette_Red]

12 minutes ago, phocks said:

Then I would have set aside some time after page 5's release to put the change up for testing so it could get that focused window. I disagree heavily with that sort of rigidity, but even if it were only a few days (to minimize spread) and mostly a formality (because the changes were mostly solid), the transparency of forewarning for something you know is going to be a big change is just good PR.

 

I respect that this is all volunteer work, but the people who are still sticking around and playing and giving their time and feedback do it because they're passionate and invested, too. Don't trample over that investment in the rush to do what's "healthy."

I am doubtful that that would have worked. Information would have spread far quicker than players testing it. The same detracting outrage would have transpired, slowing down any release.

 

[MunkiLord]

38 minutes ago, phocks said:

Then I would have set aside some time after page 5's release to put the change up for testing so it could get that focused window. I disagree heavily with that sort of rigidity, but even if it were only a few days (to minimize spread) and mostly a formality (because the changes were mostly solid), the transparency of forewarning for something you know is going to be a big change is just good PR.

 

I respect that this is all volunteer work, but the people who are still sticking around and playing and giving their time and feedback do it because they're passionate and invested, too. Don't trample over that investment in the rush to do what's "healthy."

The PR wouldn't have been any better when the changes were made anyways. People would have just accused them of not listening and the backlash would have been similar. Plus if they did it just to make the change look like feedback played a role when the decision was already made, people would have seen through that real fast. The devs knew they were gonna get a lot of shit over this no matter what, might as well rip off the band-aid so it can pass.

[QuiJon]

2 hours ago, Jimmy said:

Because any conversation about this mechanic would've very quickly resulted in the exploit becoming public knowledge.

 

Please go back through the thread and read the staff responses. Everything you've posted about has been addressed.

 

Posting the same thing over and over again will not yield different results, it'll only make people less likely to listen to you at any point in the future.

If the idea that  you put forward is that making double or whatever extra influence for nominal difference in difficulty was the issue, the point being is that this WAS infact the intention of these systems. It was NOT an exploit. Yes people made farm maps specifically to take advantage of this system but that is no different then people sidekicking a level 5 into a MotherShip raid to farm xp and I have seen nothing done to change that "exploitive" behavior. 

 

I have read the responses and none of them hold up. I have seen everything from influence exploit which is was not. The system was intended to be a reward for playing down. A means by wich higher level toons would find benefit in still playing their characters even at a time when experience is not really a worry anylonger. And it was not a secret. Hell the maps in the farms would specifically say on the titles for XP gain or Influence gain no one was hiding the mechanic or the use of it. So as was said there was no "threat" of an exploit becoming public knowledge it was already to anyone that farmed for influence. 

 

I have also seen this to say that the increase in the influence earning skews and drives up prices on the market. But again how can this hold up as an excuse when over and over and over again people post how they make billions a week doing nothing but seeding greedy auctions for profit? If this was in fact the reasoning then frankly again, this solution of changing farming only addresses half the issue. And if the influence was the factor then both marketeering and farming sould be addressed together because they both contribute.

 

Fact is that this is not a real world economy. Influence is not a finite resource. Anyone earing or sitting on piles of cash do absolutely nothing to prevent anyone else from earning their own money, the game generates it freely. Therefore as been pointed out the only controlling factor in the cost of items in the AH is what people are willing to pay. So if you want to control that you have to control the pricing over all by other means then controlling the productions of influence. The only control you have is the supply. You can drop purple drop rates making them more common to keep the prices low. You can drop their cost in the merit vendors down to say 50 merits so they are more affordable to buy that way. 

 

This change was stealthed in because you didn't want discussion. Yes it might have become heated. But any less so when you stealth the change in with no feedback. You are right, none of you are paid. But the game also doesn't have to turn a profit either. Its survival now is totally dependent on the players being willing to keep supporting the servers. As such I think yes, you owe it to the players doing so to at least engage in discussion, suggestions, and feedback before implementing broad reaching nerfs to game mechanics you personally perhaps don't like. I mean hell you could have just fixed the issue in AE and I would have less complaint on it. But I like playing my old characters and my level 50s that is why I made them, that is why I spent time building them out with IOs and T4s to their incarnates. I could probably be persuaded to agree that the bonus in AE was uncalled for if we were also looking at other means of price controlling in the markets. However I don't think it is out of place that if I want to play my old characters that get little reward from xp anylonger, to be able to turn off xp and earn more influence when I am running TFs and Orro missions and such with teammates. 

 

This change to the game mechanics also changed that aspect as well. Changed it for everyone. That was not an exploit in any way, that was the basic intention of the option to begin with and it is now removed with no community input or discussion. 

