It's true that the randoms can help the lower IL players because they're very accessible, but it is too easily abused which ultimately means we're all just chasing inflation (and the AD sinks they create to try to reduce the supply). The only thing keeping that inflation somewhat in check is the cap on the ZAX. Do you really want to reduce the game down to doing randoms on 20+ chars in order to pay for inflated prices and more and more AD sinks? Well, it will require multiple accounts after the upcoming changes. Hopefully, that would be enough of a disincentive. We will just have to wait and see.
I know we don't want to see bound enchantments, but wouldn't it be better to reward seals that players can trade for special bound to character enchantments? They could be rank 10 or 11, maybe even 12. Would that be too messy? It would help people catch up in IL and only benefit those who actually want to do just that. For those that just want to make AD, they would have to convert the enchantment to RP and use it to level up different enchantment - spending pwards and marks to do so.
I'm running them to be able to afford to improve my characters' enchantments and artifacts.
It's true that the randoms can help the lower IL players because they're very accessible, but it is too easily abused which ultimately means we're all just chasing inflation (and the AD sinks they create to try to reduce the supply). The only thing keeping that inflation somewhat in check is the cap on the ZAX. Do you really want to reduce the game down to doing randoms on 20+ chars in order to pay for inflated prices and more and more AD sinks?
You clearly haven't been following along too closely. I'm not saying there shouldn't be change. I was simply explaining why I continue to run these stupid random dungeons even though I hate them to the core of my being. I prefer the way it was before this change because I got to run stuff that I wanted to run and those dungeons gave me astral diamonds as well as salvage. Plus, the way it was before, I was able to earn dungeoneer's shards for my guild at the same time.
With the way it is now, I have these options: 1. Run stuff I would really enjoy, but make almost nothing in astral diamonds and get zero dungeoneer's shards. 2. Run stuff I really do not enjoy (and am greatly relieved when it's a low dungeon, like Cloak Tower or Cragmire Crypts, because I know it's going to take an insanely short amount of time), and earn a decent amount of astral diamonds and I'll get dungeoneer's shards for my guild.
I would prefer a system that lets me run things I'll enjoy, make a decent amount of astral diamonds, and get dungeoneer's shards for my guild. "A decent amount of astral diamonds" is a relative value, and is entirely dependent upon how much things cost in the WB and on the AH. The way they're going to change random queues means I'm still going to be stuck running them because of the dungeoneer's shards, even though after the first run through of each tier I'll get jack for astral diamonds. That makes this new system coming with Mod 14 even worse for me than the current the system.
2
greywyndMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 7,158Arc User
Any system instituted that let's people run what they want for commensurate rewards ends up with the old system of unpopular content not being run and people left hanging in queue waiting.
Is there a point where refining stones aren't needed? I'm 3 years in and haven't seen the light at the end of that tunnel yet.
I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
So, someone lands in a random Dungeon or Skirmish and decides, "nope, not for me" Their current options include quitting and moving on to an alt, allowing the remaining players to call for reinforcements and carry on. The proposed change means that so doing, or D/Cing will result in an account wide half hour time out on the naughty step. Cos God forbid there's content you don't want to run.
So, do they run the content? Do they take the hit on the naughty step? Or just amble about the campfire waiting for the boot trigger to pull?
Random queues are not intended to be something that you queue for only wishing to participate in a subset of the included queues. It is not intended that you queue up, don't like the queue you arrive in, then leave. Obviously, we understand life happens, and you may need to abandon for legitimate reasons. In those cases, you may need to take the leaver penalty, but generally if something is pulling you away from the game, the penalty will likely be expired by the time you return.
In the current system, because the difficulty is so widespread in a given queue, it's understandable that in many cases, you would enter a queue and feel like you received the "short end of the stick." However, with the new organization, the difficulty of the content within each queue should be closer together, so please avoid queuing for a random queue if you do not feel you are prepared for all of the content contained therein.
My main concern is the timers you currently have tied up with kicking and vote to abandon dungeon.
If I get POM I run it. If I get Thrones I run it. Even IG gold isn't an issue, it just takes a little longer which is fair. I don't mind putting in the time.
But then you draw a MSP or maybe even a CN but where the tank is 8k IL. Now I know itemlevel isn't everything, but if I inspect them and they have less than 30% damage resistance, (yes this happens often), I already know they can't tank Orcus. It doesn't matter if you have a templock or burnadin, if the tank gets one shot.
