Trasak said:On farming faction:
I would like to see faction gains be significantly more local and based on actions rather than slaughter in general. Its fine for faction hits to happen for killing someone but faction gains should only be from challenging tasks.
Rather than killing 400 orcs I would rather see a timed quest to go kill 2 chieftains and 4 lieutenants from the surrounding tribes. The players would need full groups to kill these mobs and would also need to find them (locate not camp). The difficulty of completing the task in a 2 hour time frame would justify the shorter time spent than simple grinding would take.
I would also make the final rewards of the faction gain be dependent on the level of the mob that fills in the slot. In this way low level players could kill the nearby level 20 chieftains but high level players could go to the adjacent mountain zone and kill the level 40 chieftains for an order of magnitude more faction. (for logistics purposes the quest tracker would over write a lower level kill with a higher one before turn in).
This would also be a good opportunity to introduce mob baiting where a mini quest can be performed to create a one use item to force a spawn to get the kill relatively on command. The nature of the mini quest will still prevent you from repeatedly summoning to max a faction in a single day. (more through taking time to find ground spawns and the like than any “daily limit”).
P.S. I think it would also be interesting if over time reputations returned to neutral rather than being stable. A little of “what have you done for me lately” mixed with forgive and forget. This would mean that having a high faction would be a matter of choice not just a progression flag to hit.
I like where you're headed with this conceptually.
Lately, I find myself in favor of multi-input systems where pursuing a single input will only get you part of the way, but where you also have more options than you need to gain that input. By this, what I mean is that I think you should actually be able to earn faction through multiple means: Killing mobs is one. Completing tasks is another. We could maybe even potentially think of a third or a fourth.
By having those multiple means you allow players to choose the path that works best from them - for the most part. To keep it from devolving into a "shortest path to the cheese" scenario however, you make it so that you can only get so much from one method before you have to go do the other. There's several ways this could be accomplished, but the end result would be that players are encouraged to do multiple things to work their faction up.
The other thing I wanted to say here is that while I agree with your goal of having some entropy over time in faction standings, I also think that some of those faction gains/losses should be "sticky". So if you gain 100 points of faction, maybe 60 of those points are temporary and will eventually go away if you don't keep doing things, but the other 40 will be permanent, unless you take an action that would cause you to lose faction.
Nephele said:Riahuf22 said:Sounds good neph, sry for the rant, it's actually pretty, solid especially with roaming mobs, alert mobs, hopefully mobs that hold of lanterns and stuff to prevent sneaking into areas or to catch people out of invis and with mobs that aggro people regardless of level and encourages other NPCs to do the same than I'd say for the most part out of an immersion standpoint have done just about everything you can do.
No worries sir, it's hard sometimes not to respond emotionally to things. I know this all too well :)
I agree with you that making it harder for people to sneak/invis/etc to get to things helps a lot. I'm really looking forward to seeing how NPC dispositions force us to change our approach by making the mobs behave much more intelligently, as an example :)
Grimix said:For the most part the solutions you posted I would believe would work to ease things off. Would like to add what about the possibility of getting said loot from another source? Maybe one named mob drops a 5% haste belt and is on a place holder or timed spawn. But maybe you could acquire the belt through an alternate means such as trading faction points for it or maybe a rare drop from a small raid type event. You would have to implement such things carefully though to prevent items from becoming too common and lowering their worth
I like that suggestion a lot Grimix. I don't know that I can add much to your idea but I think having multiple potential avenues to obtain different types of items isn't a bad thing at all.
Have to focus on work for a bit, but will come back to the forums once I escape from that :)
Most of your ideas plus the one I added were how ffxi had solved a lot of issues except they did utilize instances. The world named would drop a a non tradable version, and the tougher instanced fight would drop a sellable version among other things.
@ Nephele
Even while I was writing that idea out I was thinking of the fact that so long as a higher level player could get faction faster in another area they will take it over farming a low level zone for faction. One of EQs biggest faction sins was that the amount gained was not mob level based. You got the same amount of faction for an orc pawn as an orc Legionnaire in EC (two different Ik monks who got their own belts and headbands). If the high level area was giving 10 times the faction per kill as the low level area you would never return to it for faction reasons.
