Kitsune9tails
-
Posts
1574 -
Joined
-
Personally, I draw the line between Technology and Natural when the handwave comes in.
Amazing Ace has a backpack that allows him to fly. It requires fuel and maintenance, obeys the laws of gravity and aerodynamics, etc. It is a Natural device (Batarangs, possibly Cyclops' visor).
Bouncing Betty has a backpack that allows her to fly. Although it has the exact same performance specs as Ace's with regard to speed, range, maneuverability and the like, the power source is backwards engineered from alien wreckage and is poorly understood. It seems to maintain and recharge itself. This is Technology (Spidey's web fluid may be Tech because it is a unique compound only he understands, while the web shooters themselves are probably Natural and could be built for real).
Basically, if it is unique and the explanation for how it works is unmentioned or obvious mumbo-jumbo, it is Tech. If it's something you could just go out and buy, it's Natural. -
Quote:I don't disagree, I just see this as a seperate problem that the Speed Limit would not be specifically designed to address by itself. One way to handle it would be to require that all critters have some minimum offensive capability before they would be worth any rewards.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The middle ground is where gameplay enters into the equation. Suppose there turns out to be a way to create an AE mission where, just by entering it and standing still, you could automatically earn the exact average XP/min for your level, continuously, for ever minute you remained in the mission. Your cap wouldn't affect this exploit, and you're also suggesting that the reason *why* your cap wouldn't affect this exploit is because it really doesn't matter so long as the earning rate is not above average.
True, but datamining would show that (assuing there are tools to tell when a mission was started and completed by a given character). That's where implementation comes in, and I haven't thought specific numbers through for that. In fact, setting a Speed Limit on the mission might be a good way of monitoring exactly how such things are accomplished for proper analysis so that exploits can be identified and covered.Quote:Originally Posted by Arcanaville
There's one more practical problem with caps. If exploitable content still exists and the caps are actually doing something, there's always the alt-switching workaround. If we set the maximum limit of the AE to, say, 80% of the average XP earning rate per hour, but there's a mission that can earn that 80% in 10 minutes, all we have to do is run it, switch to an alt, run it again, switch to a third alt, rotating between six alts, and we can exceed the AE cap by a factor of six, earning (plus or minus overhead) a net 4.8 times the average per hour, collectively across multiple alts.
For instance, we know that a fight against an average equal level spawn is supposed to take some amount of time...let's say 10 seconds. We can guesstimate the amount of travel time between spawn points based on how many are used in a certain amount of space, presuming Super Speed. We can know how much xp a given spawn point should generate for an even level 8 man team. This will give us a data point for how long a mission should take, assuming an utter lack of banter and delay. This info could even become part of the AE UI. "Your mission should take around 1 hour to complete, and deliver 10k xp. Mileage may vary."
We can extrapolate from this an amount of time (say 25% of the average) that is deemed acceptable, and an amount of time (say 10% of the average) that would send up a red flag, alerting GMs to check the server logs for exploits.
Of course, it might turn out that there is no exploit, and that the team running that mission is just very efficient at that particular layout and critters. That would be the actual problem scenario, and may need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. My instinct would be to say that in such a situation, I'd rather encourage alt switching than having the same players running the same characters through the same content repeatedly.
It would still be an improvement over the current situation (YMMV). -
Thanks! I knew some of that, but it's nice to have the info neatly encapsulated.
-
Heh, all MMOs have travel suppression in PvP, it's just that you usually can't tell because the rest of the game is just as slow...
-
Good points as usual.
First, however, I don't see any merit in there being a middle ground between 'exploitable' and 'non-exploitable'. If 'exploit-1' is fine (and it may not be) then it is by definition not an exploit and therefore fine.
Of course, in the Dev's collective minds there is probably a grey area between "level 50 in 500 hours, A-ok" and "level 50 in 24 hours, not ok". The question would be whether that grey area is galaxy sized, and something you can toss a number at, then tweak, or molecule-thin, and therefore a very specific number.
Although it is possible the Dev's comfort zone is so low that the playerbase would not accept it, that implies we are already functioning well above it.
