fuulishone
-
Posts
341 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Donations
0.00 USD
Posts posted by fuulishone
-
-
@Kyp/CDel/Bidoc
A compromise then? Since the Net7 db already shows information you're okay with, and hides the "fun" aspect of the information, would you be willing to do a static extract/dump of that view for folks that are interested in building their own player contributed wiki/database? This static dump need not be updated ever, it's simply a set of seed data. If no, that's fine, just thought I'd toss that idea out there.
-----
@Everyone
For everyone asking for a "better" database, the game (and all others in this genre) already provide a very workable, live and organic database that has search capabilities that far exceeds anything you could find on the web. It's the global chat channel, or in our case, market channel. Ask it a natural language question and oftentimes you'll receive an answer within seconds. No need to learn SQL or fancy advanced search forms. How easy is that?
Joking aside, the Net7 database provides the right amount of information for a lot of needs. For what's missing, the player channels really do do a great job of filling in the rest, give it a try.
-----
Re: hiding information for the benefit of the game and enhancing exploration
There may be drops that are hard to find simply because they're randomly linked to illogical mobs. I know this part of the game is still a work in progress. As the game continues to develop, I'd like to suggest some things for the content team:
- Link items to more logical mobs so folks can have a fighting chance when it comes to organically discovering the mob that drops a certain item.
- Or add some random drops in the game that are vendor fodder, but have descriptive text that enhance the "explore" aspect of the game. Like the old drops that hinted at hidden Chavez bases. For those that played EVE, there used to be drops that hinted at pirate plexes. Stuff like that.
- Add random hint dialog to NPCs. Perhaps the folks at Trader's Fort could tell you about a rumor they heard from their mother's sister's second son's wife's hairdresser about a hidden base in Niff Cloud that was researching some interesting devices.
Just some thoughts. -
Now, you did make one point, make all Explorers Lv9 Beam users, which makes way less sense than giving them the simple ability to make ammo that it uses.
I did not say Lvl 9 beams. I said good racial Lvl 8 beams. It's a matter of choice. If you choose to circumvent the pain of having to deal with ammo, you could choose to not use PL/ML at all, just put all your weapon points into beams and be done with it. The only thing preventing this is gear to support it. Adding gear is relatively easy as that's purely content. It could be easily balanced to be PS/TS only. Lots of ways to deal with it.
Or... if you're that much of a combat-oriented TS/PS, then just go ahead and get a ton of ammo made and store it. It does take some time, but not so much that it's unbearable. Bring your comps to F7 and I'm sure you can find a builder willing to build ammo for you 20 stacks at a time. When you go to get your gear upgrades, you have to engage a builder anyway. Why not engage them to build your ammo at the same time?
Sorry, but I have to disagree. There are enough hermits in the game already, why make it even easier to be one?
Edit: An amendment...
There was precedent in Live for a device that helped ease a little of this problem by allowing PS to make a special type of Archos ammo that only they could use. If such a thing was enabled here and made available to both PS/TS for their respective weapons, that might be something that'd work without having to make skill changes, etc.
-
In a word, yes the one's that come after have nothing to complain about as they have as much choice/freedom to play the game however they want as the alleged cherry-picker. I'm not saying the cherry-picker is a model citizen in the community. I'm just saying that the issue the "come-afters" have is really a non-issue if the game mechanics were fixed to take into account some of this behavior.
What Terrell suggested with a per roid despawn timer is a good solution, as long as you take into account Kyp's concerns about maintaining rarity. There's also potential for abuse which needs to be addressed. But in general terms this seems like the type of solution folks should be discussing. Not individual ways to reward YOUR play style and punish someone else's. In a perfect world, both your playstyle and their's would be just as rewarding/or not, and neither would affect the other.
Example...
You spend 3 hours mining, and fill your hold to the gills with ore, every cargo spot topped off as full stacks thru careful management of your stacks. You spent roughly 95% of that 3hrs mining. Can't 100% since you warped around to find your choice spots, etc. Your take at the end of it could be several stacks of really rare level 9 ore, mixed with an entire hold of other stuff.
Your stereo-typical cherry-picker spends 3 hours cherry-picking. They do NOT come back with a full hold, and they do NOT make as much money/xp as you do since they only spent roughly 10% of that 3hrs actually mining. They come back to station with a cargo hold full, every spot taken up with something, but almost nothing is full stacks.
This is the ideal scenario. Nothing the cherry-picker does should affect the dedicated miner, and vice-versa. It should be obvious that a hardcore miner will make more money/xp than the cherry-picker. And, IMHO, this is what the various discussions regarding cherry-picking should be trying to achieve.