Now, I can:
A: Decide to leave forcing myself to be locked out for 30 mins. B: Vote to abandon - oh wait... there is a timer on that... C: Vote to kick - oh wait... there is a timer on that!!! Run it with the current setup, taking turns tanking the adds and bosses, all the while the tank feels super strong cause he is "tanking" CN. When we then reach the Orcus we can vote to kick the poor guy leaving him confused and us feeling like a-holes. E: Spend 40 mins while the only ranged person kills Orcus from afar, while our companions tank him...
Basically we are standing at the start, knowing that it won't complete in the current group composition. But we are forced to wait twiddling our thumps for no reason whatsoever.
Therefore, I would really like to see a change to the timer you have on Vote to Abandon Dungeon.
Another thing I would like to see implemented was a code / algorithm where it pairs up lower level players with lower level players to run random dungeons, and level 70's with level 70's only. Seeing as the only reason level 70's run dungeons such as Cloak Tower, is for AD.
But the lower level guys might be doing it for FUN! - Wait! What! - Yes some actually queue up for fun, but I doubt they think it's fun for very long when they see their 2 partners in crime (level 70's), at the start and then only see them again at the very last boss. Cause they have rushed through to get their AD fast.
Meanwhile our low level guy, a potential new player to the game, has to run through an empty instance for miles and miles, and might not even know where to go. And god help him if he takes longer than 4 mins to get there, or he will quickly find himself removed. Once again leaving the poor guy, or girl, utterly confused as to what just happened.
I fail to see how this pairing is fun to any parts involved.
Is there a point where refining stones aren't needed? I'm 3 years in and haven't seen the light at the end of that tunnel yet.
Well, this is why I've invested so heavily into Leadership assets and QM enchantments. I still have more work to do on my HR and OP on both counts, but I've got my SW up to 12 heroes, 4 adventurers, and (as mentioned) 3x R12 QM enchantments. All my characters, even the five that I'm not investing in heavily right now, have the Wanderer's Fortune insignia bonus. I also run DR and Sharandar as often as I can on as many characters as I can. There's just too much in the way of refinement resources to be had from them to ignore them. At the same time, I have to balance it against the risk of burnout in running those areas and quests too much.
0
adinosiiMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,294Arc User
> @greywynd wrote > Is there a point where refining stones aren't needed? I'm 3 years in and haven't seen the light at the end of that tunnel yet.
No. I have been playing since day 1 of open beta, currently at IL 18K, and I still need quite a bit. I do have Wanderer's Fortune, a mix of rank 13 QM, DH and Feytouched enchants, as well as 7 alts that run Leadership tasks non-stop.
This gives me all I need (and a steady income from selling unbound stones), but yeah...as I said, I still need a lot.
What's the point of these feedback threads? This and the horrible idea of the rAD thread have plenty of great feedback but devs are silent and never listen to us.
What's the point of these feedback threads? This and the horrible idea of the rAD thread have plenty of great feedback but devs are silent and never listen to us.
Their silence shouldn't be mistaken for ignorance. There aren't enough hours in the day for their regular job, let alone spending time posting on the forums.
@mordekai#1901 Yeah, there's no way I'll get anywhere near the daily cap. Maybe on the weekends, but I don't think so even then. I keep busy running DR, Sharandar, IWD, and WoD both for the RP/xp and for the currency so I can keep supplying my guild with vouchers, influence in the SH, and then running Chult/Omu with my wife so our characters can progress through those campaigns.
What's the point of these feedback threads? This and the horrible idea of the rAD thread have plenty of great feedback but devs are silent and never listen to us.
Their silence shouldn't be mistaken for ignorance. There aren't enough hours in the day for their regular job, let alone spending time posting on the forums.
actually it should be considered as silence. as a general rule they ignore what the majority asks for when it comes to implementation. they generally present something much more drastic than they intend. ignore the angry villagers. throw us a tiny bone before they implement to try to say "listen we're hearing you and here's what were gonna do". so basically they just know we don't want it and do it anyway instead of listening and trying to incorporate our solutions.
5
greywyndMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 7,158Arc User
not the random que. it is not necessary at all for character improvement.
It is if you want the AD.
