Discussion: Disabling XP No Longer Increases Influence

[MunkiLord]

41 minutes ago, SwitchFade said:

Boy, is Sure WOULD be! Wouldn't it be just keen if we could beat each other into submission with graphs, charts, calculus and statistics?!

 

Dear diary...

See, you get me

Edited July 23, 2020 by MunkiLord

[Yomo Kimyata]

48 minutes ago, SwitchFade said:

Boy, is Sure WOULD be! Wouldn't it be just keen if we could beat each other into submission with graphs, charts, calculus and statistics?!

 

Dear diary...

I made this the other day, but lost interest...

 

 

 

[Ironblade]

3 hours ago, roleki said:

Actually, in an economy where less-desirable goods can be converted to more-desirable goods, it drives the price of less-desirable goods towards the price of the more-desirable good, and the more-desirable good has its price increased to subsidize the resources expended during the transformation process;

Absolutely not.  The low-priced (less desirable) item goes up and the high-priced (more desirable) item goes down.

[Haijinx]

I'm still stuck on the main opponent to the change grousing that the problem is they can no longer have billion+ inf builds for ALL their alts.. 

 

This is not a MMO economy problem.  This is a Monty Haul Campaign issue. 

 

I think I'm beginning to see the real issue with COH as it exists today.  Its a munchkin campaign.  

 

 

[Coyotedancer]

You can thank the "forum meta" for that... You know, the tendency for build-wonks to tell everyone they just HAVE to soft-cap their Defense, and they just HAVE to slot Expensive Procs X and Y and five of Expensive Special Z, plus Winter O's all over the place or their character is "sub-optimal" and basically a potato in virtual spandex?

 

A less-pricey build can handle 99% of the game just fine.... But high-priced min/maxing is such a way of life that you'd never know it from some build discussions.

 

And then there are complaints about players being "too powerful" and how all the content is "too easy".... After everyone's been told that the only good way to build a character is to design it specifically to trivialize everything in the game. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by Coyotedancer

[MunkiLord]

Not sure I agree, I see plenty of people not playing Scrappers playing unoptimized builds. 

[Lockpick]

42 minutes ago, Coyotedancer said:

You can thank the "forum meta" for that... You know, the tendency for build-wonks to tell everyone they just HAVE to soft-cap their Defense, and they just HAVE to slot Expensive Procs X and Y and five of Expensive Special Z, plus Winter O's all over the place or their character is "sub-optimal" and basically a potato in virtual spandex?

 

A less-pricey build can handle 99% of the game just fine.... But high-priced min/maxing is such a way of life that you'd never know it from some build discussions.

 

And then there are complaints about players being "too powerful" and how all the content is "too easy".... After everyone's been told that the only good way to build a character is to design it specifically to trivialize everything in the game. 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm still trying to figure out why people are spending a billion Inf on builds.  I consider my builds high end and none of them have come close to a billion.  I tend to use the 2 AT sets, usually a couple of winter or purple sets, and the core procs and other IOs like LoTG.  Many of the cheaper sets are better than some of the high end sets (depending on your build goals).

 

[Coyotedancer]

10 minutes ago, MunkiLord said:

Not sure I agree, I see plenty of people not playing Scrappers playing unoptimized builds. 

I do, too.... But they tend not to be forum users. That's why I called it the "forum meta" It's more common here than in the game at large.

 

And I can see how a build could get pretty pricey, even though my own very rarely do.

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by Coyotedancer

[Oubliette_Red]

4 hours ago, arcaneholocaust said:

Please stop feeding the troll guys. He gets aroused from lecturing people, and we should be working to minimize that annoying feature.

I don't know pot... kettle had a pretty good argument.

 

[tidge]

3 hours ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

I made this the other day, but lost interest...

Hmm... let's see if I can fill in some missing parts....

 

[SwitchFade]

4 hours ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

I made this the other day, but lost interest...

 

 

 

This should be in the costume editor!

[SwitchFade]

3 hours ago, Coyotedancer said:

You can thank the "forum meta" for that... You know, the tendency for build-wonks to tell everyone they just HAVE to soft-cap their Defense, and they just HAVE to slot Expensive Procs X and Y and five of Expensive Special Z, plus Winter O's all over the place or their character is "sub-optimal" and basically a potato in virtual spandex?

 

A less-pricey build can handle 99% of the game just fine.... But high-priced min/maxing is such a way of life that you'd never know it from some build discussions.

 

And then there are complaints about players being "too powerful" and how all the content is "too easy".... After everyone's been told that the only good way to build a character is to design it specifically to trivialize everything in the game. 

 

 

 

 

ZOMG! Plz add "potato in spandex" to costume creator. I needs me some Exertator goodness!

[SwitchFade]

On 7/22/2020 at 8:12 AM, Troo said:

Hey there are no rhymes in that wall of words.. what gives?!

A maid with a duster,

Made a furious bluster,

Dusting a Bust in the hall.

When the Bust it was dusted,

The dust it was busted,

And the Bust had no dust,

That is all.

[SwitchFade]

On 7/22/2020 at 8:51 AM, Yomo Kimyata said:

Nerf prose.

Sea and Sor were old friends.

Sea owned a saw and Sor owned a seesaw.

 

Now...