While I don't have any strong objections to your suggested device, I just don't see how it would actually fix anything when the issue isn't the playstyles conflicting, but game mechanics causing an impact on the "come-afters."
-
I think you misunderstand... What I'm trying to point out is that your frustration is due to the after-effect of a partially picked field. This is a game mechanic issue, not a behavior one. It's unreasonable to dictate that anyone interested in mining should forever and always clear a field, just like it's unreasonable to dictate that anyone going out to do some combat should forever and always clear all side mobs in addition to the named spawns. That's just never going to happen.
My point is really that, if there's a side effect to partially mined fields, then THAT's the thing that needs to be addressed, not things that are meant to change how people play. Forcing people to play a certain way isn't fun for them, and is a slippery slope for if/when it happens to you. Fixing the mechanics that allow a partially cleared field to affect the fun for others IS something that should be addressed. It's a fine distinction, but there is one nonetheless.
I'm not dismissing that there's a problem when there's cherry-picking. I just disagree that the fix is to punish/remove gameplay options from the cherry-pickers. Instead, I believe what's needed is to fix/modify the game mechanics so that once they leave, whoever comes after doesn't have to deal with poor left-behinds. Does that convey better what I'm asking?
-
With all due respect Mimir, isn't this just perpetuating the core problem? That there's a reason for folks to cherry pick, and that for some reason that behavior affects the gameplay for others? Removing the ability to inspect a roid doesn't fix the core problem. Cherry-pickers will simply go to the field, open a roid and then close it.
I know it sucks after having gotten ready to mine, only to arrive and find fields empty of anything "good." Or just plain empty. My question is, why is this strictly the work of cherry pickers? Why can't it be a more reasonable answer? That someone's cleared the fields (a good miner mind you), but the fields aren't instantly respawning at the same time? Do we know if they fully respawn at once, or if it's staggered? Do we know if the percentage of "good" is so low now that it may be virtually impossible to find anything "good" even when everyone fully clears out fields?
Another question is, why does the community believe cherry-picking as a play style impinges on their own game play? Is there something fundamentally wrong with the mechanics of it that's causing the problem? Most everything is hearsay unless a Dev pipes up and tells us what the mechanics are, and are able to confirm that some type of activity affects things for others. Folks need to be careful about asking for things that remove the competitiveness of the game and replaces it with pure carebear-ism.
Like mob spawns, roid fields are first come, first serve. Folks will cherry pick mobs all the time, why hasn't that caused a ruckus?
-
Rather than changing the classes at large, why not advocate something that's fairly easy to implement? Allow PS/TS to find good/decent racial level 8 beams? Beam mode is probably very compatible with mining mode as you save on cargo space. Since you're not opposed to spending skill points on a build ammo skill, you're probably not opposed to spending points on beam skill.
The only alternative is to stop thinking you need to use the absolute best ammo/best guns as an explorer. Realistically, having raid quality weapons doesn't really make all that much difference when mining/protecting yourself from field guardians. You could always equip vendor ammo. IIRC, there's vendor Archos and Zet ammo.
If you feel the need to use the very best ammo @ 200%, then feel free to find a friendly builder and load up your cargo/vault with pre-made ammo. That's what I did. It's really not as big a deal as you make it out to be. Unless you're toting top level turbo and all you do is combat, you're not going to burn through all that much ammo.
I'm not dissing the suggestion, just playing Devil's Advocate on the subject.
-
A printable Theodosius Alpha L5 must be ripped from the L6 by another player who already has the whole line printed
Quoted for emphasis. @Ambush, have you tried asking on market for a mappable Theo 5?
-
Aside from weapons, there are also the other desirable raid drops that can fall under the same type of idea. Just because something from Live was non-manu doesn't mean it has to be that way here. It's simply a matter of balancing the stats on it.
Also, the idea that something isn't fully formed at drop time doesn't necessarily require it to be "built" in the traditional sense. (Although being a fan of crafting in all my MMOs, I really like the building premise.) You could turn in drop components to an NPC or something.
Or, you could get as a drop a 50% quality item that has appropriately nerfed stats that can be improved with the application/activation of one-time use devices that drop from raids. An idea like this would require some amount of "wins" of said upgrade component by one person before that one item fulfills it's full uber-ness. That lets someone have a raid item thus getting their reward for their hard work, the upgrade components could be more plentiful than the base item, thus encouraging folks to "grind" the content, or at the very least assist others.