As far as faction decay I could see earning titles or badges that lock you at a higher minimum faction until you do something like killing a guard at which point its taken away from you.
Trasak said:@ Nephele
Even while I was writing that idea out I was thinking of the fact that so long as a higher level player could get faction faster in another area they will take it over farming a low level zone for faction. One of EQs biggest faction sins was that the amount gained was not mob level based. You got the same amount of faction for an orc pawn as an orc Legionnaire in EC (two different Ik monks who got their own belts and headbands). If the high level area was giving 10 times the faction per kill as the low level area you would never return to it for faction reasons.
As far as faction decay I could see earning titles or badges that lock you at a higher minimum faction until you do something like killing a guard at which point its taken away from you.
I like it might need changed a bit but like the overall thought of it, could also have higher level mobs have better rep turn in like in eq with the gnoll they dropped gnoll fangs, and let's say gnoll in a higher level dungeon your collect either better quality fangs, or maybe talisman or anything they might be wearing or part of their body, and have the rep be the same per kill, there are multiple ways to make it intereting, I like both of the ideas and both should be used, I believe it makes earning rep ultimately the same but gained in different ways, I'm sure more ideas are just as valid and possibly better than mentioned alrdy, just haven't been thought of yet or simply not mentioned
Trasak said:@Tranix
Under my previous example the expectation is that the druid will have run out of mana (based on little or no mana regen while in combat) and or snare will have reached diminishing returns before an equal level group mob would have died from a druids (sub type healer) DPS. This would still hold true for a wizard or any other ranged caster and all melee classes will just take too much damage without support to even try.
So your position is hard cap, a refusal to allow any adaption in play. That is, Character A of this level can only ever take on NPC of that level. That form of play exists, it is is actually a common implementation of most modern games. WoW specifically disallows a given level range of player, regardless of level or ability, or approach ot take on content past that allowance.
Trasak said:
Now I will grant you that picking the right target and using great tactics can give you an edge so a level 40 might be able to solo a level 30 group mob in optimal conditions. Where I will differ with you on is that I think its actually the developers responsibility to patch faulty behaviors so if a kiter is able to find a rock or tree that the mobs get stuck on then that rock or tree needs fixed. I don't consider that emergent game play or good tactics it's exploiting a game bug and will likely be against the EULA if done deliberately. (whether it is ever enforced is a different issue as I would consider it the fault of the developer and not the player)
Well, this is the issue. See, most modern players will fault EQ players for emergent play being a direct violation of logical game mechanics. Some were, but the argument purposed is often that the player is "cheating" the system, operating outside of the logical play of the game.
You call being able to move behind an obstacle a "faulty behavior", but is it logically? A mob begins to cast projectiles, so the natural instinct is to avoid them, to seek cover. Being able to avoid an arrow by taking cover behind a rock or tree, is a very natural progression and logical play behavior. So, thinking such is a fault of the developer is being focused on not "game play", but rather punishing unexpected results of a player that does not meet your expectations.
This is the fault of the developer, or honestly, more of a problem with a developer implementing a very poor system that does not consider the most basic aspects of reality (ie a rock/arrow can not pass through a tree, rock, or any other obstacle.) So we either end with physical designs that ignore reality (some games allow NPCs to ignore walls or obstacles) or we have some sort of reality and consider it in terms of game play.
To be fair though, not all decisions on games at times were made with the ability to approach this concept as I describe, so I am not condemning all games that resulted in such decisions. It really is a matter of a case by case bases to consider the decisions.
While less fun and more restrictive feeling you could have the faction gained by X*("mob level"/"effective character level"or"mob level" whichever is higher) that way if you are mentored down you could still get the full faction boost while being lower does not give you a boost. If for some reason there was not a higher level source of faction you could mentor down and group up to get full faction on the mobs available. This also assumes that the mentoring system is balanced and that there is some form of progression while in a suppressed state.
@Tranix
It’s not really a hard cap it’s just an input vs output that will never = dead mob.
Druid in question has 100hp and 200 mana.
Has spell Freaking Horse Flies!! 20 damage over 24 seconds for 30 mana.