I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
as a general rule they ignore what the majority asks for when it comes to implementation. they generally present something much more drastic than they intend. ignore the angry villagers. throw us a tiny bone before they implement to try to say "listen we're hearing you and here's what were gonna do". so basically they just know we don't want it and do it anyway instead of listening and trying to incorporate our solutions.
That's an incredibly unfair assessment. On the absolute one end of the spectrum, a company would close themselves off completely and at the other end just simply (try to) implement everything that the majority on the forums are suggesting. Neither would work. Well, the former would work, just not a good idea.
The best we can reasonably hope for is that they at least read the forums to help get ideas and to get a general sense of how the community feels about various issues that could tip their decisions on how they continue to develop the game.
0
greywyndMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 7,158Arc User
"Feedback" in the thread title implies that someone on the team is reading and taking notes.
Commentary from the devs is not necessary unless something gets brought up that the devs feels needs commenting on.
I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
1
adinosiiMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,294Arc User
The changes to RQs are not relevant to me (and many others) for a simple reason: I rarely ran RQs before and I see no reason why that should change.
Lack of variety: If I queue up solo (as a DC), I usually get sent to the same content...I think IG is the only skirmish I have been sent to - probably because most people queue manually for that one. If I queue up with a full (guild) group, I may end up elsewhere, but then we are obviously not filling up a partial queue or helping to shortening the queue time for someone else.
Lack of fun: I run content because I enjoy it, not for the RQ AD reward...some of the random content just isn't fun...and as I keep saying: This is not work; it is a game and it is supposed tp be fun.
Bots, leeches and deadbeats. I have no objections running a dungeon with a newbie or two - What I dislike are those that don't even make an effort.
Hoping for improvements...
4
therealprotexMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 526Arc User
I'd like to see random queues replaced with a system like this:
Keep the dungeon separation as it is now: one queue for leveling dungeons, one for epic dungeons and one for TonG.
No changes for the leveling dungeon queue except that it is only available for chars with level 69 and below and maybe (!) for chars with level 70 and an item level below 8k (or something).
The queue for epic dungeons is not random anymore. Everyon can choose which dungeon he/she wants to run. However, the more a dungeon is run, the smaller is the reward. The most run dungeon should give no rAD, no reward at all (except salvage). The least run dungeon should give 20k rAD plus 5k AD plus 120 of the highest seals. The rewards for the other dungeons scale accordingly. The proper reward is permanently updated and fixed when the group enters the dungeon.
Call me crazy but with an incentive high enough, even FBI and MSP will loose their title as undisputedly least run dungeons...
0
therealprotexMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 526Arc User
actually it should be considered as silence. as a general rule they ignore what the majority asks for when it comes to implementation. they generally present something much more drastic than they intend. ignore the angry villagers. throw us a tiny bone before they implement to try to say "listen we're hearing you and here's what were gonna do". so basically they just know we don't want it and do it anyway instead of listening and trying to incorporate our solutions.
My guess is that they are so low in manpower that a feature that is completely refused by the community can not be erased from their code again without management getting a heartattack or two over the time (and money) that would have been wasted.
Well, after talking to my wife about these changes, she's looking forward to running fewer characters through these dungeons, too. So it seems like what we've decided to do is run enough characters through every day so that the amount of dungeoneer's shards we were accruing stays about the same. Instead of running four (of five) characters on her account, she wants to do three, which will net 45 dungeoneer's shards per day instead of 40. I like the idea and so I'm going to do 6 instead of 8, which will net me 90 instead of the 80 I get now.
Edited to add: Once we have characters who can run the new queue that will complete both of the quests from The Cleric in the stronghold, we'll probably run one fewer character through random dungeons every day.
Good HAMSTER luck hitting anywhere near 100k a day across the week when these changes go live...cos by day 4 or 5 it will start to be a struggle when all the weeklies are gone and you can only run 20ks worth of first run randoms per day.
Let's be honest. This has nothing to do with the cap. People are upset simply because the changes reduce the amount of AD they can earn. What you mean is "Please let us earn more AD easily." People are just using the daily limit in some kind of strange logic that we should be able to hit it within a reasonable amount of time.
So, let me get this right... Since it's currently "reasonable" wanting it to remain reasonable is strange? OK, weird conclusion aside... you got me. Yes... that's EXACTLY the point. Don't make it an unreasonable change.
Well done you nailed it.
