Requesting a non-AE server #TBL on July 1st

[justicebeliever]

I'm not a huge fan of actually DOING this, but saying it would require a separate code base is hyperbole. I'm sure it could be implemented as a setting in some sort of config file somewhere.

 

If it was as simple as locking the doors, I would agree.

 

But you have story arcs that intentionally send you to AE (Twinshot, IIRC - though that might just be exterior), and you have badges in AE needed to complete the zone exploration badges.  And there is of course to 2 to 3 to 100 other interactions with AE buildings or NPC's that we might be unaware of in the code base. 

 

So maybe it's a config setting, maybe it's a whole different build...IDK...

 

Still doesn't seem worth the coding change even to add a configuration setting

[Judasace]

I'm not a huge fan of actually DOING this, but saying it would require a separate code base is hyperbole. I'm sure it could be implemented as a setting in some sort of config file somewhere.

 

If it was as simple as locking the doors, I would agree.

 

But you have story arcs that intentionally send you to AE (Twinshot, IIRC - though that might just be exterior), and you have badges in AE needed to complete the zone exploration badges.  And there is of course to 2 to 3 to 100 other interactions with AE buildings or NPC's that we might be unaware of in the code base. 

 

So maybe it's a config setting, maybe it's a whole different build...IDK...

 

Still doesn't seem worth the coding change even to add a configuration setting

 

Not that I'm advocating getting rid of AE, but it's nowhere near as coplicated as it seems to achieve what OP is asking for.

 

All you do is reduce the rewards to 0. They already showed they can adjust the rewards as needed by taking out Arc XP to fix the glowie exploit.

 

Make the XP 0 and it is the same as removing it, without any of the technical problems actually removing the building entails.

[justicebeliever]

Not that I'm advocating getting rid of AE, but it's nowhere near as coplicated as it seems to achieve what OP is asking for.

 

All you do is reduce the rewards to 0. They already showed they can adjust the rewards as needed by taking out Arc XP to fix the glowie exploit.

 

Make the XP 0 and it is the same as removing it, without any of the technical problems actually removing the building entails.

 

I'm not saying that you are saying this, but this will sound like you are trying to punish people who use AE for farming.  Which seems unnecessary.  And it also punishes all the people who use AE and don't farm.  Feels kind of like throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and regardless, extreme to solve for a single person.

[Hyperstrike]

Basically the game would need to be disassembled to tear the stuff out.

And unsure if the original versions of the map are available to reinstate.

Assume they would need to be created from scratch.

And then we'd have a second, separate code base for the game, simply so AE isn't then, WHEN YOU CAN SIMPLY AVOID IT YOURSELF.

 

Or, all the AE NPCs and interactables could be removed without changing the code at all.

 

I don't know that we need OP's suggestion, but this is a bit hyper...bolic.

 

Again, you're still maintaining a separate code base for something that's easily ignored.

Or are we going to get protests now for non-AE safe spaces?

 

I'm not a huge fan of actually DOING this, but saying it would require a seperate code base is hyperbole. I'm sure it could be implemented as a setting in some sort of config file somewhere.

 

Standard Code Rant.

[Catgoyle]

I'm not a huge fan of actually DOING this, but saying it would require a seperate code base is hyperbole. I'm sure it could be implemented as a setting in some sort of config file somewhere.

With all due respect, in general with spaghetti code things get hardcoded that shouldn't have been.  So in all likelihood it's far more work than just setting AE_XP=False somewhere.  Never assume something is "easy, just change a variable!" especially in a dated MMO with years of bug-fixes and add-ons tacked into it, which tend to complicate the "if I change X, what unintended consequences happen?" factor.

And how much actual demand is there for a non-AE server?  The only way I could see it being justified if there were enough people wanting and willing to play on such a server, modding code and running a server just for "that one guy" is a bit disproportionate.

 

I don't do AE, but it gives the people who would otherwise be spamming tells of "PL MEH" some content to rush through instead, so I'm perfectly fine with it staying.

