Focused Feedback: Reward Merits

[Ukase]

17 hours ago, SwitchFade said:

The last 4 I have sold all went for between 7 and 8 million million, I listed them at 6. Granted this was in June, but that is pretty recent. Haven't played new toons since then, always on 50s looking for exemp lowbies to help, so no marketing since then.

 

 

I have about a week and a half of pics like this, mostly from early July. Your premise of inflation is very faulty. There simply isn't any. And you can probably thank the panic farming for it. 
Farming of any kind, AFK or otherwise is GOOD for the game. It drives prices down. No evidence of anything but. 

This talk of bots and macros is simply talk, from everything I can gather, because if it weren't, we'd see the impact of it in some negative fashion. And if it's bots and macros that are driving the prices of these down, maybe it's for the best. 

[SwitchFade]

2 hours ago, Ukase said:

 

 

I have about a week and a half of pics like this, mostly from early July. Your premise of inflation is very faulty. There simply isn't any. And you can probably thank the panic farming for it. 
Farming of any kind, AFK or otherwise is GOOD for the game. It drives prices down. No evidence of anything but. 

This talk of bots and macros is simply talk, from everything I can gather, because if it weren't, we'd see the impact of it in some negative fashion. And if it's bots and macros that are driving the prices of these down, maybe it's for the best. 

The premise is sound. That picture shows activity within a specific time only and only one IO. What is necessary to reduce sampling bias is a data point like this at set intervals thought the day, say 6am, 10am, 3pm, 6pm, 9pm and midnight, then every day of the week, for 30 days on all IO.

 

Those could then be tabulated and we would have enough to run a regression analysis.

 

By the way, I didn't say farming is bad, I specifically said it is no different than any other mode of play, it's just a specific type of play where the most efficient return for the time invested is occuring. I have no opinion or data on botting, as I haven't researched, but botting is automation and automation of currency generation will magnify the deleterious effect that outlying activities like AE already possess; this is what automation does, it increases efficiency. We could discuss supply chain and production process if you like 😅

 

I did say that there should be boundaries so that there is no outlier like AE, and all content is equal within a set standard deviation about the median. This includes story content.

 

So yes, farming is great... Rampant inflation is not. The reason you don't see it is the devs stepped in early and it helped. It's creeping again.

Edited July 31, 2022 by SwitchFade

[lemming]

6 hours ago, ZacKing said:

Where's the dev diary that was mentioned telling us why this was necessary?

Check to see where the timing of Dev Diaries happen in relation to past patches.   I only glanced, but looks like they write those more as after action reports since they're still currently working on what is going to be published.

[arcane]

26 minutes ago, lemming said:

Check to see where the timing of Dev Diaries happen in relation to past patches.   I only glanced, but looks like they write those more as after action reports since they're still currently working on what is going to be published.

Meh, people don’t want that kind of explanation though. They want the dev diary before the patch so they can have something new to argue with in hopes of sinking the changes. I’m 99% sure not one of the people who have demanded explanations actually intend to accept said explanations. 

[Number Six]

13 hours ago, ZacKing said:

Where's the dev diary that was mentioned telling us why this was necessary?

 

Postponed, since that would have been about removal of veteran XP from AE, which isn't happening. There's about 5 different problems intersecting here, and if/when we decide to address the underlying problems with AE rewards relative to the rest of the game, there will be more detail about the reasoning.

 

Removing the conversion is to address a different though tangential issue - a set of circumstances that encourages a very particular type of abuse involving a cycle of deleting and re-creating characters to take advantage of the frontloaded and limited supply of Empyreans. Removing the conversion (mostly) isolates the benefits to things that are account-bound and limits its impact on the economy, making it not worthwhile in most cases. That's likely preferable to most people than removing or significantly reducing Incarnate progression through vet levels, even though they were tuned for a much smaller population and probably shouldn't have ever gone live in the state they're in today.

[Myrmidon]

On 7/30/2022 at 11:16 AM, SwitchFade said:

AE having the exact same reward structure as all content, within an acceptable standard deviation about the median and the elimination of vast (read: 500billion) stockpiles of currency on all toons would assure economic health and longevity.

 

Or.

 

HC could periodically reset all Influence in the game to zero. All problems solved.

[ivanhedgehog]

On 7/27/2022 at 1:25 PM, Moka said:

I think this change is needed. People should actually play endgame content to make endgame builds. What a concept!

tfs are end game content. as are hami and ms raids. as are a lot of things. so much for that concept

[ivanhedgehog]

On 7/28/2022 at 11:38 AM, Bionic_Flea said:

True.  This is conjecture.

This is also conjecture.

 

Both have some merit.  Just for the sake of argument, say that the devs made ITF critters worth twice as much XP/Inf per kill for a standard run, 3X for 1 star, 4X for 2 star, 5x for 3 star, and 10X for 4 star.  What do you think will happen? 