It then becomes a matter of choice whether you're content with your own particular uber item being 50%, 75%, 100% or anywhere in between. And perhaps the upgrade component can be used on more than one item. Maybe the upgrade components from certain mobs within a raid only raise the quality to 60%, but beyond that you need another class of upgrade component from a harder, later spawning mob or some other content (epic mining/building mission for an npc to obtain some prototype component). Again, variety and choice. If you're the lucky owner of two of these types of items, it becomes your choice which one you want to improve/repair.
Perhaps this would give you folks more flexibility in tuning the overall drop rate of a fully formed item.
Just more ways to enable more frequent encounter respawn, while maintaining encounter rewards at appropriately "rare" levels.
-
@Kyp:
From the staff's point of view, how important is it that a raid encounter's reward be instantly useable? Is this the driving force behind limiting the content? What I'm asking is, if the drop wasn't immediately useful, but say required multiple attempts to complete an item, would that constitute an alternative means of limiting the availability of a drop, while keeping the content accessible without long cooldown times?
-
@Fuulish: Increasing the number of spawns of mob x that holds item y increases the likelihood that item y will drop. So yes, in one of your responses above, that is a problem.
One desire from the community is to have fun content, more frequently. One desire is to balance the drops so they're not so easy to get. Why does increasing mob spawn rate equal higher drop rate? It simply means more chances to roll the dice. It's like playing the lotto. Whether you play once, or a thousand times, your chances on each one is the same, 1 in averylargemillionishtypenumber.
If the "right" number to make a drop safe for the economy is 1 in a 100 (for example, please use whatever numbers you're comfortable with, I'm just lazy and like 100), is it very difficult to normalize all the attempts to give this statistic? It should be pretty easy to test your randomizing algorithm to find this out. Simply death-touch the mob, respawn it 10000 times and see if you get 100 drops. (100 times is statistically insignificant, thus the 10k attempts.)
Now I know this goes counter to those that want to feel rewarded for finishing a raid encounter, and I understand that. I'm just offering an alternative view. The game should be diverse enough to be able to support both styles in the raid encounters. Variety is good.
P.S. If folks are stuck on the notion that a raid encounter needs to always be rewarding, then they are definitely setting themselves up for long respawn times. The only way around that is that the reward is incremental, and it evolves/grows over attempts. While folks hate grinding, there does need to be some type of progression in the content to make folks want to come back and do it again.
Thanks for responding.
-
The mobspawns where changed for....
... you know what... forget it... No matter what I or the dev team say will please everyone.
All I can and will be saying on this topic is that the changes to mob-spawn times is done for for the 'betterment' of the server and the community as a whole. Not to please the individual.
Rare loot, by its very word, is RARE.
While there may be some dissenters, the majority of the community agrees that rare loot should be rare. There's no disagreement here. Just a matter of quantifying what "rare" means. If it's strictly chance based (a.k.a. 1% chance of a drop) does it really matter how frequently an encounter can spawn? It just means more chances to get the drop, but it's still 1%, or whatever you set it to be.
It will be that way, unless the entire community voices its concerns.
The entire staff at Net-7 met, we as a whole discussed it, talked about it over several weeks, involved Lannister as his the Advocate, and informed him of the staffs decision.
Good luck with getting the whole community to voice out. If you look at the poll numbers, that's not even remotely close to the active player base. However, the ones that DO pipe up and participate shouldn't be dismissed either. Listen to them, they at least have the interest to actively participate and give feedback.
Now... "over several weeks" I have to take objection with this statement. As you can see, the poll was opened on Feb 9, less than a week ago. How was there any community feedback for "weeks"? You seem like a reasonable fellow, but you also seem rather new to this public role. As have plagued this project many times in the past, there has always been a schizm between the "Net-7 staff" and "community." Lannister was a great first step in healing that gap, but summarily making decisions and dismissing the community's participation in a poll that's only been open for a week is not exactly friendly communication.
I am sorry if this offended or upset the invidual or a few people, but we do have to look at the entire community, as well as the project. What is best for the community and the project will always come first.. Rather then bowing to the wants and needs of the individual.
Now if you can come up with a perfectly resonable reason as to why it would be best to have end-game bosses and high end (and what is supposed to be ultra rare) items, become common place, then please do so. We will relook at spawn timers, but again, ultimatly if it breaks the game and the game economy, I cant see it happening.