Has spell Tangling weeds Slows movement by 20% for 24 seconds for 10 mana.
The druid can kill a same level mob by casting snare and a dot 5 times over 120 seconds and will kill the mob. Said mob hits for 5 every 6 seconds so for a druid to survive they must use snare and stay out of range.
Now a druid against a group mob would need to do 600 damage to kill it with the same 200 mana while the mob now does 30 damage every 6 seconds. With a little in combat mana regen and a mana potion of that level I could give you that a druid could get to sudo 300 mana to cast Freaking Horse Flies!! 10 times and do 200 total damage but then they would be out of mana. This is assuming that they could find some way for terrain to make up for not using Tangling weeds to keep the mob from hitting them more than 3 times.
This is a VERY simplified math example but I think it shows what I’m getting at.
Tanix said:Trasak said:@Tranix
Under my previous example the expectation is that the druid will have run out of mana (based on little or no mana regen while in combat) and or snare will have reached diminishing returns before an equal level group mob would have died from a druids (sub type healer) DPS. This would still hold true for a wizard or any other ranged caster and all melee classes will just take too much damage without support to even try.
So your position is hard cap, a refusal to allow any adaption in play. That is, Character A of this level can only ever take on NPC of that level. That form of play exists, it is is actually a common implementation of most modern games. WoW specifically disallows a given level range of player, regardless of level or ability, or approach ot take on content past that allowance.
Trasak said:Now I will grant you that picking the right target and using great tactics can give you an edge so a level 40 might be able to solo a level 30 group mob in optimal conditions. Where I will differ with you on is that I think its actually the developers responsibility to patch faulty behaviors so if a kiter is able to find a rock or tree that the mobs get stuck on then that rock or tree needs fixed. I don't consider that emergent game play or good tactics it's exploiting a game bug and will likely be against the EULA if done deliberately. (whether it is ever enforced is a different issue as I would consider it the fault of the developer and not the player)
Well, this is the issue. See, most modern players will fault EQ players for emergent play being a direct violation of logical game mechanics. Some were, but the argument purposed is often that the player is "cheating" the system, operating outside of the logical play of the game.
You call being able to move behind an obstacle a "faulty behavior", but is it logically? A mob begins to cast projectiles, so the natural instinct is to avoid them, to seek cover. Being able to avoid an arrow by taking cover behind a rock or tree, is a very natural progression and logical play behavior. So, thinking such is a fault of the developer is being focused on not "game play", but rather punishing unexpected results of a player that does not meet your expectations.
This is the fault of the developer, or honestly, more of a problem with a developer implementing a very poor system that does not consider the most basic aspects of reality (ie a rock/arrow can not pass through a tree, rock, or any other obstacle.) So we either end with physical designs that ignore reality (some games allow NPCs to ignore walls or obstacles) or we have some sort of reality and consider it in terms of game play.
To be fair though, not all decisions on games at times were made with the ability to approach this concept as I describe, so I am not condemning all games that resulted in such decisions. It really is a matter of a case by case bases to consider the decisions.
Dev team has alrdy stated that if they cast a spell while you are in Los you will still get hit by the spell even if you lose Los in the process to prevent this kind of behavoir, and I'm sure this works with arrow and such as well now once they cast the spell they will have to gain Los again before further action but once gained they can repeat and the only way of preventing the cast is to interpret it either through damage, stuns and such so the cast is forcefully halted.
Trasak said:@Tranix
It’s not really a hard cap it’s just an input vs output that will never = dead mob.
Druid in question has 100hp and 200 mana.
Has spell Freaking Horse Flies!! 20 damage over 24 seconds for 30 mana.
Has spell Tangling weeds Slows movement by 20% for 24 seconds for 10 mana.
The druid can kill a same level mob by casting snare and a dot 5 times over 120 seconds and will kill the mob. Said mob hits for 5 every 6 seconds so for a druid to survive they must use snare and stay out of range.
