The Pretty Good AE Debate

[Neiska]

1 hour ago, MoonSheep said:

good idea

 

Then do it? Instead of assuming every farmer is INF capped, exploiters, cheaters, mustache twirling villains set out to destroy the game, maybe sit down and do a legitimate side by side comparison free of bias and assumption? Or perhaps quit losing sleep over what other people choose to do in their own personal time perhaps? 😋

[MoonSheep]

6 minutes ago, Neiska said:

 

Then do it? Instead of assuming every farmer is INF capped, exploiters, cheaters, mustache twirling villains set out to destroy the game, maybe sit down and do a legitimate side by side comparison free of bias and assumption? Or perhaps quit losing sleep over what other people choose to do in their own personal time perhaps? 😋

 

woosh..

[Neiska]

1 minute ago, MoonSheep said:

woosh..

 

Ok, then kindly show me a breakdown of inf gained doing different activities during the same amount of time that has been calculated by the community. Go on, I'll wait.

 

Or, you know, keep making passive aggressive insinuations without actual data or proof. That works too.

[Neiska]

2 hours ago, ivanhedgehog said:

should street sweeping in perez reward the same as running back to back itrials? Farming?Doing a hami raid? why would you expect this in the first place?

 

No. Street sweeping should not give the same. My point is that people are just assuming things without doing the math or work to figure out where the figures actually are, which leads to assumptions. Honestly, if you include the time spent playing, as well as invested per character into consideration, I don't think the "wealth gap" is where people believe it is. As an example, some of the richest people I know are level 5's who play the AH monopoly game while they roleplay, and have done so for 2+ years now, without ever having stepped foot into either AE or an Itrial.

 

What I "expect" is people to have actual data or references before making arguments for changes, especially when it's about an activity they don't do themselves. Because, since they don't actually do it themselves, then they wouldn't know the exact details of what they are talking about. It's much easier to go "They have more money than I do. Farming BAD" than do a side-by-side comparison.

[MoonSheep]

5 minutes ago, Neiska said:

 

Ok, then kindly show me a breakdown of inf gained doing different activities during the same amount of time that has been calculated by the community. Go on, I'll wait.

 

Or, you know, keep making passive aggressive insinuations without actual data or proof. That works too.

 

well, wait no more

 

 

[Neiska]

1 minute ago, MoonSheep said:

well, wait no more

 

Wow. @Bionic_Flea Did what I suggested, after I asked if anyone has actually done a comparison. You aren't the brightest spoon in the drawer, are you? Bless your heart. 

[MoonSheep]

4 minutes ago, Neiska said:

 

Wow. @Bionic_Flea Did what I suggested, after I asked if anyone has actually done a comparison. You aren't the brightest spoon in the drawer, are you? Bless your heart. 

 

what has changed in the last 5 hours since being provided with that data?

[Neiska]

1 minute ago, MoonSheep said:

what has changed in the last 5 hours since being provided with that data?

 

I made a post asking if people have done a comparison. Flea then responded with his numbers. Then you point out the fact he did so. So not sure what the point you are trying to make is aside from pointing out the obvious post he made. And we have yet to see what people get from running other activities such as trials and so on.

 

So why highlight his reply to my original post? 

[MoonSheep]

2 minutes ago, Neiska said:

 

I made a post asking if people have done a comparison. Flea then responded with his numbers. Then you point out the fact he did so. So not sure what the point you are trying to make is aside from pointing out the obvious post he made. And we have yet to see what people get from running other activities such as trials and so on.

 

So why highlight his reply to my original post? 

 

because you asked to see data on inf sources by content type a few minutes ago, shown below

 

24 minutes ago, Neiska said:

Ok, then kindly show me a breakdown of inf gained doing different activities during the same amount of time that has been calculated by the community. Go on, I'll wait.