[MunkiLord]

4 minutes ago, QuiJon said:

I have also seen this to say that the increase in the influence earning skews and drives up prices on the market. But again how can this hold up as an excuse when over and over and over again people post how they make billions a week doing nothing but seeding greedy auctions for profit? If this was in fact the reasoning then frankly again, this solution of changing farming only addresses half the issue. And if the influence was the factor then both marketeering and farming sould be addressed together because they both contribute.

This was already addressed directly. It's not the collecting of influence that is the issue, it's the creation of brand new influence at extremely high rates that they are trying to address. Collecting already existing influence does not lead to inflation, and the market's 10% cut actually helps fight it. It's generating massive amounts of influence that causes inflation.

[QuiJon]

2 hours ago, Jimmy said:

not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

Sounds to me like he used that just about right. Homecoming Devs were not candid about changes they had planned. This has been going on a while with no issues, with no wisper that it was a problem. But somewhere somehow behind the scenes it was discussed to change it. The devs knew it would be a shit storm of controversy to change a mechanic that was used to increase farming so rather then enduring that and being strait forward with players they stealth the change into an update and labeled it a exploit fix so they could excuse not bringing it up on test. I mean hell MONTHS ago you labeled use of the "enterbasefrompasscode" as being able to be exploited and would need to be addressed and that is still working, and has had public discussion even though you labeled it an exploit. But this exploit...oh no no shhhhhhh top secret don't want to even tell that 1 in a thousand players that didn't know about it so stealth it into the patch. So yes disingenuous seems pretty fitting. 

[Ukase]

My thoughts are that we're very fortunate to play on a server where making inf is far easier than it was on live, if you're inclined to do so. Whether it be the market, or just doing a kill most ITF - however you play - you can make scads of influence. 

But there was, and still remains a backlash over the removal of the double inf when exemplared. So, here's my suggestion: 

We all know that a level 50 incarnate still has all their powers at level 45. 

So why not allow for the double inf when exemplared for all characters that are 44 or below? These are the levels that really need the influence anyway, particularly if it's their first character. 
If you're level 45-50, no more double inf. 
It just makes more sense to me than an across the spectrum change. Any player that has a 50 is aware that inf is no longer an issue. First characters may be an exception, as they may not have been kitting out their characters as they leveled and feel a big obstacle to come up with the millions required to deck out their new 50. But still, this would be a better solution than the one that we've just been saddled with. At least, I think so. 

 

[Haijinx]

On 3/31/2020 at 10:32 AM, Deadly Fredly said:

You stop earning Empyrean merits around vet level 99, right? Some sort of inf gain buff at vet levels 100+ might help quell the discontent.

i'm sure people at vet level 100 are hurting for INF 

Edited April 2, 2020 by Haijinx

[MunkiLord]

I think the real crime here is that Super Strength hasn't been ported to Scrappers in the update. Again, I blame Nemesis.

[Dazl]

This change could have been discussed without bringing up the exploit that's claimed to have driven this action. Again I'm fine with it in AE, but seems a bit much in general play.

[QuiJon]

Just now, MunkiLord said:

This was already addressed directly. It's not the collecting of influence that is the issue, it's the creation of brand new influence at extremely high rates that they are trying to address. Collecting already existing influence does not lead to inflation, and the market's 10% cut actually helps fight it. It's generating massive amounts of influence that causes inflation.

That is BS total BS. At the point that players have more influence then they can spend, and are banking it on unplayed characters it doesn't matter how it is obtained. The money in this game is not backed by anything. It represents no real property. It is created simply by action. I kill something I get paid for it. The market and prices are dictated by what someone can afford to pay for something. It doesn't matter where that money came from. If a marketer can afford to pay 100m for a purple that he wants then it doesn't matter to him that oh well he will be making a billion by the end of the week anyway. Just as a farmer is the same thing. If they can support their spending it doesn't matter where the money comes from. In fact the farmer is much more likely to have recipes and converters and NOT ever even go to the AH for buy high priced items then the standard player or the marketer are. I get enough PVP, Purple, and other stuff that drops that I can craft and convert just about any hancer I need that cost more then 2m pretty easily. So even with the farming money it is likely not my bids that are running up the AH prices and I would bet most smart farmers are the same way. 

 

So long as people "play" the market it will be an instrument that encourages greed and the pushing of the pricing envelope. It really doesn't matter that the market takes 10 percent of your sale if your sale is 5m in profit from buying crap converting it to gold and selling it. It is money that goes to a new player that can then use it to over pay for what they want assuring that the prices are being driven ever higher. The only way to combat the inflation if to put devices in place that creates appropriate caps for the highest price that should be paid for any object of any type. 

[mrultimate]

Can we just lock this topic and move on.

No one that disliked the change is going to be convinced to like it.

Jimmy has already said They are going to run the server the way They see fit.

 

There is nothing to be gained here.