Cos to want something to change from being reasonable to unreasonable, that would be HAMSTER stupid, would't it?
May I ask that when the Random Queue lists are restructured, the information on each queue is updated to be more accurate and realistic?
So that "Estimated Play Time" covers the full 180 seconds, to 60+ minutes that are likely when one queue carries Master of The Hunt and Castle Never among its list.
And when estimating wait time, factor in the role of the character queuing... cos I've queued three REDs today so far, with an estimated average wait time of under 3 minutes, but all three took over ten, (one closer to twenty), because they are DPS.
Counting Tank and Healer when factoring that average is just daft if you are a DPS, and makes the figure utterly meaningless.
Since it's currently "reasonable" wanting it to remain reasonable is strange?
Because a cap/limit is not the same thing as "target for users to achieve". If it were, then an argument to lower it to 40k could just as easily be made.
Since it's currently "reasonable" wanting it to remain reasonable is strange?
Because a cap/limit is not the same thing as "target for users to achieve". If it were, then an argument to lower it to 40k could just as easily be made.
Such targets can only be set by the individual.
They are, however, restricted by a cap. Allowing character bound caps has for years incentivised players to buy extra character slots, thereby increasing their potential earnings and allowing them to continue to set (and meet) their own target... some buying over forty.
This has allowed players to set their own targets as the devs clearly deemed it reasonable to own fifty characters, each with their own cap.
By capping the limit to accounts, players with the standard 2 free character slots see their potential (earning and target) rise by over 38%, while a player with fifty (48 of which they have PAID for) see their potential drop by almost 95%.
In what economic model does "there more you invested, the harder you'll be impacted" work? Thats how a market crash works, not a fiscally sound strategy to balance an economy that is unlikely to be greatly affected by the amount of new currency generated while the only strategy for removing the billions of existing currency is along the lines of, "We're moving some HAMSTER from the Zen store to the WB, so that it can sit in there and not sell..."
Unreasonable is allowing players to spend money on alt after alt after alt, and taking full advantage of what those legitimate purchases allowed them to do, and then effectively saying, "sorry you've been playing the wrong way" after never previously suggesting a right or wrong way of using multiple characters. It is like entering a quiz and being asked, "name a song by the Beatles" you answer," Hey Jude" only to be told, "Wrong, the answer is Yellow Submarine"
Like I said, it's not about whether you could hit the cap or not (I'm not even saying you used that argument, but someone did and it's strange logic as I said). What you just posted is what it's all about. We can debate about those points too, but this has happened and debated before. Unfortunately, the devs never seem to think these things through properly before implementing. Then they just let it deteriorate to the point where they have no choice but to do something about it, but by that time, so many people are so deeply invested in the system that it causes a lot bad feelings.
I posted in the AD changes thread, and had intended for that to be my first and last forum post. However, after having followed both that and this thread closely, it surprises me that the proverbial elephant in the room hasn't been given more attention in light of the many and varied quite insightful postings as to the shortcomings of these proposed changes.
When the AD account cap and the RQ limits go live, it is - as some have already correctly pointed out - a double whammy. The AD account cap will make it impossible to farm the large sums of AD needed to upgrade companions, enchantments, artifacts, etc. While the RQ limits will make it effectively impossible to hit the daily AD cap.
Now, some of the Cryptic staff and their apologist followers claim this is to reign in the zen currency exchange. I am highly skeptical of this claim.
Consider this: If we still have fixed prices (which we do and will - ex. upgrading companions) along with the glaring omission in the developers' plans that completely ignore the mechanics of supply and demand (ex. legendary mounts on AH that cost between 5-21+ million AD - they cost that because they have a drop rate of 0.13% per lockbox, and are coveted by all players. Low/rare supply and high demand are what keeps their prices in the millions), and now combine that with an AD cap where none effectively existed before due to alts, and the crippling RQ limits, where does a player then get his/her hands on AD fast enough and in sufficient quantities to keep up with the MMO stable of power creep/chasing-the-gear-dragon? Ding! Ding! Ding! That's right: Through the zen currency exchange.
