Dev Tracker

[Slycer]

Personally I would love if they did what Camate implied and got rid the arbitrary separate caps for alignment from weaknesses and alignment from cells. Stupid cruor sink is all it is (9000 or 18000 cruor per fight on what might as well be a placebo effect on increasing our drop rates), I would love to actually be able to upgrade atmacite without cruor farming in Abyssea.

[ronin sparthos]

I can sense a Camate meltdown coming. At first he seemed calm and cool, now he's posting more and more "don't be a dick" type stuff.

Before you know it he'll be in full on FUCK YOU mode flipping his shit at ppl who continually shoot the messenger.

I just hope he gets to bang rukkiru before he gets fired.

I always got the impression the CRs worked from their own place and got paid from a distance. Then again do CRs even do anything else besides communicate with the dev team? Like generic GM work or moderation?

Always seemed like punchcard GMs moderated the boards and CRs just relay dev team responses to/from the boards while getting paid something for doing it.

Either way the Camate bashing was only a matter of time as people meltdown from the idiotic SE responses. You can only dodge a question so many times before people start losing patience.

Well, I hope Camate/Rukkiru/Bayone have thick skin because they'll be needing it.

[Septimus]

Good news everyone!

Outpost Teleport Menu Ordering

The current menu for outpost teleports displays options in the below order:

• Gil
• Conquest Points
• Cancel

We have received some requests that it be changed to the below order:

• Conquest Points
• Gil
• Cancel

In order to determine which order the majority of players would prefer, we setup this poll.

Please select which order your prefer by voting via the poll by 1/25 (Wed.).

Another Outpost Teleport Warping Thread

Greetings http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/im...lies/smile.png

As there are players who prefer the current ordering of the outpost teleport menu as well as those that would like to see it change, I setup a poll to gauge the number of players favoring each.

Please head over to the poll thread and cast your vote.

Everyone who isn't banned for trolling go vote.

[Selamis]

Not sure why there would be a need to change it...voted to keep it the same.

[Seraph]

Which option adds the ability to place Voidwatch items in the loot pool?

[Kaisha]

God forbid they couldn't just have a 1bit flag for the outpost NPCs to let the user decide the order.

[Greatguardian]

I don't think you understand. With 300,000 accounts, at 1 bit each, that's 300,000 bits of memory they'd have to allocate on the server for an option like that.

Do you know how much 300,000 bits is? It's 37,500 bytes! That's over THIRTY SEVEN KILOBYTES. MY GOD MAN, DON'T YOU SEE?! No company can afford such an extravagant amount of server space in this global economy.

[Tagus]

Which option adds the ability to place Voidwatch items in the loot pool?

haha, that's good shit!

I suppose to add to the thread, I should say that I like Camate. His very existence suggests that SE cares about their NA playerbase. Obviously in this economy and after ffxiv's massive dump, we have a bit of leverage considering that they need our 12.95 for their decade-old game, but I'm willing to overlook those things and feel thanks that they are making efforts to incorporate our opinions into their various thought processes.

[Khamsin]

Not sure why there would be a need to change it...voted to keep it the same.

Only reason I can see is for less button presses. I pay with gil, and the cursor starts on Cancel. So currently I have to go up two to select gil. With the change, I'll only have to go up one!

God forbid they couldn't just have a 1bit flag for the outpost NPCs to let the user decide the order.

Then it'd just add another option to the menu and probably be between "Cancel" and the other options, and would require 2-3 button presses instead of just 1-2 to get to the option you want.

[Greatguardian]

Only reason I can see is for less button presses. I pay with gil, and the cursor starts on Cancel. So currently I have to go up two to select gil. With the change, I'll only have to go up one!



Then it'd just add another option to the menu and probably be between "Cancel" and the other options, and would require 2-3 button presses instead of just 1-2 to get to the option you want.

Simple enough to make the toggle an option at your home nation's gate guards rather than an outpost NPC option. I couldn't really care less about the whole thing, it's one fairly mild menu out of hundreds/thousands, but it wouldn't be very difficult to implement something like that if they cared to.

[Byrthnoth]

Oh ho ho ho, you noobs. If SE made it slightly more convenient to use Outpost Warps they would have to randomize your arrival point within the region. I think you know why.

[Scythiroth]

Only reason I can see is for less button presses. I pay with gil, and the cursor starts on Cancel. So currently I have to go up two to select gil. With the change, I'll only have to go up one!

You could always hit left and it just goes up to the top option! Took a little getting used to, but works fine for me.

[Greatguardian]

Oh ho ho ho, you noobs. If SE made it slightly more convenient to use Outpost Warps they would have to randomize your arrival point within the region. I think you know why.

To cause a resurgence in the usage of Return Rings and help deflate the voiddust economy, obviously.