 

Sea's saw sawed Sor's seesaw, sefore Sor saw Sea's saw, which made Sor sore. Now, if Sor had seen Sea's saw before Sea's saw sawed Sor's seesaw, then Sea's saw wouldn't have sawed Sor's seesaw and no sore Sor. Do you see?

 

That is all.

[Coyotedancer]

2 hours ago, SwitchFade said:

ZOMG! Plz add "potato in spandex" to costume creator. I needs me some Exertator goodness!

I'm for it.  XD

[Coyote]

15 hours ago, SwitchFade said:

Boy, is Sure WOULD be! Wouldn't it be just keen if we could beat each other into submission with graphs, charts, calculus and statistics?!

 

Dear diary...

 

So... you're suggesting Number Blast, Number Assault, and Numerological Affinity sets? As well as a new MM set, Statistical Summoning? 😛

[Ironblade]

6 minutes ago, Coyote said:

So... you're suggesting Number Blast, Number Assault, and Numerological Affinity sets? As well as a new MM set, Statistical Summoning? 😛

I already have the name and costume.  I made a defender with slicked back nerd hair, big glasses and the costume that looks like circuit board patterns.

His name was Numbers Guy.

[arcane]

15 hours ago, Haijinx said:

I'm still stuck on the main opponent to the change grousing that the problem is they can no longer have billion+ inf builds for ALL their alts.. 

I don’t know if this is about me because “opponent to the change” doesn’t characterize what I’ve said here lately, but, assuming it is, I will reiterate one last time...:

 

Nothing I have said lately has been in opposition to the change. The only thing I have opposed is the hurtful false narrative that this change didn’t negatively impact a single soul and that anyone who says otherwise is just an poorly educated ignoramus.

 

Please reply in the affirmative if you comprehend the difference between the two. Otherwise, I have no more mental/emotional energy to allocate to this thread. Peace.

[Haijinx]

41 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

I don’t know if this is about me because “opponent to the change” doesn’t characterize what I’ve said here lately, but, assuming it is, I will reiterate one last time...:

 

Nothing I have said lately has been in opposition to the change. The only thing I have opposed is the hurtful false narrative that this change didn’t negatively impact a single soul and that anyone who says otherwise is just an poorly educated ignoramus.

 

Please reply in the affirmative if you comprehend the difference between the two. Otherwise, I have no more mental/emotional energy to allocate to this thread. Peace.

I don't remember if that was you or not.

 

It was a post about someone who couldn't find the motivation to Farm anymore due to the change, and they were stuck with only about 10x Billion INF build Alts and couldn't do the rest due to the now unbearable time required.  (basically)  

 

If you made that post - then it was you! 

If you did not - then it was not you! 

 

I mean, I'd go back and find the post.  But I can't due to the unbearable time required.  

 

Do I understand that the change negatively impacted those people using the 2xInfluence exploit to their advantage?  Well duh.   It was supposed to negatively impact them. 

 

I think the poorly educated ignoramus part is completely separate, its more along the lines that some people who do not understand Basic Economics are going all Dunning-Kruger MacroE up in this thread.  

 

The fact some of those same people support the 2xInfluence Exploit may be entirely coincidental.  

 

 

 

[Patti]

Was there ever a x2 inf exploit?  The only exploit I knew about was patrol xp and I think that only gave 50% extra.

[arcane]

38 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Do I understand that the change negatively impacted those people using the 2xInfluence exploit to their advantage?  Well duh.   It was supposed to negatively impact them. 

 

Right. But someone said earlier (paraphrased) “this helps everyone including the farmers that are only crying because they don’t understand economics”. If we can agree that’s false and a little insulting, we’re good here.

 

And yes I did lose patience with the increased farming time commitment and moved on to gutting alts.

Edited July 24, 2020 by arcaneholocaust

[Haijinx]

25 minutes ago, Patti said:

Was there ever a x2 inf exploit?  The only exploit I knew about was patrol xp and I think that only gave 50% extra.

You could run AE farms at level 49 and get the whole exemping down bonus AND nearly level 50 normal rewards at the same time or something.

 

I imagine it wasn't actually exactly 2x50 but whatever level 49 gets x2 vs what level 50 gets.

 

1.99x (whatever) exploit doesn't sound as cool though.

 

 

[Patti]

But what was removed was double inf at all levels, not just 49 & 50.

[Haijinx]

26 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

Right. But someone said earlier (paraphrased) “this helps everyone including the farmers that are only crying because they don’t understand economics”. If we can agree that’s false and a little insulting, we’re good here.

 

And yes I did lose patience with the increased farming time commitment and moved on to gutting alts.

Hmm, it seems self evident that if someone were in the camp reaping the extra exploited influence, that they now make less influence.

 

At least if all they do is what they did before.

 

Whether or not they understand economics is besides the point.

 

There are people who are arguing for a return to the exploit that are making arguments with a lot of false claims about how economics works though.  

 

Also they are wasting their time.  

 

No way the devs change it back now. 

 

Will.  Never.  Happen. 

 

 

[Haijinx]

6 minutes ago, Patti said:

But what was removed was double inf at all levels, not just 49 & 50.

There was probably a break even level somewhere where if you exemped at level 30 or whatever it equaled level 50 with the 2x 

 

But yes it was removed at all levels, had to be.