The only realistic, guaranteed, and timely manner for any player - new or established (but especially new players) - to accumulate the tens-upon-tens of millions of AD (and quite possibly AD in the triple digit millions) needed to upgrade companions, enchantments, artifacts, etc. is to....purchase Zen through the Zen store with real-world money, and then purchase AD with that Zen. (And please, let's not have some bright spark start going on again about mastercrafting or playing the AH. Those are not even remotely realistic options for many players - especially new players who lack the logistical network, the savvy, and the start-up in-game capital to engage in such undertakings. They are effectively out of their reach.)
There it is. What I suspect is the real driving motive behind these proposed changes by Cryptic even as they have the audacity to claim it is in our own best interest. Nonsense! This is yet another money grab - nothing more, nothing less, yet all the same as disgusting and deplorable as ever.
4
therealprotexMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 526Arc User
When the AD account cap and the RQ limits go live, it is - as some have already correctly pointed out - a double whammy. The AD account cap will make it impossible to farm the large sums of AD needed to upgrade companions, enchantments, artifacts, etc. While the RQ limits will make it effectively impossible to hit the daily AD cap.
I'd say this is flat out wrong. Correct is that it is effectively impossible to hit the daily cap with running RQs only. But noone stops you from running epic dungeons several times and increase your rAD income by salvaging.
Consider this: If we still have fixed prices (which we do and will - ex. upgrading companions) along with the glaring omission in the developers' plans that completely ignore the mechanics of supply and demand (ex. legendary mounts on AH that cost between 5-21+ million AD - they cost that because they have a drop rate of 0.13% per lockbox, and are coveted by all players. Low/rare supply and high demand are what keeps their prices in the millions), and now combine that with an AD cap where none effectively existed before due to alts, and the crippling RQ limits, where does a player then get his/her hands on AD fast enough and in sufficient quantities to keep up with the MMO stable of power creep/chasing-the-gear-dragon? Ding! Ding! Ding! That's right: Through the zen currency exchange.
Lo and behold, the end of the western civilization is near! Again!
Seriously, when rAD were removed from leadership, there have been the very same arguments. And they were proven wrong because of two things: fixed prices were adjusted (companion upgrade for example) and players found a way. They will always find a way.
When the AD account cap and the RQ limits go live, it is - as some have already correctly pointed out - a double whammy. The AD account cap will make it impossible to farm the large sums of AD needed to upgrade companions, enchantments, artifacts, etc. While the RQ limits will make it effectively impossible to hit the daily AD cap.
I'd say this is flat out wrong. Correct is that it is effectively impossible to hit the daily cap with running RQs only. But noone stops you from running epic dungeons several times and increase your rAD income by salvaging.
Consider this: If we still have fixed prices (which we do and will - ex. upgrading companions) along with the glaring omission in the developers' plans that completely ignore the mechanics of supply and demand (ex. legendary mounts on AH that cost between 5-21+ million AD - they cost that because they have a drop rate of 0.13% per lockbox, and are coveted by all players. Low/rare supply and high demand are what keeps their prices in the millions), and now combine that with an AD cap where none effectively existed before due to alts, and the crippling RQ limits, where does a player then get his/her hands on AD fast enough and in sufficient quantities to keep up with the MMO stable of power creep/chasing-the-gear-dragon? Ding! Ding! Ding! That's right: Through the zen currency exchange.
Lo and behold, the end of the western civilization is near! Again!
Seriously, when rAD were removed from leadership, there have been the very same arguments. And they were proven wrong because of two things: fixed prices were adjusted (companion upgrade for example) and players found a way. They will always find a way.
I see you conveniently left out the part about how these changes "encourage" players to spend real-world money to gain access to AD where in the past they could farm it in sufficient quantities. Now, you may be one of those types who laps up being treated poorly; I don't know you well enough to be sure, but it seems that a number of players fall in to that category. That's their issue to resolve for themselves. I, however, do not. I do subscribe to the train of thought that honey attracts more flies than vinegar. In other words: by enticing players to stick around and enjoy themselves, there will be a greater likelihood long-term that the player base will stick around and spend money. Forcefully attempting to bring about such a result always ruffles feathers. It may net some sales in the short-term, but in the long-term it damages one's reputation and decreases the goodwill that may have existed, and Neverwinter is absolutely not the only game in town.
P.S. As Mordekai already pointed out in this thread (or perhaps it was in the AD change thread), with these changes there will no longer "always be a way" that you so blithely refer to. That's the point of these changes. To strangle those options. Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, the reality is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find non-herculean means of acquiring AD without spending real-world money. Which I suspect is the main driving reason behind these changes - not for the benefit of the player base as has been touted.