You're commenting on something that isn't even within the topic of the poll. The poll was at worst, taking the pulse of the community in terms of how frequently they wanted high end CONTENT (a.k.a. encounters) to be available. That has absolutely nothing to do with drops. Drops are a completely separate discussion that can be managed separately from spawn times. If they can't, then there should be absolutely NO reason to be messing with spawn timers before creating a system that let's you properly control drops. If tweaking spawn timers is the only way to control drops, then there's something fundamentally wrong with the system.
-
Before you click on the poll please let me provide some context:
We have already agreed that end game items (i.e. Splitter/Caster, Hellbore, Skull Shields, etc) are to readily available in game. Much of this is due to the ease with which the mobs who drop them can be taken down.
The overall desire is to make these items rare - a shining goal to be a challenge that not everyone can do.
The spawn times as they are, I believe, are way to low. In live the controller was days not hours. To have controller loot meant something - now you can find it floating near his spawn most of the time. Cast out like junk.
There are some changes coming which will make Controller and GoBB more like raids and less like shooting fish in a barrel. While this will help spawn times needs to be adjusted to make the items much more rare than they are today.
This is your chance to chime in.
And yes, I know that one answer doesn't fit all here - there will be some variability between then. But in general what are our expectations here.
Thanks again for participating.
No offense Lann, but I think that poll really isn't sufficient when talking about tweaking end-game content. There's just not enough information. If you're simply trying to get a sense of community tolerance, fine. But if the devs are looking for something actionable, then the poll dumbs down too much.
There are some baselines that need to be established before anyone can be well-informed enough to vote properly.
1) What level of raid content are we talking about? Is this poll strictly for raids that require 2 full groups (or more) to handle? How does this affect single (full) group content?
2) Are we talking activation cooldown on exclusive content? Or contestable content? It may be okay for activated raids to have a daily cooldown, but contestables at a day cooldown would really suck for the majority of the community and simply create an even worse camping situation.
3) Are we talking about all current raids and the "winning time" being arbitrarily applied across the board? It may make sense for entry level content (a.k.a. "worse" drops) to be more available then the higher end stuff. As newer, more uber content comes in, the lesser stuff should be more accessible since it's no longer the "best" anymore, right?
4) How long are the events themselves? If the event can be completed inside of minutes, then it's pretty inexcusable for it to be on a long timer. The spawn cooldown itself needs to take into account how much time folks need to devote to beat the encounter. If an encounter took several hours to complete, I think folks would be happy with it being on a daily/multi-daily cooldown.
5) If someone had exclusive access to ALL the events and completed them back to back, how much time would it take? If it's on the order of hours per night, then longer cooldowns would be appropriate to limit that person's access to the totality of the content. (Bypassing the issue of contested content for now.) BUT, if all the content can be completed in a single night, does it really make sense to enforce long cooldowns?
Anyway, I didn't vote and I don't agree with the way this poll is expressed. Sorry.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Trader, please add slim jims to the meaty snack list. Thanks
-
Are you saying they've put this in print somewhere? Is it out there on the net? I should like to see it and determine an answer for that.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/217810/ten_awesome_freetoplay_online_games.html
-
@Hrathgar
I wasn't meaning to remove the existing shield recharge skill, but to add a new skill for the PP. As far as I understood, the PP was still missing a skill (I could be wrong) and thus that was the angle I was taking.
-
Disclaimer: I don't play a TT, so forgive me if any of this seems unfair. I will admit that I'm a fan of both the PP and JS classes and do play both.
For the PP
With L9 shields and high reactor, perhaps allow the PP to have a damage split skill? Basically, this new skill allows the PP to extend his/her shields around a single target (within the group only), thereby taking a maximum of 50% of the damage that target would normally get. It's reactor use is similar to how cloak works in that it consumes reactor for as long as it's active, and prevents other skills and devices from being used until the extension is turned off. It has an initial energy use for the activation and then a reactor/second consumption as well. Any target may also only have one of these buffs at a time, and activation is prevented until the skill is turned off fully. This is to prevent multiple PPs from chaining/overlapping the activation of the skill.
So for the duration of the skill, the PP must rely on natural recharge (plus buffs if you have a JS/JE in group). This would make the skill easy to balance around recharge times so that a solo PP couldn't keep the extension up all the time and won't be able to turn it on/off to throw a recharge between activations.
This should be a 5-tier skill where each tier allows the PP to take more of the damage, starting at 10% for tier 1. This would allow lowbie PPs to be part of high level combat groups, but be "gimped" for raids. This is to prevent lowbies going into raids for freebies by effectively hurting the groups.