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by mrultimate
typo

[Obus Form]

11 minutes ago, QuiJon said:

That is BS total BS. At the point that players have more influence then they can spend, and are banking it on unplayed characters it doesn't matter how it is obtained. The money in this game is not backed by anything. It represents no real property. It is created simply by action. I kill something I get paid for it. The market and prices are dictated by what someone can afford to pay for something. It doesn't matter where that money came from. If a marketer can afford to pay 100m for a purple that he wants then it doesn't matter to him that oh well he will be making a billion by the end of the week anyway. Just as a farmer is the same thing. If they can support their spending it doesn't matter where the money comes from. In fact the farmer is much more likely to have recipes and converters and NOT ever even go to the AH for buy high priced items then the standard player or the marketer are. I get enough PVP, Purple, and other stuff that drops that I can craft and convert just about any hancer I need that cost more then 2m pretty easily. So even with the farming money it is likely not my bids that are running up the AH prices and I would bet most smart farmers are the same way. 

 

So long as people "play" the market it will be an instrument that encourages greed and the pushing of the pricing envelope. It really doesn't matter that the market takes 10 percent of your sale if your sale is 5m in profit from buying crap converting it to gold and selling it. It is money that goes to a new player that can then use it to over pay for what they want assuring that the prices are being driven ever higher. The only way to combat the inflation if to put devices in place that creates appropriate caps for the highest price that should be paid for any object of any type. 

At the risk rudeness, @QuiJon it may be helpful for you to take a quick breather.  At least none of us are suffering in real life and we have time to play this game.  Let it go man.

 

 

[mrultimate]

1 minute ago, Obus Form said:

At the risk rudeness, @QuiJon it may be helpful for you to take a quick breather.  At least none of us are suffering in real life and we have time to play this game.  Let it go man.

 

 

"At least none of us are suffering in real life"

 

That my friend is a rather large assumption.

[Obus Form]

Just now, mrultimate said:

"At least none of us are suffering in real life"

 

That my friend is a rather large assumption.

Somewhere between video game and real life, a different POV for the person, to whom my comment was directed, may or may not help them release whatever feeling they have inside.

 

I did not intend to make assumptions on your life, even if you read my comment to him, as a comment to you.

[Dazl]

12 minutes ago, mrultimate said:

Can we just lock this topic and move on.

No one that disliked the change is going to be convinced to like it.

Jimmy has already said They are going to run the server the way They see fit.

 

There nothing to be gained here.

 

I have read most of the posts in this thread, which mostly address the farmers and the marketeers. I have seen little response about how it impacts casual players. I just can't believe that casual players with exp turned off are ruining the economy. I really hate punishing everyone, for something some one else did, it's a lazy form of punishment.

 

 

 

 

[lythy77]

not happy about the change. it would have been better to disable patrol xp.  i do farm a lot and i also pay a lot for my kids chars. they are both altaholics and waste so much inf and tbh its hard to keep up even with farming  but hey ho thats our thing and we enjoy making new chars and builds. i used to let others join in and have fun with them whilst farming but now it drops the inf too much i do it alone only now. solo and sad.

[mrultimate]

1 hour ago, Obus Form said:

Somewhere between video game and real life, a different POV for the person, to whom my comment was directed, may or may not help them release whatever feeling they have inside.

 

I did not intend to make assumptions on your life, even if you read my comment to him, as a comment to you.

I didn't and I'm not. I'm just saying there could easily be someone in this thread who is suffering in real life.

Now I would agree that this nerf or exploit fix whatever we call isn't causing any real life suffering.

Edited April 2, 2020 by mrultimate
bad typing

[mrultimate]

1 minute ago, lythy77 said:

not happy about the change. it would have been better to disable patrol xp.  i do farm a lot and i also pay a lot for my kids chars. they are both altaholics and waste so much inf and tbh its hard to keep up even with farming  but hey ho thats our thing and we enjoy making new chars and builds. i used to let others join in and have fun with them whilst farming but now it drops the inf too much i do it alone only now. solo and sad.

Yep I get this and agree. I do it for my wife as well.

 

[Oubliette_Red]

7 minutes ago, lythy77 said:

not happy about the change. it would have been better to disable patrol xp.  i do farm a lot and i also pay a lot for my kids chars. they are both altaholics and waste so much inf and tbh its hard to keep up even with farming  but hey ho thats our thing and we enjoy making new chars and builds. i used to let others join in and have fun with them whilst farming but now it drops the inf too much i do it alone only now. solo and sad.

Pretty sure that disabling Patrol XP affects everyone equally, while the changes the devs made primarily impacts exploitative farmers.

[Haijinx]

I wonder if perhaps the doomsayers have it backwards. 

 

Reducing the INF gains should reduce an inflationary pressure.  Less Inf paid out/ hour.  

 

At the same time farmers will need to farm more to meet their goals, which will increase the number of recipies ( and IOs) for sale.

 

The big value of farmers to everyone else are these drops .. so ..

 

Prices could come down.  

 

As long as the /ragequit aspect doesn't exceed this activity, of course.