 

My conjecture is that AE farmers and PLers would farm and PL less in AE and more in ITF with a team.

My question would be why are the devs trying to force coh to a hardcore game mindset. Pretty soon after this change, you couldnt get on an ITF with a level 35. Why try to be another wow? Is that the game we all wished would come back?

 

before you can solve a problem you must define it. I see a change, what is the purpose for the change. does the change solve the stated purpose?

[ivanhedgehog]

On 7/30/2022 at 2:48 PM, Ukase said:

I am not perfect. And it is fair to say I can be obtuse. But to label my success as a marketer as a problem is just silly. Why is it a problem? Because I carry a billion inf on every character, except for a few challenge characters who've yet to earn it? 

I see no problem with it. I see it as a successful solution to the problem the game presented me with. 
Problem: Not enough loot to buy what I want. 
Problem solved. 

 

What is it that is a problem about me having influence? How does that impact the game in any way? Because I might go postal and buy some IOs that people want to sell? I can't buy what they don't list. And I have never bought a bunch of one IO to relist it. I don't roll like that. I wouldn't appreciate that as a newer player trying to buy something, so I wouldn't do it to someone else. Further, I would offer the argument that the players with the most influence are the ones who are the most generous with it. That could be because they have it, or it could be because they're somewhat responsible for how they use it. 

Opinions vary, and it is quite clear my opinion is very different from yours. Give me some facts. Something I can look at, so I can better be objective. Right now, it seems like an attack because I'm successful at doing what any 6 year old could do, but many of you don't want to, so I'm a "problem". 

 

If we are trying to fix people that have too much inf, wouldnt we go after marketers? Simply make items only be sold 1 time unless improved.(create the recipe, attune it etc) that will stop simple flipping.

[ivanhedgehog]

On 7/30/2022 at 2:49 PM, Bionic_Flea said:

My understanding, as I have never checked myself, is the daily numbers everyday between 8:30 am and 9:30 am.  And especially in Pocket D and other zones with AE buildings.  There is a noticeable difference on Tuesdays when the servers go offline.  Presumably there are a number of AFk farmers that get booted and don't come back until they wake up, come back from work, whatever.

 

@Ukase Here's a chart from HC Discord.

could be people afk in their base. I dont get much accomplished while afk in my base but I do like the decor.

[Logansan]

If, as I understand it, the issue is AE farmers converting Empyreans to Reward Merits to buy stuff to put on the market and making huge profit. Then the only solution I can think of that will not impact too many people would be to change the conversation from Empyreans to Reward Merits to a new currency that can be used instead of Reward Merits, but only when using the Conversion Vendors ("Conversion Merits"?).

 

If there will still be an issue of people then selling those items, then that becomes a little more complex but there is a solution for that also. Make the items you can purchased with this new currency Account Based only. Worst case scenario this will involve making special duplications of all the items you can currently buy with Reward Merits on the vendor.

 

This will allow people to continue to outfit their alts using the AE, and unless the AFK farmers intend to create hundred of alts it reduces their reasons to farm 24/7.

 

PS: For those that may be worry that this doesn't help outfitting a alt on a second account, then just make you your first toon on the second account a farmer, problem solved.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Logansan
Added PS sentence.

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, Number Six said:

Postponed, since that would have been about removal of veteran XP from AE, which isn't happening. There's about 5 different problems intersecting here, and if/when we decide to address the underlying problems with AE rewards relative to the rest of the game, there will be more detail about the reasoning.

 

Removing the conversion is to address a different though tangential issue - a set of circumstances that encourages a very particular type of abuse involving a cycle of deleting and re-creating characters to take advantage of the frontloaded and limited supply of Empyreans. Removing the conversion (mostly) isolates the benefits to things that are account-bound and limits its impact on the economy, making it not worthwhile in most cases. That's likely preferable to most people than removing or significantly reducing Incarnate progression through vet levels, even though they were tuned for a much smaller population and probably shouldn't have ever gone live in the state they're in today.

 

If you're able to detect this abusive behavior, you can't just deal with those doing the actual abusing? 

[Number Six]

1 minute ago, Excraft said:

If you're able to detect this abusive behavior, you can't just deal with those doing the actual abusing? 

 

There's not a rule against it and I'm not convinced there should be a rule against it, but the game's rewards structure should not be set up in a way that encourages it.

[Excraft]

2 minutes ago, Number Six said:

There's not a rule against it and I'm not convinced there should be a rule against it, but the game's rewards structure should not be set up in a way that encourages it.

That sounds fair enough.  Maybe a rule change is in order?  I mean, if you're all calling it abusive behavior, sounds to me it's something that you don't want people doing so probably best to make a rule and enforce it. 

[Sauran]

27 minutes ago, FriezaReturns00001 said:

Conversely what about a poll shudder of a AFK timer/timeout in AE?, you can set that up via timezone converter webpage then have folks adjust themselves around the number i.e. GMT 2-3 or something specific.