In this scenario, if you have a PP in the group, they won't be healing, but will be doing damage mitigation. You'll still need a TT/JS to augment and top off the tank (presumably the PW) and the PP as well as a JE to constantly top off the PP's reactor. This allows groups with more healing/mitigation potential (and therefore less dps) to be able to handle mobs more safely, but take more time. Groups with superior dps will take down mobs faster, but with more risk. Seems like a good trade off.
For the JS
With level 8 shields as max, it's hard to give the JS a new heal related skill based off of shield cap like the PP, but with his/her superior reactor, perhaps a small heal over time makes sense. Again, like the PP's skill, it's initial reactor use to activate, and then constant reactor drain while it's in effect.
The amount healed depends on the skill level (assume this is your typical 5 tier skill) and needs to be investigated/balanced more carefully than I can come up with right now. Suffice it to say, it should not be more efficient than Shield Recharge. It can heal more, but should cost a lot more reactor to do so. The benefit of using this versus Shield Recharge is that it's a consistent amount of heal to the group, whereas Shield Recharge is a large heal to one target, with much smaller group heals (using Area Shield Recharge). The negative is that it should be a huge drain on reactor, but the JS can afford it.
This type of heal would allow content devs to create some interesting environmental/area damage skills for mobs.
For the TT
The major problem I have with my own suggestions is that it makes both of the above classes seem more interesting/fun (at least to me) than the TT. I know it would be a major break with canon to change the TT, but perhaps the community and dev team could come up with some workable middle ground to freshen up the TT. Both of the proposed skills prevent the PP/JS from continuing to do anything other than heal. They can add dps... but with the ongoing reactor drain, it's probably not prudent for them to do so. Perhaps this could be an area of improvement for the TT? Perhaps use of the Shield Charge skill imposes a self-buff that gives them some combat benefit, thus elevating their role in a group?
I'm not sure, I don't play a TT, so it's hard for me to know how my PP/JS suggestions would impact the TT class.
Anyways, just some thoughts, not complete ones either... Any feedback is appreciated.
-
@wootage
You haven't really argued that the class in particular has a weakness, just that you personally feel it's harder to level combat-wise relative to other traders during some points of your leveling process. And while it's not necessarily ideal to balance around L150 (may be re-balance at the major hulls, 30, 75, 135), worrying about combat balance when you're level 3/4 guns is just as pointless. Even if you don't powerlevel (does this even work?) or multibox, solo combat for a JT is pretty darn easy, just don't be stupid about it.
A TT may be able to one/two salvo mobs that take a JT several rounds to kill, but the nature of Jenq gameplay pretty much puts you right next to the corpse. JTs can farm non-stop and loot as well without breaking a sweat. If you need to thrust to the corpse to loot it, you're doing it wrong and also probably why you're having such trouble as you're gimping your dps due to range. TTs (and PPs to some extent) almost universally have to impulse to the corpse to loot, thus wasting time and overall evening out in the long run.
I've said this before as well, if YOU find that YOUR level 5 guns/kit versus a TT's level 5 guns/kit are equal, then it's a gear problem for level 4 guns/kit. If you find that your level X kit versus a TT/PT's level X kit is weak at all stages, then that's a definite problem. Do you have evidence that says it's hard at all comparable gear levels or only within certain tiers?
-
In and of itself, creating a starbase in the game somewhere and filling it up with NPCs, terminals, etc, isn't hard to do, but it's a content thing and not really something that could be dynamically generated at a whim. As far as I understand it right now, it can be done with developer tools, which ultimately require patch updates to the clients. I don't see that as being scalable to the degree that a guild can do build their own.
Something that might be doable (and palatable to the devs and community) is rotational "ownership" of some station somewhere. Winning rights to that station happens through some currently unavailable content, and the winner may get to designate some features/aspect of the station and have bragging rights for a period of time. That could easily be something handled as flavor content through in game contests etc. Might even be fun for the devs. But deploying it would definitely fall in the category of "patch update."
When I made my comment, I thought you were referring to how in EVE, a corporation could build a starbase out in space (assuming they had the right EVERYTHING ELSE in place) without intervention by devs. In EVE, starbase building is part of the core game, so anyone could do it at any time without patching clients.
-
Not to be "that" guy... But I believe the game you're looking for is EVE Online.
-
2
-
-
@Tyran
I do understand a little of where you're coming from, but at the same time, many of those perceptions are simply illusions. I think you're giving too much credit/emphasis to the idea of large guilds. There's no real difference between folks in a guild versus folks that aren't OTHER a tag and a private chat channel in game. There are no other benefits gained from being in a guild right now, no guild vaults, etc.