It seems like it should be possible for the Devs to derive that 95% of all players currently level more slowly, than say, "Level 50 in 48 hours" (just a wild guess) and set the AE speed limit to that.
After that, it would be a matter of implementation: Do you apply the cap on an hourly basis? Daily?
Sure, people would strive to create maximum speed missions. But by definition, that would be okay.
In fact, as BAB obliquely implied, there would be nothing 'wrong' with setting the AE Speed Limit to be explicitly lower than what is possible in the game at large, if they were truly worried about exploits. Then anyone who wants to level faster than x can just hit the Dev created content. -
Cool.
-
Quote:When and if xp rewards are 'solved' on a per-critter basis, then sure. But the AE has already been through a few iterations of groups of powers offering different xp amounts, and efforts in that direction have been judged lacking so far.Originally Posted by QuiJon
Then who determines how long it should take. I am not saying that i think 48 hours is appropriate time, however if XP rewards were solved so that AE was similar to normal xp earning and still allowed for creative control of your creations, then the problem is solved with no need to limit how quickly i can earn xp on some arbitrary scale of how fast the devs feel i should level or how much is to much ina day or whatever.
While it would be quite possible to keep trying different combinations and then nerfing them once exploits were found into the forseeable future, I think a 'speed limit' is a more elegant solution.
It directly solves the issue of gaining rewards "too fast" while allowing full critter creation flexibility.
And there is no question of who decides how fast is too fast. That has apparently already been decided; we just haven't been given the number. If not, no changes would have been made in the first place.
Unless you think all of the changes to the AE were because of '0-risk' critters, which I don't believe to be the case. If so, they would have just put a minimum amount of attacks out there and been done. -
If any PvPers do decide to try out sending an "Incoming!" tell a few times (from safely out of line of sight, and not necessarily seconds before an attack), I would like you to post your experiences, good and bad. It would be educational.
My delusion is that it hurts not a whit (exaggeration): You aren't giving up the element of surprise, because the target has no idea what kind of attack is coming, when it is coming, or from where. Of course, after your attack begins, they will be able to see that you were the gal who warned them before attacking (assuming you aren't two-boxing). I don't see that as a downside.
The upside is that you might get a good dialogue, some friendly player interaction, or at least some amusement or even an assessment of the target's capabilities and combat style.
EDIT: Granted, if 10 people try out PvP and 1 likes it, that's a win. By the same token, if 4 of them could have liked it if their attackers had been more carebear, but decided not to PvP because of how they were treated, that is also a lose.
There seems to be an attitude that being a PvPer is genetic. I beleive that is only partly true. -
Quote:Yes, but I was thinking something more along the lines of (with apologies to those who like myself had relatives in the war):Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
Get what's being said?
Japan, 1945
The phone of a commander of a military base in Hiroshima rings. The commander picks it up. "Moshi Moshi."
On the other end of the line, he hears a voice with an American accent say one word. "Incoming."
You get the idea. -
I beleive they already tried that.
What, may I ask, bothers you about an xp/advancement cap? Such a cap would likely be so high 95% of players would never see it. Or is most of the playerbase level capping in less than 48 hours of gameplay these days? -
Quote:I can't log into the game right now (nasty malware) or I would try it myself. I can't see it being anything other than entertaining.Originally Posted by M_I_Abrahms
Ah, but the perception is half of one, six dozen of the other as far as that goes. Even if it was just the 'Incoming!' (which I actually enjoy, and will make a bind for next time I'm in game) there's still the element where the aggressor is expected to back off it the target says they're not interested. If they do, then it doesn't matter HOW it's worded, it's still asking permission, and if they don't there's going to be SOMEONE who petitions for harassment. I can almost guarantee it.
Some will get ready for a fight (watch those Inspirations glow!), others will flee (or try to otherwise break targeting), others will ask you not to attack. In all cases, it should be much more fun than just ASing the guy, doing a followup, and then running if he doesn't drop (for example). -
Quote:I'm not saying making things more divergent was successful, I'm just saying that was the intent.Originally Posted by Aura_Familia
And I'm saying the logic of this isn't/wasn't logical. Players were complaining about the difference between pvp and pve, especially having to take powers they sure as hell wouldn't for pve.