2
therealprotexMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 526Arc User
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, but fact is that the current outcry about dwindling AD income resembles the outcry about dwindling AD income when the gateway was closed, when ADs were removed from leadership, when random queues were originally introduced. But still, the ZAX tells us that there is now more AD in the system than ever (which is an economically unhealthy state, don't you agree?). We'll see how this announced change will influence the economy.
> @therealprotex said: > @zyronax > > You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, but fact is that the current outcry about dwindling AD income resembles the outcry about dwindling AD income when the gateway was closed, when ADs were removed from leadership, when random queues were originally introduced. But still, the ZAX tells us that there is now more AD in the system than ever (which is an economically unhealthy state, don't you agree?). We'll see how this announced change will influence the economy.
I am of the view, that if Cryptic was genuinely solely interested in decreasing the amount of AD in the market, they would drastically clamp down on the profits being earned from Mastercrafting, create new and more AD sinks that the player base actually desire (Cryptic needs only read through this thread, and in particular the AD changes thread for numerous salient suggestions; it's free too!), and at the very least include the economics concept of supply & demand in their decision making - something they appear to have completely disregarded. (If anyone seriously expects to see affordable legendary mounts, and companion legendary upgrade costs below 1 million AD, then I hear someone's got a plot of land to sell in Arizona that'll become prime beach estate any day now....)
Comments
I know we don't want to see bound enchantments, but wouldn't it be better to reward seals that players can trade for special bound to character enchantments? They could be rank 10 or 11, maybe even 12. Would that be too messy? It would help people catch up in IL and only benefit those who actually want to do just that. For those that just want to make AD, they would have to convert the enchantment to RP and use it to level up different enchantment - spending pwards and marks to do so.
With the way it is now, I have these options:
1. Run stuff I would really enjoy, but make almost nothing in astral diamonds and get zero dungeoneer's shards.
2. Run stuff I really do not enjoy (and am greatly relieved when it's a low dungeon, like Cloak Tower or Cragmire Crypts, because I know it's going to take an insanely short amount of time), and earn a decent amount of astral diamonds and I'll get dungeoneer's shards for my guild.
I would prefer a system that lets me run things I'll enjoy, make a decent amount of astral diamonds, and get dungeoneer's shards for my guild. "A decent amount of astral diamonds" is a relative value, and is entirely dependent upon how much things cost in the WB and on the AH. The way they're going to change random queues means I'm still going to be stuck running them because of the dungeoneer's shards, even though after the first run through of each tier I'll get jack for astral diamonds. That makes this new system coming with Mod 14 even worse for me than the current the system.
Is there a point where refining stones aren't needed? I'm 3 years in and haven't seen the light at the end of that tunnel yet.
In the current system, because the difficulty is so widespread in a given queue, it's understandable that in many cases, you would enter a queue and feel like you received the "short end of the stick." However, with the new organization, the difficulty of the content within each queue should be closer together, so please avoid queuing for a random queue if you do not feel you are prepared for all of the content contained therein.
@asterdahl
My main concern is the timers you currently have tied up with kicking and vote to abandon dungeon.
If I get POM I run it. If I get Thrones I run it. Even IG gold isn't an issue, it just takes a little longer which is fair. I don't mind putting in the time.
But then you draw a MSP or maybe even a CN but where the tank is 8k IL. Now I know itemlevel isn't everything, but if I inspect them and they have less than 30% damage resistance, (yes this happens often), I already know they can't tank Orcus. It doesn't matter if you have a templock or burnadin, if the tank gets one shot.
Now, I can:
A: Decide to leave forcing myself to be locked out for 30 mins.
B: Vote to abandon - oh wait... there is a timer on that...
C: Vote to kick - oh wait... there is a timer on that!!!
E: Spend 40 mins while the only ranged person kills Orcus from afar, while our companions tank him...
Basically we are standing at the start, knowing that it won't complete in the current group composition. But we are forced to wait twiddling our thumps for no reason whatsoever.
Therefore, I would really like to see a change to the timer you have on Vote to Abandon Dungeon.
Another thing I would like to see implemented was a code / algorithm where it pairs up lower level players with lower level players to run random dungeons, and level 70's with level 70's only. Seeing as the only reason level 70's run dungeons such as Cloak Tower, is for AD.
