Kittik
Well-Known Member
- Experience awarded for 1x Chevron and 2x Chevron mobs is now diminished for groups exceeding the recommended size (1 player for 1x, and 3 for 2x).
No group would seek 1 Chevrons. If you're in a group of 6 your looking for 3 Chev's. But you're going to encounter 1 Chev's regardless....why punish a group just because they are grouped.
Do not 1 Chevron mobs already give a greatly reduced amount of exp to a group of 6 players?
Yes I agree with you that they are ez, but a group of 6 also has to share xp on them, so 1^ split 6 ways is small anyways, its already a penalty. If you have 4+ people where are you even going to go that doesn't have 1^ mobs? So you are making groups have a penalty for no reason when there is no alternatives.Do 1x chevrons still drop coin? Do they still drop loot? Do they still give any XP at all? 1x chevron mobs drop like flies to full groups. 1x chevron mobs are not designed for full groups and should pose little to no challenge, hence little to no reward (at least in the form of xp).
A bit confusing as you just said in the deepest part of the dungeon almost everything is 3^ but then "you can't even find 3^, in most places they seem rare."For example the deeper into the dungeon you go, the more likely there will be 3^, where deepest place where almost everything is 3^.
Also it it feels that for 4 people a 3^ is very hard to fight. So this makes it a big problem. So forcing them to do 3^ is not good. Especially since you cant even find 3^, in most places they seem rare.
As Adric mentioned above, full groups could mow down 1^ content and get a considerable amount of experience in a small amount of time due to the low time to kill. One week I'm being told that 1^ are too easy for groups and provide too much xp while the next people are upset that the easiest mob to kill in the game is giving too little xp for a full group? I have whiplash from all of this back and forth.Yes I agree with you that they are ez, but a group of 6 also has to share xp on them, so 1^ split 6 ways is small anyways, its already a penalty. If you have 4+ people where are you even going to go that doesn't have 1^ mobs? So you are making groups have a penalty for no reason when there is no alternatives.
No what I was saying, is that I THINK you should put mostly 3^ into the deepest part of a dungeon. This way a higher level group has to work to get to that point. So the farther they go in the harder it will be.A bit confusing as you just said in the deepest part of the dungeon almost everything is 3^ but then "you can't even find 3^, in most places they seem rare."
And how are we forcing 4 person groups to fight 3^? If you get to a spot where it's all 3^ then maybe don't go any farther?
I do not disagree that we could use areas with higher concentrations of 1^, 2^, and 3^ - but I also think that the world is going to be a mix of them in a lot of spots. And I wouldn't judge the starting dungeon too harshly, it's literally a "baby" dungeon not meant to be extremely difficult.No what I was saying, is that I THINK you should put mostly 3^ into the deepest part of a dungeon. This way a higher level group has to work to get to that point. So the farther they go in the harder it will be.
Its not currently like that. Right now in the deepest part of the dungeon there are mostly 1^ or 2^ is mass. Maybe a few more 3^ but not much. I dont even know of a place in the first 2 zones a full group can farm 3^ consistently. Maybe it exists but I don't know where.
What I find, is solo people have nowhere they can go to farm 1^ only, and 3man groups have nowhere they can farm 2^ consistently, and 6man has nowhere they can farm 3^ consistently.
We don't just change values on the fly. Believe it or not, we use spreadsheets with actual data and calculations to determine what values to apply. We know exactly how much XP a player gets from a 1^ mob in a full group. We are well aware that the experience is split 6 ways, and we even account for it in our spreadsheets. Experience is experience, the fact that they give experience at all to a full group should be considered a positive - especially how easy they fall to a group of 6.
We aren't penalizing groups; we are rewarding xp based on the challenge level. You merely perceive it as a "penalty" because at one point in time the reward was higher. I think everyone can agree that 1^ mobs provide very little challenge to a full group - which is why they yield very little xp.Well its a good point, but a spreadsheet is only theory. So you penalize a full group for not farming 3^ but give them nowhere to farm them? I dont even understand why you want to penalize groups at all. Who cares if everyone is grouping up anyways. Isnt that a good thing?
Everyone needs to realign their expectations a bit here. Our XP reward structure is based on risk vs. reward. In other words: how much of a challenge does something pose? 1^ pose next to no challenge for a large group, and 2^ pose very little challenge to a large group. Both 1^ and 2^ mobs are going to have a shorter time-to-kill (TTK) when compared to 3^ mobs, especially for large groups. It stands to reason then, that if a mob has a shorter TTK than another you can kill more of them in the same amount of time. If a mob has a shorter TTK and rewards slightly less experience than a more difficult mob, then the group is going to focus on the less difficult mob. Why? Because they can kill more of them in the same amount of time while earning roughly the same amount of experience (if not more) AND face less risk of death in the process.Currently it's much faster to xp/farm in 2/3man groups than 4+ as you are discouraged from doing larger groups because of the EXP system AND the limited grouping of 3^ mobs. Is this your intent?
As a full 6-person group, having to fight 1^ 3 to 1 3^ ratio is just really bad exp. The 10% bonus you get for a group doesn't help enough to combat the other 2 problems, which to me is highly discouraging large groups.