Yet you go an make the systems even more divergent. They DIDN'T make things easier on the borderline player at all.
The logic is here:
Pre-I13, many Borderline players were complaining that they would enter a PvP zone and get killed before they could even figure out what action to take, let alone mount a counterattack (quite often 3 shotted so fast it seemed like a one-shot). Run? Dead. Try to target your foe? He's already out of line of sight. Type banter? Dead and laughed at.
The changes were intended for two basic purposes:
1: Make borderline players harder to kill. Hence suppression and DR and what not so that it is more difficult (not impossible) to 3 shot a player. This is so that borderline player at least has a chance to activate some powers, seek cover, pop inspirations.
2: Increase the level of balance between squishies and crunchies, ranged and melee, etc. Squishies now have some level of free resistance. Crunchies no longer have Mez Protection (having resistance instead), etc.
Again, I'm not saying the changes were a success, just that I see the logic.
Moreover, I don't see any other code-based path being more successful, outside of social engineering (such as rewards for getting a person into PvP and helping them be successful).
In any case, regardless of the state of the code, PvP players have the power to make PvP more inviting than it currently is for Borderline players. It does not hurt to send a tell; in fact, it would raise the level of challenge that you would face.
If sending a tell to a player who can't even see or target you minutes in advance of an attack is going to raise the level of challenge to an unacceptable degree, please explain how if you like. I suppose if could cause them to run to the zone exit, in which case time is saved. -
I don't disagree that the game works differently in PvP. There will be complaints about that, but then there will always be complaints.
I will just point out that a LOT of people (who are oddly silent now) specifically asked for PvP to work differently. They said that PvP had to be balanced seperately from PvE for it to be balanced at all.
I'm not saying it's balanced now, but I find it hard to disagree that this may be a necessary step.
Of course, PvP has always worked differently (toggle dropping, anyone?), but now at least we can store alternate builds and switch to them. I won't go so far as to say that alt builds came about because of PvP, but I would be quite suprised if PvP weren't a huge factor in financing that bit of coding.
A Borderline player is always going to be disoriented by the PvP environment, even if the coding were identical. The simple fact that the enemies attack you from stealth in groups of 8 and have powers on your level guarantees that.
All of the differences between PvE and PvP were designed (successfully or not) to make things easier on the Borderline player, as they should have been. -
This brings us back to the OP:
Put a "Speed Limit" on the MA in terms of rewards. A cap. A maximum amount of XP, Presige, drops, etc per hour (per character). Then let all MA critters give full xp, plus a bonus for extra abilities beyond the 'norm' for their rank and level.
They might need to add a new "MA Bar" to the UI to let you know how close you are to the cap.
You'd probably need to still impose a minimum amount of offensive powers for them to offer any xp at all.
Then MArchitects can create missions as they wish and players won't break the game by hitting the level cap in a day. -
Quote:Actually, this is exactly the point.Originally Posted by macskull
Best-case scenario, they'll actually stop and ask me questions about my build and their build, and we'll have a friendly conversation, and I just might have managed to bring in a new PvPer. Of course, many PvEers would rather just log off in frustration or suffer in silence instead of trying to actually figure out what's going on, but that's neither here nor there.
Every PvPer who wants PvP in this game to improve should (IMHO) start the friendly conversation before the attacks.
Otherwise, you are just hurting PvP.
Sure, it's not your responsibility to take these measures, but it is in your best interest to do so. To do otherwise is shooting oneself in the foot.
I urge any PvPer reading this to try an experiment, just for fun. For the next week, before attacking anyone in PvP, send them a tell, saying. "Incoming". That's all. You can do it seconds or minutes before you attack, and you should definitely do it from outside sight range.
I bet you will find the results enlightening and entertaining. -
Quote:Maybe. Perhaps too kind in some ways and too harsh in others.Originally Posted by LISAR
So the devs may have been too kind with the way PvP was implemented?
I was completely behind the Dev's vision of PvP back in the day, and I was all in favor of and suggested many of the changes that happened (not that they changed because of that, just saying I agreed).