 

 

 

[Hyperstrike]

The only way I could see it being justified if there were enough people wanting and willing to play on (and PAY FOR) such a server, modding code and running a server just for "that one guy" is a bit disproportionate.

 

Fixed that for ya.

 

;)

 

 

[Charistoph]

I'm not a huge fan of actually DOING this, but saying it would require a seperate code base is hyperbole. I'm sure it could be implemented as a setting in some sort of config file somewhere.

With all due respect, in general with spaghetti code things get hardcoded that shouldn't have been.  So in all likelihood it's far more work than just setting AE_XP=False somewhere.  Never assume something is "easy, just change a variable!" especially in a dated MMO with years of bug-fixes and add-ons tacked into it, which tend to complicate the "if I change X, what unintended consequences happen?" factor.

And how much actual demand is there for a non-AE server?  The only way I could see it being justified if there were enough people wanting and willing to play on such a server, modding code and running a server just for "that one guy" is a bit disproportionate.

 

I don't do AE, but it gives the people who would otherwise be spamming tells of "PL MEH" some content to rush through instead, so I'm perfectly fine with it staying.

 

Considering they can (and have) set the xp to half (and rather quickly, I might point out), setting it to zero would follow the same path of difficulty.  It's one thing to make a request that has no correlation to what they have already done in the code (say, a completely new powerset like Gravity Melee) and dismiss it for the spaghetti code argument, but quite another when they have already made a similar change already.

[Hyperstrike]

 

Considering they can (and have) set the xp to half (and rather quickly, I might point out), setting it to zero would follow the same path of difficulty.  It's one thing to make a request that has no correlation to what they have already done in the code (say, a completely new powerset like Gravity Melee) and dismiss it for the spaghetti code argument, but quite another when they have already made a similar change already.

 

Things like XP and invasion events are one thing.  The methods for this stuff have existed since Live.

 

Removal of AE requires actual art assets, etc

[Doctor Brainbottle]

I'm not a huge fan of actually DOING this, but saying it would require a seperate code base is hyperbole. I'm sure it could be implemented as a setting in some sort of config file somewhere.

With all due respect, in general with spaghetti code things get hardcoded that shouldn't have been.  So in all likelihood it's far more work than just setting AE_XP=False somewhere.  Never assume something is "easy, just change a variable!" especially in a dated MMO with years of bug-fixes and add-ons tacked into it, which tend to complicate the "if I change X, what unintended consequences happen?" factor.

And how much actual demand is there for a non-AE server?  The only way I could see it being justified if there were enough people wanting and willing to play on such a server, modding code and running a server just for "that one guy" is a bit disproportionate.

 

I don't do AE, but it gives the people who would otherwise be spamming tells of "PL MEH" some content to rush through instead, so I'm perfectly fine with it staying.

 

As someone who does not actually WANT this feature, I would be "satisfied" with the most half-assed imaginable token effort to implement it, because I'm not going to be playing on that server anyway. In any case, my original point was that it wouldn't require a "completely separate code base", and I still assert that is true. It matters little to me if the implementation is so half-assed that it breaks the game when it's turned on, or if there is a massive effort to overhaul and refactor the architecture to make this change as simple as it "should be": either way, it can be implemented as an optional feature in a single, unified code base.

 

[Charistoph]

 

Considering they can (and have) set the xp to half (and rather quickly, I might point out), setting it to zero would follow the same path of difficulty.  It's one thing to make a request that has no correlation to what they have already done in the code (say, a completely new powerset like Gravity Melee) and dismiss it for the spaghetti code argument, but quite another when they have already made a similar change already.

 

Things like XP and invasion events are one thing.  The methods for this stuff have existed since Live.

 

Removal of AE requires actual art assets, etc

 

Sorry, read your post a little too quick.  I thought you were saying that setting the AE Xp to nothing would be a challenge.

 

I think adjusting the maps (like turning the doors "off" or removing the NPCs) would be easier than trying to remove all the AE code whole hog.

[justicebeliever]

I say this without insult, but it’s hysterical we are still talking about “how to do” something that no one wants done.