But the lower level guys might be doing it for FUN! - Wait! What! - Yes some actually queue up for fun, but I doubt they think it's fun for very long when they see their 2 partners in crime (level 70's), at the start and then only see them again at the very last boss. Cause they have rushed through to get their AD fast.
Meanwhile our low level guy, a potential new player to the game, has to run through an empty instance for miles and miles, and might not even know where to go.
And god help him if he takes longer than 4 mins to get there, or he will quickly find himself removed. Once again leaving the poor guy, or girl, utterly confused as to what just happened.
I fail to see how this pairing is fun to any parts involved.
> Is there a point where refining stones aren't needed? I'm 3 years in and haven't seen the light at the end of that tunnel yet.
No. I have been playing since day 1 of open beta, currently at IL 18K, and I still need quite a bit. I do have Wanderer's Fortune, a mix of rank 13 QM, DH and Feytouched enchants, as well as 7 alts that run Leadership tasks non-stop.
This gives me all I need (and a steady income from selling unbound stones), but yeah...as I said, I still need a lot.
actually it should be considered as silence. as a general rule they ignore what the majority asks for when it comes to implementation. they generally present something much more drastic than they intend. ignore the angry villagers. throw us a tiny bone before they implement to try to say "listen we're hearing you and here's what were gonna do". so basically they just know we don't want it and do it anyway instead of listening and trying to incorporate our solutions.
The best we can reasonably hope for is that they at least read the forums to help get ideas and to get a general sense of how the community feels about various issues that could tip their decisions on how they continue to develop the game.
Commentary from the devs is not necessary unless something gets brought up that the devs feels needs commenting on.
Lack of variety: If I queue up solo (as a DC), I usually get sent to the same content...I think IG is the only skirmish I have been sent to - probably because most people queue manually for that one. If I queue up with a full (guild) group, I may end up elsewhere, but then we are obviously not filling up a partial queue or helping to shortening the queue time for someone else.
Lack of fun: I run content because I enjoy it, not for the RQ AD reward...some of the random content just isn't fun...and as I keep saying: This is not work; it is a game and it is supposed tp be fun.
Bots, leeches and deadbeats. I have no objections running a dungeon with a newbie or two - What I dislike are those that don't even make an effort.
Keep the dungeon separation as it is now: one queue for leveling dungeons, one for epic dungeons and one for TonG.
No changes for the leveling dungeon queue except that it is only available for chars with level 69 and below and maybe (!) for chars with level 70 and an item level below 8k (or something).
The queue for epic dungeons is not random anymore. Everyon can choose which dungeon he/she wants to run. However, the more a dungeon is run, the smaller is the reward. The most run dungeon should give no rAD, no reward at all (except salvage). The least run dungeon should give 20k rAD plus 5k AD plus 120 of the highest seals. The rewards for the other dungeons scale accordingly. The proper reward is permanently updated and fixed when the group enters the dungeon.
Call me crazy but with an incentive high enough, even FBI and MSP will loose their title as undisputedly least run dungeons...
Edited to add: Once we have characters who can run the new queue that will complete both of the quests from The Cleric in the stronghold, we'll probably run one fewer character through random dungeons every day.
Since it's currently "reasonable" wanting it to remain reasonable is strange?
OK, weird conclusion aside... you got me.
Yes... that's EXACTLY the point.
Don't make it an unreasonable change.
Well done you nailed it.
Cos to want something to change from being reasonable to unreasonable, that would be HAMSTER stupid, would't it?
May I ask that when the Random Queue lists are restructured, the information on each queue is updated to be more accurate and realistic?
So that "Estimated Play Time" covers the full 180 seconds, to 60+ minutes that are likely when one queue carries Master of The Hunt and Castle Never among its list.
And when estimating wait time, factor in the role of the character queuing... cos I've queued three REDs today so far, with an estimated average wait time of under 3 minutes, but all three took over ten, (one closer to twenty), because they are DPS.
Counting Tank and Healer when factoring that average is just daft if you are a DPS, and makes the figure utterly meaningless.
They are, however, restricted by a cap.
Allowing character bound caps has for years incentivised players to buy extra character slots, thereby increasing their potential earnings and allowing them to continue to set (and meet) their own target... some buying over forty.
This has allowed players to set their own targets as the devs clearly deemed it reasonable to own fifty characters, each with their own cap.