However, having the private chat channel is incredibly empowering. It makes communications very easy, and there is some automatic inclusion into activities by mere fact of being in the same guild, but that's down to personalities, not something about guilds that's good or bad. Some folks simply prefer the relatively less chatty guild channel than newplayers/ooc/market/general chat, and you can't blame them for personal preference.
Really though, anyone can create their own private channel and invite folks to it. Or folks can simply use general/market, etc as long as the chat nazis don't complain.
Being in a guild doesn't currently auto-assign loot rights or anything like that, so again there's nothing here that prevents folks from different guilds/solo players from participating in group hunting/raiding.
Give you an example. On Orion there were MANY publicly organized raids. Some of the most well respected raid leaders were from the big guilds, sure. They had the experience and organizational skills, but they never barred anyone from joining the raid, regardless of guild tag. It was simply that PERSON that was a good raid leader, not his/her guild. They gained respect as an individual by participating in market channel and helping others.
Guilds aren't inherently good/bad. There's no reason for any kind of extra development to create a pseudo-guild.
-
They can do what they want, but to me it wouldnt be right to reset everything above 125% to 100%. Nor would it be right to set stuff over 125% to 125%, 125% stuff should be rare. If someone has a end-game weapon at 170% and you reset it to 100%, they are gonna be pissed and they will start camping again to replace what they "lost".
To me the sliding scale I mentioned above seems like the most fair answer to this. It will let everyone keep their current level of power in relation to the other players. IE Pre-change I have a 150% Spitter and Lann has a 180% Spitter, Post-Change mine is 110% his will be 120%. It seems like the most fair way of going about it, but it might be a headache to code lol.
Agreed, that makes more sense then a simple level set. Would be fairly trivial to code up as a one time database update on quality values, but may require a downtime to perform safely.
-
If the decision is to allow non-manu drop items to have a variable quality up to a max of 125%, then shifting all existing items that meet this category of item down to 125% makes sense.
However, it would be prudent to also follow up the quality fixing with a round of balancing to make sure the new caps make sense and continue to keep the most prized items, well "prized." There are a fair number of items in the game right now that would suddenly become mediocre when compared to the previous 180% versions, so it would be nice if the devs responsible for item balance kept this in mind and did a once over on the stats once the quality fix went in.
If you allow a system whereby dropped quality caps at 125%, but you can pay an enormous sum to make items go to 150%, that would be nice. Allowing this would require the devs to balance dropped items with the presumption that everyone will eventually get that item to 150% in order to maintain balance and prevent it from being overpowered. The problem lies in the gap from 125% - 150%. Does the item go from just okay to being good? Or from being good to great?
-
1
-
-
@cpwing
You seem to have missed the spirit/point of this weapon. It's not meant to be entirely comparable to your current line up of guns, nor be a one shot WMD. Of course firing only one gun at a CL60 won't work. Why should it?
-
So now we have a clear definition of the perceived problem - from the L30 to L75 HU, the JT seems slow to kill stuff, which is essential for completing combat missions and leveling combat. And without combat leveling, you can't get the combat upgrades to solve the problem. So it feels like a pretty steep hill, esp. from CL 14-18, and then it flattens right out when you get the L75 HU.
People aren't necessarily meant to be accepting combat missions that are at the top of their range. For example, just because you can accept L50/L75 jobs (assuming you're L35/L60), it doesn't mean it's going to be a smart thing to do. Also, just because a JT may take longer than a TT to kill something of the same level might not mean anything. A TT may not be able to go as long as a JT non-stop when farming due to reactor constraints. Balanced in different ways, no?
Something else to keep in mind. If there are difficult periods during the leveling process, but it gets better, that's fairly indicative that it's not a class-wide problem, but more likely something that can fairly easily be fixed with gear/mob balancing.
-
2
-
in Player Advocate Forum
Posted
- Loot drop rates
- Mob drop tables
- Buy/Sell prices of vendor goods, comps, drops
- Availability of build comps/ores (raw and refined)
- "Drop" rates of ore fields
- Refining costs
- Repeatable mission rewards, job terminal payouts, etc.
- Available credit sinks
- Leveling rate (a.k.a. amount of time spent making vs spent spending)
I'm sure I'm missing some. But if not all of the above is considered "ready" by the Content Team, I would think that a credit wipe at this point to test the game economy would do more harm to the game and community than help it.
It's a good idea, but really it belongs as part of the player wipe.