[Hyperstrike]

 

Considering they can (and have) set the xp to half (and rather quickly, I might point out), setting it to zero would follow the same path of difficulty.  It's one thing to make a request that has no correlation to what they have already done in the code (say, a completely new powerset like Gravity Melee) and dismiss it for the spaghetti code argument, but quite another when they have already made a similar change already.

 

Things like XP and invasion events are one thing.  The methods for this stuff have existed since Live.

 

Removal of AE requires actual art assets, etc

 

Sorry, read your post a little too quick.  I thought you were saying that setting the AE Xp to nothing would be a challenge.

 

I think adjusting the maps (like turning the doors "off" or removing the NPCs) would be easier than trying to remove all the AE code whole hog.

 

Oh hell naw!

 

 

[Solvernia]

Nothing wrong with AE farms, they are one of the fastest and easiest ways to skip all of the low-level content that everyone has already done a thousand times over.

 

The instances where "unwitting newbies are PL'd to 50 without knowing how the game works" are few and far between, and almost always happen from DFB runs, not from AE farms.

[SwitchFade]

Nothing wrong with AE farms, they are one of the fastest and easiest ways to skip all of the low-level content that everyone has already done a thousand times over.

 

The instances where "unwitting newbies are PL'd to 50 without knowing how the game works" are few and far between, and almost always happen from DFB runs, not from AE farms.

 

Only partially true because ae was reduced. Now, dfb is the scourge of lfg chat.

 

Honestly, I couldn't care less about anyone farming or pl'ing, just keep all the posts out of chat. That way, newbies don't get exposed to it. No dfb, ae, dib or whatever in chat.

[Xaeon]

This all strikes me very much of "stop having fun in ways I don't like".

 

Honestly I'd like more tools to be given to AE (just being able to assign pool powers or adjust resistances/defenses on enemies would be hugely helpful, or being allowed to designate an Arc as an incarnate arc and thus being able to use level shifts, or use Epic Archetype powersets, being able to designate an enemy as invulnerbale, be able to use the pop up caption text seen in newer dev made arcs to simulate NPC conversations, or even something as simple as being able to have a bit more control over where an enemy spawns so I can have say; a brother and sister team of AVs right next to each other) rather than see it removed. 

[SwitchFade]

This all strikes me very much of "stop having fun in ways I don't like".

 

Honestly I'd like more tools to be given to AE (just being able to assign pool powers or adjust resistances/defenses on enemies would be hugely helpful, or being allowed to designate an Arc as an incarnate arc and thus being able to use level shifts, or use Epic Archetype powersets, being able to designate an enemy as invulnerbale, be able to use the pop up caption text seen in newer dev made arcs to simulate NPC conversations, or even something as simple as being able to have a bit more control over where an enemy spawns so I can have say; a brother and sister team of AVs right next to each other) rather than see it removed.

 

Maybe it's "stop harming others to have your fun," that some people are pointing out.

 

Personally? I don't care who farms or pl's, just don't post it in any chat at all. Don't impact new player experience with it. Even before AE I felt the same about peregrine farms, all fine, just stop posting it.

[Solvernia]

Honestly, I couldn't care less about anyone farming or pl'ing, just keep all the posts out of chat. That way, newbies don't get exposed to it. No dfb, ae, dib or whatever in chat.

 

I, too, love to enforce censorship upon things that hurt nobody yet I personally dislike.

[Hyperstrike]

Maybe it's "stop harming others to have your fun," that some people are pointing out.

 

Have them point out actual, demonstrable "harm" being inflicted.  Not just a modified version of "I don't like it."

 

Because people today are entirely too quick to conflate anything they dislike with "harm".  And it's known that whingeing LOUDLY and incessantly about it is a generally reliable way of haranguing someone into doing what you want them to do.

[justicebeliever]

Honestly, I couldn't care less about anyone farming or pl'ing, just keep all the posts out of chat. That way, newbies don't get exposed to it. No dfb, ae, dib or whatever in chat.

 

I, too, love to enforce censorship upon things that hurt nobody yet I personally dislike.