 

Or better still, just have the timeout activate when server load is high (and maybe also make it shorter then normal during those times).

[Bionic_Flea]

8 hours ago, ivanhedgehog said:

My question would be why are the devs trying to force coh to a hardcore game mindset. Pretty soon after this change, you couldnt get on an ITF with a level 35. Why try to be another wow? Is that the game we all wished would come back?

 

before you can solve a problem you must define it. I see a change, what is the purpose for the change. does the change solve the stated purpose?

I can't answer the first question because I am not a dev.  But it seems to me this update has more than hardcore stuff -- new powersets, new costumes, new arcs, and a bunch of other stuff on top of the "hardcore game."  I don't know if you have tried 1-star Aeon SF or on the new ITF currently being tested.  It's only slightly harder and no where near as intense as a 4 star.  If all they were adding was 4 star, I would agree with you.

 

As for not being able to run ITF on a level 35, that is also conjecture.  We won't know until we get there.

 

And I 100% agree with the last part.  I would like to know precisely what the problem to be solved is to know if this is a good solution.

[Voltor]

You cold still run ITF at L35 just be on the standard settings.

 

I have run solo on the new 1 star setting of ITF, a bit harder yes.  The hostless nictus were an interesting addition.  Soloing the two giants in mission 3 was also interesting.

 

I then tested ITF on 4 star........bring friends 🙂

[ivanhedgehog]

43 minutes ago, Voltor said:

You cold still run ITF at L35 just be on the standard settings.

 

I have run solo on the new 1 star setting of ITF, a bit harder yes.  The hostless nictus were an interesting addition.  Soloing the two giants in mission 3 was also interesting.

 

I then tested ITF on 4 star........bring friends 🙂

I was referring to the idea of 4 times rewards for 4 star ITFs. a level 35 will never get on a team.

[Ruin Mage]

Correct, as 4-Star Hard Mode is not something you would want to bring a 35 to.
Though never? Unsure about that one. Some teams may not understand what 4-star means at first, so it could still happen.

You could get away with it on 1 star and maybe 2 star if 7 other people are doing really well/are coordinated.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Shadeknight

[Bionic_Flea]

You know, I haven't checked if level 35s can even be invited to or run hardmode stuff.  Lemme see.

 

EDIT1: I checked on a level 38 that I already had on Brainstorm.  He doesn't even get the UI for Advanced Difficulty ITF selections.  So Ivan is right, no Hardmode for level 35-49.

 

EDIT2: Same for ASF.  No Advanced Difficulty UI settings for under 50.

 

EDIT3: Level 50 IS able to invite level 35 to 4 Star . . . but that's probably not wise and definitely a pity spot. (Thanks @ivanhedgehog)

 

EDIT4: Level 50 can quit team and leave poor little level 35 on a 50+4.x8 4 star TF.  LOL.  So much pain for my 38 ice/cold controller.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Bionic_Flea

[ivanhedgehog]

10 minutes ago, Bionic_Flea said:

You know, I haven't checked if level 35s can even be invited to or run hardmode stuff.  Lemme see.

 

EDIT: I checked on a level 38 that I already had on Brainstorm.  He doesn't even get the UI for Advanced Difficulty ITF selections.  So Ivan is right, no Hardmode for level 35-49.

If it was already being formed by a 50, can a 35 join? What will happen is almost every team that forms will want 4 star. under 50's will not be accepted. The same behavior is part of what makes wow so toxic.

[arcane]

13 minutes ago, ivanhedgehog said:

What will happen is almost every team that forms will want 4 star.

I promise you that is not what will happen. Look at Dr. Aeon SF. Nobody wants to PUG the hardest difficulty. No evidence ITF will be different.

 

If you honestly think you’re going to be forced into something difficult, my best guess is you haven’t actually played the game since Dr. Aeon SF went live.

 

 

Edited August 1, 2022 by arcane

[Bionic_Flea]

I think he means in my imaginary "what if 4 star gave 10x the XP and Inf as standard run" from a post above.  I still think more people would run 2 and 3 star, but who knows.

[ShardWarrior]

12 hours ago, Number Six said:

There's not a rule against it and I'm not convinced there should be a rule against it, but the game's rewards structure should not be set up in a way that encourages it.

 

I have to agree.  If you are all categorizing whatever this is as abusive behavior, a rule change is in order.  From the sound of things, you can detect it and can deal with anyone doing it accordingly.  The sledgehammer approach that affects everyone seems a bit much here, although I realize at this point it is too late to make any changes.

[ShardWarrior]

4 hours ago, Bionic_Flea said:

And I 100% agree with the last part.  I would like to know precisely what the problem to be solved is to know if this is a good solution.

 

Agreed although I seriously doubt that the community at large will ever be brought in on the discussion on future issues.