Now a druid against a group mob would need to do 600 damage to kill it with the same 200 mana while the mob now does 30 damage every 6 seconds. With a little in combat mana regen and a mana potion of that level I could give you that a druid could get to sudo 300 mana to cast Freaking Horse Flies!! 10 times and do 200 total damage but then they would be out of mana. This is assuming that they could find some way for terrain to make up for not using Tangling weeds to keep the mob from hitting them more than 3 times.
This is a VERY simplified math example but I think it shows what I’m getting at.
I don't see you accounting for variables.
Where is your variable calcuations? Ie the time between casts, the time between a mob being snared, its damage taken and that of the players movements? Some are static, some are variable. Some means will change.
Let me ask you, how does your mob act when it encounters an obstacle (rock, tree, mountainside, etc...). Is there a delay in its routine or does it merely walk through everything?
These are the important factors.
Riahuf22 said:Tanix said:Trasak said:@Tranix
Under my previous example the expectation is that the druid will have run out of mana (based on little or no mana regen while in combat) and or snare will have reached diminishing returns before an equal level group mob would have died from a druids (sub type healer) DPS. This would still hold true for a wizard or any other ranged caster and all melee classes will just take too much damage without support to even try.
So your position is hard cap, a refusal to allow any adaption in play. That is, Character A of this level can only ever take on NPC of that level. That form of play exists, it is is actually a common implementation of most modern games. WoW specifically disallows a given level range of player, regardless of level or ability, or approach ot take on content past that allowance.
Trasak said:Now I will grant you that picking the right target and using great tactics can give you an edge so a level 40 might be able to solo a level 30 group mob in optimal conditions. Where I will differ with you on is that I think its actually the developers responsibility to patch faulty behaviors so if a kiter is able to find a rock or tree that the mobs get stuck on then that rock or tree needs fixed. I don't consider that emergent game play or good tactics it's exploiting a game bug and will likely be against the EULA if done deliberately. (whether it is ever enforced is a different issue as I would consider it the fault of the developer and not the player)
Well, this is the issue. See, most modern players will fault EQ players for emergent play being a direct violation of logical game mechanics. Some were, but the argument purposed is often that the player is "cheating" the system, operating outside of the logical play of the game.
You call being able to move behind an obstacle a "faulty behavior", but is it logically? A mob begins to cast projectiles, so the natural instinct is to avoid them, to seek cover. Being able to avoid an arrow by taking cover behind a rock or tree, is a very natural progression and logical play behavior. So, thinking such is a fault of the developer is being focused on not "game play", but rather punishing unexpected results of a player that does not meet your expectations.
This is the fault of the developer, or honestly, more of a problem with a developer implementing a very poor system that does not consider the most basic aspects of reality (ie a rock/arrow can not pass through a tree, rock, or any other obstacle.) So we either end with physical designs that ignore reality (some games allow NPCs to ignore walls or obstacles) or we have some sort of reality and consider it in terms of game play.
To be fair though, not all decisions on games at times were made with the ability to approach this concept as I describe, so I am not condemning all games that resulted in such decisions. It really is a matter of a case by case bases to consider the decisions.
Dev team has alrdy stated that if they cast a spell while you are in Los you will still get hit by the spell even if you lose Los in the process to prevent this kind of behavoir, and I'm sure this works with arrow and such as well now once they cast the spell they will have to gain Los again before further action but once gained they can repeat and the only way of preventing the cast is to interpret it either through damage, stuns and such so the cast is forcefully halted.
Can you point me to the exact text that supports this claim?
Tanix said:Riahuf22 said:Tanix said:Trasak said:@Tranix
Under my previous example the expectation is that the druid will have run out of mana (based on little or no mana regen while in combat) and or snare will have reached diminishing returns before an equal level group mob would have died from a druids (sub type healer) DPS. This would still hold true for a wizard or any other ranged caster and all melee classes will just take too much damage without support to even try.
So your position is hard cap, a refusal to allow any adaption in play. That is, Character A of this level can only ever take on NPC of that level. That form of play exists, it is is actually a common implementation of most modern games. WoW specifically disallows a given level range of player, regardless of level or ability, or approach ot take on content past that allowance.