On one hand, I like the idea of there being something to do in a PvP zone besides PvP. I dislike the idea of entering a zone for no reason other than to beat up players. I think the critters and objectives in PvP zones offer some cool potential tactics and strategy, and there is always the Arena if you just want to go toe to toe with someone. In some ways, I think the zones NEED the other missions and raidish elements. If nothing else, it gives you something to do when you go into a PvP zone and there aren't any players there.
But at the same time I think these things confuse the issue, creating this whole false sense of PvE entitlement. "Since there is an objective in the zone that I could possibly accomplish without PvP, it is obviously my Dev-given right to be able to accomplish it without PvP, and any PvPer should psychically sense this and is just being a meany head if they attack me."
I don't know of an easy solution, but in hindsight, it seems implementing the Shivans (as an example) as they are was a mistake.
Maybe the zones need to be redone with objectives that actively require PvP, as in defeating other players. That would cut the PvEers out entirely, which is a wash, but it might also at least help clue in the Borderline players to the proper mind set. To accomplish their mission, they need to hunt down and defeat another player, not a critter.
The again, you click on a big red disclaimer to get into the zone: I'm not sure how many Dev hours need to go into spelling it out more clearly than that.
Here's an idea: a 'training wheels' PvP temp power.
A vendor gives out a temp power that completely changes your build to a specific PvP build (or a chosen one of a set) while you are in a PvP zone. This also changes your costume: it's a set of powered armor or the like. If you choose to take this power, you are automatically pre-balanced with everyone else who has the same power (which you can tell because of the costume change). It won't let you beat up a dedicated IO'ed PvPer, of course, but you can gleefully hunt people who have the same power as you do: they at least have a build balanced with yours.
Of course, you will get hunted by IOed out PvPers, but the idea is you won't feel as bad because you aren't here to fight them, you are here to fight other 'noobsuit' players. A non-noobsuit player is expected to defeat a noobsuit player. There could even be penalties for attacking noobsuit players when you are not wearing a noobsuit, and special drops for noobsuit versus noobsuit combat.
Just a thought.
But the basica principle is this: A potential PvPer and an actual PvPer are not the same and should be courted differently. -
Quote:Although there would be a huge outcry from players used to easy Shivans (and of course there is almost always an outcry over any change), the principle of your idea is interesting and possibly even necessary.Originally Posted by MrCaptainMan
Let's look at the BB situation logically.
-
It WAS awesome. Just not what I expected.
-
'Borderline' players go into a PvP zone expecting what they think PvP is, which is different from what it is.
I know: I am/was one.
I went into a PvP zone first with a high level Tanker, and my experience was more or less positive, but very different from what I expected.
What I expected:
I enter the zone, get assassin struck from behind, turn and punch the assailant, jockey back and forth for a bit landing blows and popping inspirations, then win or lose. "GG" Maybe even throw in some during-battle comic book banter: "What supposed to hurt little ole me?" I even had macros set up for dialogue.
What happened: I enter the zone, hook immediately up with a team of heroes intending to look for villains to fight. As we are traveling along, we start to simply vanish, one by one. Someone is using 'teleport other'! I yell at everyone to get to cover and try to break line of sight with whoever. Suddenly I appear on top of a distant building, immobilized in a patch of trip mines, Burn, and fire imps, while being blasted and Held (this was before suppression or Break Frees). I drop.
Now, I found that experience exciting and interesting, but is that typical?
Many people I know would have found that dismaying or unfair, and not something they would seek out. I know; I talked to them about it. However, what I had was a vastly more positive experience than many board posters report.
Borderline players expect to get attacked. They do not expect (or perhaps I should say they do not ENJOY) getting attacked by opponents that have a skill and build gap so great that they feel that they do not have a chance.
Borderline players ARE NOT PVPers. They have a chance to become one, though, but they have to be given a reason.
To them, the question is not "What are you running from?" but "Why should I NOT run?"
Ifyou are attacked by a foe and you do not for whatever reason think you can defeat them, then running seems like the only choice. Or just sitting there and dying. Often, the two choices (or all 3) are the same: click to go to the hospital. -
Thank you!