 

influence is one of the attributes in discussion, a lot of the conversation though has focused mostly around progression and access to incarnate abilities via AE play. there's a question of balance as AE is perceived to be an outlier in terms of reward compared to standard game content. this thread is a spin-off from the focused feedback thread where there are some minor changes to reward post-50 within AE, rather than the upcoming changes seeking to remove AE or hinder people's ability to hit 50 through using AE

[Ghost]

I want some data.

ok, here’s some data.

No! I want more data

 

Sorry, but that’s funny to me

[Neiska]

3 minutes ago, Ghost said:

I want some data.

ok, here’s some data.

No! I want more data

 

Sorry, but that’s funny to me

 

No, its more -

 

Me -"Has anyone done data?"

Flea - *Posts some data*

Moon - "See! There's data."

Me - "Okay. So where's the data about the other side? The nonfarming stuff?"

Ghost - "Oh you want complete data? For a side-by-side comparison? Thats funny." 

[Neiska]

7 minutes ago, MoonSheep said:

 there's a question of balance as AE is perceived to be an outlier in terms of reward compared to standard game content. this thread is a spin-off from the focused feedback thread where there are some minor changes to reward post-50 within AE, rather than the upcoming changes seeking to remove AE or hinder people's ability to hit 50 through using AE

 

That's precisely my point. AE balanced to "What?" Should it be balanced to Street Patrolling? PI farming? Trials? What activity should it be "equal" to? And without those numbers, its more or less a shot in the dark balance-wise. How much inf or experience/hour should people be capable of? 

[MoonSheep]

Just now, Neiska said:

 

That's precisely my point. AE balanced to "What?" Should it be balanced to Street Patrolling? PI farming? Trials? What activity should it be "equal" to? And without those numbers, its more or less a shot in the dark balance-wise. How much inf or experience/hour should people be capable of? 

 

numerical balance is one way to look at it, the other and less tangible discussion is how much access to rewards such as incarnates should people receive for essentially not playing the game 

 

i would support AE not providing progression to unlocking incarnates as i see them as the “ultimate” final powers. having incarnates accessible only through trials and incarnate content (which the latter could do with a buff to increase challenge) is in-line with the significant benefits incarnate powers bring in my view

[Ghost]

4 minutes ago, Neiska said:

 

No, its more -

 

Me -"Has anyone done data?"

Flea - *Posts some data*

Moon - "See! There's data."

Me - "Okay. So where's the data about the other side? The nonfarming stuff?"

Ghost - "Oh you want complete data? For a side-by-side comparison? Thats funny." 

Don’t take me wrong.  I’m just messing with you.  I don’t care either way about farming.  
You wanna farm?  Go ahead.  There’s like 4 people on here who seem to care, so is it really worth arguing about?

 

For my side by side comparison.

I made 1.47mill per minute in the tunnel farm.

I ran an ITF with the exact same farming toon, and died spectacularly before making anything of any significance.  

 

[ShardWarrior]

35 minutes ago, MoonSheep said:

well, wait no more

 

This is only one person providing results under specific circumstances running a small content sampling, so it is not necessarily indicative of the real results.   This is like polling one person on politics and saying their solitary opinion represents everyone in the country.  A much larger data set would be needed here to be of any real analytical value.  I am not saying what has been presented is fake or bad data, it is simply too small a sampling. 

[ChzBoi]

9 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

..........This is like polling one person on politics and saying their solitary opinion represents everyone in the country. .............

FRANCHISE!     (I love Isaac)

Edited August 7, 2022 by ChzBoi

[Ghost]

9 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

This is only one person providing results under specific circumstances running a small content sampling, so it is not necessarily indicative of the real results.   This is like polling one person on politics and saying their solitary opinion represents everyone in the country.  A much larger data set would be needed here to be of any real analytical value.  I am not saying what has been presented is fake or bad data, it is simply too small a sampling. 

Let me ask you and anyone else wanting this data - will it change anything?  
or will it just add more fuel for the people deadest against farming?

 

 

[Marbing]

5 minutes ago, Ghost said:

Let me ask you and anyone else wanting this data - will it change anything?  
or will it just add more fuel for the people deadest against farming?