[Kaisha]

Oh ho ho ho, you noobs. If SE made it slightly more convenient to use Outpost Warps they would have to randomize your arrival point within the region. I think you know why.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...unoyousaid.jpg

[Byrthnoth]

To cause a resurgence in the usage of Return Rings and help deflate the voiddust economy, obviously.

Precisely. Balance in action!

PS. I love that taru still.

[Septimus]

Good news everyone!

I have returned yet again to share some additional responses to feedback in regards to the new Legion content.

Are there essentially only 2 (for 18 or 36 players) difficulty levels?
Does this mean that it would be very difficult to attempt the battle for 36 players with only 19 players?
Would it be possible to set the battle for 18 players at the easiest setting and gradually increase the difficulty for each additional player participating? I think that would be more enjoyable for the players.

I think it would be best to set the lowest difficulty setting for the minimum possible number of participating players and gradually increase the difficulty for each additional player participating.

I understand that adjusting the balance would probably be difficult, but it would be great if difficulty settings for 6, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 players can be prepared.

In order to prevent all players from participating in this content with a 6 player party, a bonus that increases with the number of players participating can be implemented.

A special point system can be implemented, in which more bonus points are awarded when more players are participating.

The difficulty for the 36 player version will not be twice as difficult as the 18 player version. The difference will not be large enough to cause a significant disadvantage.

In terms of efficiency, it would definitely be more efficient to participate with exactly 18 or 36 players, but it is still possible to participate in this content with fewer players, although efficiency would be sacrificed. In other words, it is not necessary to gather 36 players, and the difficulty settings will be set so that it is still possible to complete this content with 19 players.
　
Differences in battle strength will not affect the strength of the monsters, but instead will affect the number of monsters the party is able to defeat.

The fact that legion content is not based on completion/fail basis is the biggest difference from usual battlefields. If the enemies’ strength is changed linearly with the number of players participating, parties of 19 or 36 players would be able to defeat the same number of monsters. This would greatly alter the foundation of this content, including how loot is distributed.

Finally, the minimum number of players necessary to participate in this content is intentionally set lower than the number of players necessary to effectively participate in this content. This is because we do not want to set system limitations so that players are unable to creatively take on a very difficult challenge. I think it would be fun for players to attempt challenges such as trying to defeat only one monster with a very small party.

I apologize if this question has been asked before.

What will happen to the items in the loot pool once 30 minutes are up?
If the loot is placed at the entrance after the battle, as was the case with Limbus, the loot will remain in the loot pool, which gives players about 5 minutes to distribute the loot.
From what I can tell, it seems like players will be sent out to Sauromugue after the battle.

Actually, I was trying to test this out while soloing and failed miserably. I got demolished by turtles, snakes and wyrms... lol

This content is a continuous battle against monsters, so I’m sure there will be occasions where a monster is defeated right before time is up. I would be very disappointed if these efforts are for naught, so I would like to know how the time limit and loot distribution will actually work.

There is no need to worry. In order for players to be able to enjoy the battle right until the end, we will prepare time, which is separate from the time limit, for players to distribute loot. To be specific, once the time limit is up, players will be transferred to the lobby area, where they will have 5 minutes to lot on loot.

Since it seems like items are distributed through the lotting system, is this a good representation of the loot system in legion?

Less players
Pros: Less lotting competition (If 6 players are going after 1 item, there is a 16% chance of obtaining the item)
Cons: Less monsters defeated (less item drops), More responsibility for players during the battle
More players
Pros: More monsters defeated (more item drops), Less responsibility for players during the battle
Cons: More lotting competition (If 36 players are going after 1 item, there is a 2% chance of obtaining the item)

With regard to loot, players can obtain loot either through trading Legion points or through the lotting system. If a lot of monsters are defeated by many players, there will be more loot dropped, which means there are more chances to obtain loot. Even if a player fails to obtain an item through lotting, that player accumulates Legion points with each run, which will allow the player to possibly trade for the item. With more players, there certainly is more competition when lotting on an item, but considering that there are more loot items dropped, the probability of obtaining an item will not drop as severely as you mentioned.

Why is the Dev Team so in love with large-group activities? I don't even know 36 other people who play this game anymore, and I don't want to recruit a bunch of people into a linkshell or quit my LS which has been my home for nearly 7 years just so I can join a large LS where the Leader and his friends will magically have the points to have sole lotting rights to every piece of gear. This game it too old to support large-group events anymore.

[Kaisha]

Given the popularity of pug runs for VW, it wouldn't surprise me if Legion is just the next step up from that.

[Renzy]

Not sure why there would be a need to change it...voted to keep it the same.

Because people like me keep hitting up and paying with conquest points when we don't want to!

[Trigun]

Why is the Dev Team so in love with large-group activities?

Abyssea kinda wounded big LS activities. You interact with alot of people in VW and even more now in Legion I suppose.

[Julian]

Who the FUCK would want to spend CP on OP warps. Is 1000 gil that fucking much to spend on a warp? Jesus.