-
Essentially, you can split the game into 3 tiers:
PvPers: If you think that having the chance to get ganked (as in jumped by a group of stealthing enemies) while travelling from base to mission is fun and exciting, you may be a PvPer. If the thought of researching a build that can handle that situation or joining an SG expressly so you can always have your own gang of stealthed ambushers sounds fun, then you may be a PvPer. Go ahead and hit the PvP zones, getting repeatedly rolled will just be a learning experience that you will relish taking the effort to rise above.
PvEers: If having a bunch of stealthed guys with minmaxed builds jump you while you are on your way to a mission sounds annoying and dumb, then you may be a PvEer. If there is no way no how you are going to finance an extra build or learn a new playstyle expressly so that you can PvP, then you may be a PvEer. PvP zones are not barred to you, but I cannot in good faith recommend that you enter them, because you will be rolled and the Devs and GMs will not help beyond giving you warning text before you click to enter.
Borderline: If you do not have a strong feeling one way or the other about financing a PvP build, learning a new playstyle, and joining a PvP SG, they you may be borderline.
HERE is where the problem lies.
When a Borderline player enters the zone, there is no way to tell her from a true PvPer. They are going to most likely have a negative experience. With no PvP build or skills, they are going to get assassin struck, look around, see a blast coming toward their face, try to run, find out they are rooted, supressed and slowed, click a break free and DIE. Then they will go to the hospital, come back out, rinse and repeat until they decide 'well this sucks' and leave the zone.
One less potential PvPer.
This is what kills PvP in most games that have an option to avoid PvP.
PvP in a game where there are large safe zones must be a different animal than how it is in 'all PvP' games or games with dedicated PvP servers. The code changes to PvP are an attempt to help PvP by increasing the number of Borderline people that will have a positive experience ("I lost, but I felt like I had a chance, and I am willing to make a few adjustments and try it again") instead of a negative one ("This is stupid, you can't find anyone to fight, and when you do you just get one shotted with no chance to fight back").
It has created a vicious cycle: less people PvP, so therefore less people PvP.
What can the players do about this?
It comes back to a something that zone PvPers have a BIG problem with (and I don't mean this in a derogatory way): etiquette. Although attacking someone by surprise in a PvP zone while they are not paying attention is not griefing by the Dev's definition, it is still HURTING ZONE PVP.
Simply: If the zone PvPers took it upon themselves to send a tell (from behind cover and at an extreme distance) before attacking, there would eventually be more PvPers. This would degrade the PvP experience for a PvPer dramatically, since warning your foe is absolutely counter intuitive, but maybe -just maybe- over time it would lead to MORE PvP, due to more Borderline players having a positive experience.
Sure, you would occaisionally send a tell to a real PvPer, who would use the info against you. But that would just make the experience more challenging, which is what you want, right?
Right? -
Mmmm, hot sauce...
But here's the deal.
No one wants to put hot sauce on your grated cheese. Real PvP hounds want to fight other PvP'ers, not unsuspecting, unprepared PvE'ers who are no fun to fight.
However, PvE'ers (dedicated PvE 'ers who have no intention of PvP) take it upon themselves to enter PvP zones. I'll go ahead and say it: they shouldn't. PvP zones are expressly put there for PvP and for those who are interested in checking out PvP. The PvE content there is a LURE. Grated cheese in a hot sauce mousetrap.
I guess the Shivan Meteors are doing their job... -
The point of PvP is not griefing. The point of PvE missions in a PvP zone is partly what you would consider griefing.
Ideally, PvP would always take place between people that were intending to PvP. But so long as there is something of benefit to a PvE player in a PvP zone (even if it were just pretty scenery), there would be people who would be lured in and essentially victimized.
I wonder: If Shivan shards (for example) were tradeable, would that help? Then PvE'ers could steer clear of PvP zones and just send in friends or hirelings who were PvPers, or just buy them from the market.
Of course, then you would need something else to give people who are 'PvP curious' but shy an incentive to try it out. -
BlueBattler, have you considered working on a PvP build in your spare time (for one of your alternate build slots)?
Not actually dedicating special time to it, but earmarking certain recipes and storing them for eventually?
Just curious. -
Where should I go to get a good copy of 'Hijack This!' ?