I doubt any amount of data will change anything, but I have my popcorn ready in case.

[ForeverLaxx]

  

5 hours ago, UltraAlt said:

An exploit is never using the existing game code to do what it was meant to do

As a point of order, an exploit, by definition, must be possible with the game's own code and systems. Otherwise it would just be a cheat or a hack. For instance, I would solo raids in Destiny by "exploiting" AI behavior and game mechanics to skip sections that were meant for groups or difficult to survive encounters without allies. Because of how the game was built, this was possible. Exploits are not inherently bad and usually more indicative of poor programming on the developer's part, high technical skill on the player's part, or good planning on the player's part. The most recognized version of an "exploit" that went on to define the entire competitive scene would be Wave Dashing in Smash Bros Melee.

 

"Exploits" can become just as much a part of the game as anything else, but you won't be replying to this post because you've blocked me. I'm mostly saying this for others' benefit.

 

15 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

This is only one person providing results under specific circumstances running a small content sampling, so it is not necessarily indicative of the real results

Problem is, no one seems interested in running these tests that they demand be made, and the one time someone did run one, it's immediately ignored because it's just "one sample size."

 

The fact of the matter is, everyone here has already made up their mind. Any data that's provided which doesn't jive with their established opinion is going to be discarded. Even if everyone on the forum ran a test and it roughly matched Flea's quick-and-dirty attempt, would you still be satisfied? I mean, people that use the forum are such a small group compared to the rest of the playerbase, after all. Frankly, if you or anyone else is so concerned about data, maybe run some trials on your own and come to your own conclusions instead of hoping that someone else's efforts will match your conclusions.

[Marbing]

4 minutes ago, ForeverLaxx said:

Frankly, if you or anyone else is so concerned about data, maybe run some trials on your own and come to your own conclusions instead of hoping that someone else's efforts will match your conclusions.

People doing their own research they demand!? Are you insane!?

[Bionic_Flea]

27 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

This is only one person providing results under specific circumstances running a small content sampling, so it is not necessarily indicative of the real results.   This is like polling one person on politics and saying their solitary opinion represents everyone in the country.  A much larger data set would be needed here to be of any real analytical value.  I am not saying what has been presented is fake or bad data, it is simply too small a sampling. 

Feel free to add your own numbers.  I heard you like to test and be helpful.

 

P.S.  I've added numbers for an ITF and will continue to add stuff as I go along.

[Marbing]

I can run some numbers as well, not that I believe it will make any difference. But I’d like to prove that.

[Neiska]

32 minutes ago, ForeverLaxx said:

 Frankly, if you or anyone else is so concerned about data, maybe run some trials on your own and come to your own conclusions instead of hoping that someone else's efforts will match your conclusions.

 

Fair, but I don't run trials. I run AE. Which is more or less the crux of the issue - not everyone uses AE, and not everyone runs trials either. Which more or less the entire nature of the argument. One side saying the other is invalid play or wrong or exploiting. It isn't the farmers saying nerf trials, it's the people who don't run AE's saying to nerf them. So I would say the burden of proof would be on them, since they are the ones pushing for change, or saying farming is "too efficient" without numbers to back it up.

 

And even requesting data seems to provoke a reaction from some. I am not saying you specifically. I only bring it up to highlight that a "happy medium" is growing smaller and smaller. So, I guess it's true what they say, a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy. 

[Grouchybeast]

55 minutes ago, Ghost said:

Let me ask you and anyone else wanting this data - will it change anything?  
or will it just add more fuel for the people deadest against farming?

 

Only if you assume that the data would clearly show that AE farming has a huge advantage over other types of farming.  Perhaps it would turn out that it's roughly equivalent to other popular farms.

[Bill Z Bubba]

Just now, Grouchybeast said:

Only if you assume that the data would clearly show that AE farming has a huge advantage over other types of farming.  Perhaps it would turn out that it's roughly equivalent to other popular farms.

 

It wouldn't. There's some general truths about earning xp/inf that aren't going to change and that were already proven ages ago.