 

Yes, many of your posts reinforce that...

[justicebeliever]

Maybe it's "stop harming others to have your fun," that some people are pointing out.

 

Have them point out actual, demonstrable "harm" being inflicted.  Not just a modified version of "I don't like it."

 

Because people today are entirely too quick to conflate anything they dislike with "harm".  And it's known that whingeing LOUDLY and incessantly about it is a generally reliable way of haranguing someone into doing what you want them to do.

 

It's true - It's hard to have real harm in this game.  I suppose you could get to the level of harassment from someone sending nasty or repeated unwanted tells.  Or someone being a complete a$$hat in the in-game Help.  But apart from that - there are just levels of fun...Some things can become more fun, some things can be less fun.  It always cracks me up when people say that "if X happens I am leaving the game"...and yet, here many of them still are even after X happened.

 

I do understand that the DFB posts in LFG do drown out some of the other requests for teaming...but it's not impossible regardless, and we shouldn't be pushing DFB elsewhere, because those users too are LFG.  Besides the rewards were nerfed and the chat has lessened to a degree, so it is as good as it is going to get.  And still miles better than the desperate plea's for PL'ing we've seen before in Live...

[Solvernia]

Yes, many of your posts reinforce that...

 

On which occasions have I encouraged censorship? Please point me to specific posts.

[srmalloy]

It would just spawn euphemisms like the "meow mission" solicitations for AE farms that appeared after the devs tried to crack down on exploitative farm missions, but the idea of creating a global channel "DFB", then scanning chat (except for tells or the Team channel) for the string "DFB" and moving such messages to the DFB channel has its appeal. And you'd also see people using "D F B" or "D.F.B" or some such to get around the filter, so it likely wouldn't work in the long run. Still, ghettoing all the DFB chat in its own channel that you can just not choose to in your chat tabs is a nice dream if it would work.

[justicebeliever]

It would just spawn euphemisms like the "meow mission" solicitations for AE farms that appeared after the devs tried to crack down on exploitative farm missions, but the idea of creating a global channel "DFB", then scanning chat (except for tells or the Team channel) for the string "DFB" and moving such messages to the DFB channel has its appeal. And you'd also see people using "D F B" or "D.F.B" or some such to get around the filter, so it likely wouldn't work in the long run. Still, ghettoing all the DFB chat in its own channel that you can just not choose to in your chat tabs is a nice dream if it would work.

 

I mean it would work...People who want to do DFB want to connect with others who want to do DFB.  If there was a dedicated channel, people would use it.  No one is spamming "Lvl 4 Tank, looking for DFB" just to get a rise out of people.  They would gravitate to whatever channel successfully gets them a team.

 

I just don't think it's that big a problem that it needs that solution...

[golstat2003]

It would just spawn euphemisms like the "meow mission" solicitations for AE farms that appeared after the devs tried to crack down on exploitative farm missions, but the idea of creating a global channel "DFB", then scanning chat (except for tells or the Team channel) for the string "DFB" and moving such messages to the DFB channel has its appeal. And you'd also see people using "D F B" or "D.F.B" or some such to get around the filter, so it likely wouldn't work in the long run. Still, ghettoing all the DFB chat in its own channel that you can just not choose to in your chat tabs is a nice dream if it would work.

 

I mean it would work...People who want to do DFB want to connect with others who want to do DFB.  If there was a dedicated channel, people would use it.  No one is spamming "Lvl 4 Tank, looking for DFB" just to get a rise out of people.  They would gravitate to whatever channel successfully gets them a team.

 

I just don't think it's that big a problem that it needs that solution...

 

Agreed.

[srmalloy]

I just don't think it's that big a problem that it needs that solution...

 

While I really like the concept of giving the DFB spam its own channel and redirecting references to DFB into the channel, I think it would only work as long as people didn't come to the conclusion that they're not reaching the people that they know are just dying to run DFB but don't have the channel active, and come up with euphemisms to get around the filter to solicit players in LFG. And because of, I don't think the effort to do it is worthwhile given the other demands on the GM crew's time.