I believe this to be a perception issue - I am willing to bet that if I had not mentioned the xp change in the first place no one would have noticed. Either way, a 4 person group should have no problems taking out 2^ mobs and they will be rewarded accordingly. The word "diminished" seems to be a dirty word around here because the actual value of diminished xp for a 2^ mob in a 4 person group is minimal.4) Because a 4 or more person group gets lower returns on 2^ or less, they are forced to farm 3^s
I doubt any location will contain only 3^ mobs. Things are going to be intermingled because that's the natural flow of things. The outskirts of an area will/should contain 1^ mobs for folks to pick off and solo. A little deeper in and you're going to encounter 2^ mobs for the smaller groups, and then at the core of whatever it is we're talking about you will find 3^ mobs. And as I mentioned above, if the density of 3^ mobs is too low that's something we can address.None of these have anything to do with levels either, which also has some minor issues in there as currently the level ranges in a group of just being off by 3 is greatly discouraged from grouping (which might be intended) as mobs are very from farming spots with enough mobs to support even 1 group let alone 2 or 3 full groups. Also with the lack of locations that support even remotely (currently poorly) will be the highest farmed and not support multi groups even if they were locations with only 3^s.
A couple of notes on named mobs:Couple this with named mobs being placed in areas without supporting 3^s around it, small groups will farm named mobs (with long timers) often so full groups can't do those locations either.
I agree, this is the single biggest thing the game could do to encourage grouping. Its also a social dynamic. I don't understand why this would not be put into the game, and I also don't see why something like this should be restricted at all. There is really absolutely no downside. There are plenty of games that have this, without any cooldowns or restriction.1) Getting people to your group. (Can we get a summon where 2 people in a group can summon 3rd?)
Agree completely2) Getting out of wherever the group was farming (Can we get a local recall on a long timer? I think this is planned)
Clustering would be great3) Lack of farming locations that support a lot of group dynamics like clusters of 2^s, and clusters of locations with 3^s.
Yes 4 is to low for 3's, needs to be 5+ if they are sticking with the current system.4) Because a 4 or more person group gets lower returns on 2^ or less, they are forced to farm 3^s
Everyone needs to realign their expectations a bit here. Our XP reward structure is based on risk vs. reward. In other words: how much of a challenge does something pose? 1^ pose next to no challenge for a large group, and 2^ pose very little challenge to a large group. Both 1^ and 2^ mobs are going to have a shorter time-to-kill (TTK) when compared to 3^ mobs, especially for large groups. It stands to reason then, that if a mob has a shorter TTK than another you can kill more of them in the same amount of time. If a mob has a shorter TTK and rewards slightly less experience than a more difficult mob, then the group is going to focus on the less difficult mob. Why? Because they can kill more of them in the same amount of time while earning roughly the same amount of experience (if not more) AND face less risk of death in the process.
We all know groups are going to seek out the most efficient route to leveling; this has been proven in our testing time and time again. For this reason, we adjusted the reward structure for 1^, 2^ mobs for groups that are too "large" for their intended design. These 1^ and 2^ mobs are designed for solo and small groups, not full groups. Now that is not to say that full groups cannot kill 1^ and 2^ mobs - let me remind you that they still provide experience and loot to whomever kills them.
To me it's not natural to see areas that are like this as it just makes finding a location for a full group as I said bad for their time and effort. You would have to escort people coming into and out of your group into these locations (wasting time) and even if you had a group already set up, getting into an "farming area" would be a great deal of time wasted of just killing as you've even said "little challenge" but it still takes time to regen back up or move out and make sure you don't pull/train too many onto you.I doubt any location will contain only 3^ mobs. Things are going to be intermingled because that's the natural flow of things. The outskirts of an area will/should contain 1^ mobs for folks to pick off and solo. A little deeper in and you're going to encounter 2^ mobs for the smaller groups, and then at the core of whatever it is we're talking about you will find 3^ mobs. And as I mentioned above, if the density of 3^ mobs is too low that's something we can address.
A couple of notes on named mobs:
a) they are not necessarily "placed".
b) our spawn system is very dynamic. it is highly unlikely that a named mob appears in the same place twice in a short period of time.
c) solo and small groups deserve named mobs too
c) are you referring to the newbie zone? it's a tutorial zone so I would caution judgment here as the zone's purpose is to introduce players to the game.
We aren't penalizing groups; we are rewarding xp based on the challenge level. You merely perceive it as a "penalty" because at one point in time the reward was higher. I think everyone can agree that 1^ mobs provide very little challenge to a full group - which is why they yield very little xp.
Yeah this sounds awesome!I also I believe that if this game is wanting to add difficulty, they should have patrols with a wide patrol area of 2-3 mobs linked together, with 1 of the mobs a placeholder for a random wandering boss, this patrol could wander the dungeon or area, with the boss occasionally replacing one of the mobs every 1 out of 10 respawns. Even better have a rare boss spawn every 100 respawns also. This mechanic would shake things up, but the patrol area needs to be very long so it doesn't become just an automatic wipe mechanic that frustrates everyone.