Trasak said:Now I will grant you that picking the right target and using great tactics can give you an edge so a level 40 might be able to solo a level 30 group mob in optimal conditions. Where I will differ with you on is that I think its actually the developers responsibility to patch faulty behaviors so if a kiter is able to find a rock or tree that the mobs get stuck on then that rock or tree needs fixed. I don't consider that emergent game play or good tactics it's exploiting a game bug and will likely be against the EULA if done deliberately. (whether it is ever enforced is a different issue as I would consider it the fault of the developer and not the player)
Well, this is the issue. See, most modern players will fault EQ players for emergent play being a direct violation of logical game mechanics. Some were, but the argument purposed is often that the player is "cheating" the system, operating outside of the logical play of the game.
You call being able to move behind an obstacle a "faulty behavior", but is it logically? A mob begins to cast projectiles, so the natural instinct is to avoid them, to seek cover. Being able to avoid an arrow by taking cover behind a rock or tree, is a very natural progression and logical play behavior. So, thinking such is a fault of the developer is being focused on not "game play", but rather punishing unexpected results of a player that does not meet your expectations.
This is the fault of the developer, or honestly, more of a problem with a developer implementing a very poor system that does not consider the most basic aspects of reality (ie a rock/arrow can not pass through a tree, rock, or any other obstacle.) So we either end with physical designs that ignore reality (some games allow NPCs to ignore walls or obstacles) or we have some sort of reality and consider it in terms of game play.
To be fair though, not all decisions on games at times were made with the ability to approach this concept as I describe, so I am not condemning all games that resulted in such decisions. It really is a matter of a case by case bases to consider the decisions.
Dev team has alrdy stated that if they cast a spell while you are in Los you will still get hit by the spell even if you lose Los in the process to prevent this kind of behavoir, and I'm sure this works with arrow and such as well now once they cast the spell they will have to gain Los again before further action but once gained they can repeat and the only way of preventing the cast is to interpret it either through damage, stuns and such so the cast is forcefully halted.
Can you point me to the exact text that supports this claim?
It was in a video, with cohhcarnage, the info is old and could of changed their mind for sure but I want to believe he was a monk, in one of the new dungeons at the time, I believe they were clearing the beginning of it, when he asked the question since he was the puller, so best I can say is maybe look up cohhcarnage playing monk on pantheon and hope the best, I'm sorry I can't help more than that but I do remember the question being asked.
@Tranix: acounting for variables.
You are correct that there will be many variables I glossed over as the spell was just a representation of average druid dps and total max duration of said dps. I was also assuming you would be able to cast your spells such that you had perfect uptime with no resists. With resists and variables it could actual be a challenge to kite even a solo mob before running out of mana in an open field.
I can make up a lot of variables that on average come out to the same damage per second or mana spent per second but it doesn`t really matter in the model. The reason for this is that average mob hp is 75-90% of the damage the "average character math model" can deal before said mob kills said player. The druid is a long fight as it is a healer with high CC strenght so its burst dps would be low but staying power would be high but with the assumption that it deals not additional damage in melee and cannot survive in melee long.
I could make an array of different setups but then i would be temped to dig out my logarithmic power curve paper and tables to show how it solves nearly every problem wrangled over on they boards.
Just a short reminder of how bad this issue can be in EQ, is a certain flying horse in South Karana (Quillmane). Even when EQ was released, I was helping a mage friend get the cloak for his epic and even way back then you could see this particular item becoming a major issue in the future since from what I can remember (at the time) it was the only item capable of a levitation clicky that people could easily get their hands on with some time and effort.
Fast forward 20 years and Quill is perma camped, likely on all servers, forcing a particular class to basically buy the cloak if they wanted to move forward with their epic. And let's be honest here, in this particular situation and with this particular mob, it's unlikely for a mage to be able to compete with any class that has Track capabilities even if the mage was at max level. The mage would likely have to box another class with Track which just seems a bit too much to have to force someone to level another toon just so that they can have a shot at completing their epic.
On the FV server at least, I have seen quite a few epic mobs being perma camped simply because the high level farmers are selling the drops for plat. All the free roaming dragons are definitely camped. Woe to any PAL's who want to try for their epics.
Whatever the solution turns out to be, consideration should be given to at least prevent bottlenecks such as these.