By capping the limit to accounts, players with the standard 2 free character slots see their potential (earning and target) rise by over 38%, while a player with fifty (48 of which they have PAID for) see their potential drop by almost 95%.
In what economic model does "there more you invested, the harder you'll be impacted" work?
Thats how a market crash works, not a fiscally sound strategy to balance an economy that is unlikely to be greatly affected by the amount of new currency generated while the only strategy for removing the billions of existing currency is along the lines of, "We're moving some HAMSTER from the Zen store to the WB, so that it can sit in there and not sell..."
Unreasonable is allowing players to spend money on alt after alt after alt, and taking full advantage of what those legitimate purchases allowed them to do, and then effectively saying, "sorry you've been playing the wrong way" after never previously suggesting a right or wrong way of using multiple characters.
It is like entering a quiz and being asked, "name a song by the Beatles" you answer," Hey Jude" only to be told, "Wrong, the answer is Yellow Submarine"
THAT is unreasonable...
When the AD account cap and the RQ limits go live, it is - as some have already correctly pointed out - a double whammy. The AD account cap will make it impossible to farm the large sums of AD needed to upgrade companions, enchantments, artifacts, etc. While the RQ limits will make it effectively impossible to hit the daily AD cap.
Now, some of the Cryptic staff and their apologist followers claim this is to reign in the zen currency exchange. I am highly skeptical of this claim.
Consider this: If we still have fixed prices (which we do and will - ex. upgrading companions) along with the glaring omission in the developers' plans that completely ignore the mechanics of supply and demand (ex. legendary mounts on AH that cost between 5-21+ million AD - they cost that because they have a drop rate of 0.13% per lockbox, and are coveted by all players. Low/rare supply and high demand are what keeps their prices in the millions), and now combine that with an AD cap where none effectively existed before due to alts, and the crippling RQ limits, where does a player then get his/her hands on AD fast enough and in sufficient quantities to keep up with the MMO stable of power creep/chasing-the-gear-dragon? Ding! Ding! Ding! That's right: Through the zen currency exchange.
The only realistic, guaranteed, and timely manner for any player - new or established (but especially new players) - to accumulate the tens-upon-tens of millions of AD (and quite possibly AD in the triple digit millions) needed to upgrade companions, enchantments, artifacts, etc. is to....purchase Zen through the Zen store with real-world money, and then purchase AD with that Zen. (And please, let's not have some bright spark start going on again about mastercrafting or playing the AH. Those are not even remotely realistic options for many players - especially new players who lack the logistical network, the savvy, and the start-up in-game capital to engage in such undertakings. They are effectively out of their reach.)
There it is. What I suspect is the real driving motive behind these proposed changes by Cryptic even as they have the audacity to claim it is in our own best interest. Nonsense! This is yet another money grab - nothing more, nothing less, yet all the same as disgusting and deplorable as ever.
Seriously, when rAD were removed from leadership, there have been the very same arguments. And they were proven wrong because of two things: fixed prices were adjusted (companion upgrade for example) and players found a way. They will always find a way.
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, but fact is that the current outcry about dwindling AD income resembles the outcry about dwindling AD income when the gateway was closed, when ADs were removed from leadership, when random queues were originally introduced. But still, the ZAX tells us that there is now more AD in the system than ever (which is an economically unhealthy state, don't you agree?). We'll see how this announced change will influence the economy.
> @zyronax
>
> You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, but fact is that the current outcry about dwindling AD income resembles the outcry about dwindling AD income when the gateway was closed, when ADs were removed from leadership, when random queues were originally introduced. But still, the ZAX tells us that there is now more AD in the system than ever (which is an economically unhealthy state, don't you agree?). We'll see how this announced change will influence the economy.
I am of the view, that if Cryptic was genuinely solely interested in decreasing the amount of AD in the market, they would drastically clamp down on the profits being earned from Mastercrafting, create new and more AD sinks that the player base actually desire (Cryptic needs only read through this thread, and in particular the AD changes thread for numerous salient suggestions; it's free too!), and at the very least include the economics concept of supply & demand in their decision making - something they appear to have completely disregarded. (If anyone seriously expects to see affordable legendary mounts, and companion legendary upgrade costs below 1 million AD, then I hear someone's got a plot of land to sell in Arizona that'll become prime beach estate any day now....)