Announcing the Next Version Update! (02/27/2015)

[dasva]

Not only is such a cape hard to get (I've done dozens of incursions, and never seen more than 32%), but you need tons of job point progress to get all those gifts.

At which point you probably don't need to farm cp much anymore on that job.

[Draylo]

I really wish they would update Monstrosity as well.

[NynJa]

But a model where content is temporarily exclusive for large groups and then, after some time has passed and new content is released, becomes accessible to everybody through scaling?
Now that would be a much more sustainable scenario.

People arent gonna wanna wait 6-8 months for the scaled verson dude. No ones gonna sit in adoulin with their thumbs up their asses while the few LSs with 15+ people do new content and the 5-7 person LSs cant do shit. Why do you think they implemented the scale?

[Ramzii]

Am I the only one thats getting this from Ramzii's post?


Honestly, whats the big deal if it scales? FWIW, I have month old posts saying that the way SE scaled Delve by not scaling loot down with party count was foolish.

yes, clearly you caught me. i'm more concerned about the fact that SE's scaling system actually makes it so that it punishes you for going with more people instead of less. if they continue to do that then eventually >1 party content will be phased out entirely making it entirely useless to even be able to form alliances. maybe not necessarily 18 people, but even having events where having around 2 full parties would be nice. again, if they implemented scaling *properly* (delve scaling is a complete joke, incursion isn't as bad) then i wouldn't be so worried. but from what we've seen so far, 6 man versions have been significantly easier than going with more than that.

[fantasticdan]

So you're worried this content might be too difficult for you and your ls members when scaled up?

[EjinCaitsith]

I'm really sick of the coffer system, to be honest. I've had enough of seeing my mules get the gear I want before me.

I don't know how they could make 18man more fair, perhaps have it give more points based on people entering, but that doesn't really help the event. The terrible cycle I see going on with events is that SE rewards the better groups with MORE points/gear, thus reducing the time it takes for them to clear the content, become bored and quit. What I'd love to see is higher difficulties offering lower drop rates on minimally better upgrades of the gear offered on the lower difficulties. It's crazy to me that they went through the trouble of coding 3 different versions of the MB for Incursion, think up 3 different titles, then not even offer anything exclusive for fighting them. I want content to have longevity, not give more points/drops so I cap out the first week.

[Fwahm]

Honestly, I think the perfect loot system would be the VW style treasure system, except with the option to add your stuff to the pool if you wanted.

[Sechs]

People arent gonna wanna wait 6-8 months for the scaled verson dude.

6-8 months yes, I agree (altough judging by the amount of people who still want/need Delve v1, there might be surprises about it), but how about 2-4 months max?

[Sechs]

I don't know how they could make 18man more fair

Delve looting system, with more drops dropping at certain numbers threshold, and slightly more currency points.
Make the difference so it's not insane.
Also, make the HP scaling slightly less severe for each additional player you bring in.
This alone wouldn't fix the scaling system maybe, but it would certainly make it much more fair, and feels less like it does now (i.e. better to go with 1 pt than with an alliance)

[Kanriel]

It would make a lot of sense to scale the loot, but in a fair way. Similar to WoW when they went through the 10-man vs 25-man raid argument (which is quite similar to our 6 vs 18 one here) they eventually made it so that you'd get the same loot polls on either size, but less loot on 10. And some fights were harder on 10 and harder on 25, simply because of how it scales. I think maybe a 9-man cutoff, say with delve you currently get 4x equipment, two boss items and two airlixirs. Low man should get 2x equipment, 1x airlixir and TH potentially give a 2nd airlixir spot. On 10+ do 4x loot, 2x airlixir, boss items and TH a chance at 3rd airlixir and another boss item. There's 10 slots in treasure, right? Pretty sure, but feels like I could be wrong...

[Julian]

I wouldn't say a cut off point, as that would force you to build to a certain number.

It would be better to just do, say, random example, +33% chance of an extra item per player, additive. So 6 people is 2 items, 7 is 2 guarantee and 33%chance of a 3rd, 12 is 4 guaranteed, 18 6, etc.

[NynJa]

6-8 months yes, I agree (altough judging by the amount of people who still want/need Delve v1, there might be surprises about it), but how about 2-4 months max?

People will still pay 10-20 mil for clears. How many posts here in the past year has been bitching about "nothing new to do"? "SE adds new content, and we clear it right away, now were bored"? So the plan is to add content that only a fraction of the playerbase can do, while the majority is stuck watching the LS's that have more than 15 people monopolize and dictate the economy of these items?

Sounds like a great idea, just let me cancel my SEID's first.

[arus2001]

It's almost like some want more people to quit for more active games... and probably argue against server merges at the same time.

[Sechs]

Sounds like a great idea

It works well in other games, I don't see why it couldn't work here, granted that SE would need to speed up the content release and that's probably not very realistic to expect.
Your argument (which I understand and honestly empathize with) can be reversed and still be meaningful.
If people doesn't, rightfully, want some LSs to "monopolize" the market, then why don't they make LSs themselves or join a LS, instead of bitching they're lonely with their 3 mules and 2 friends and demand content being made for them?
Which is an extremization of course, just wanted to show how your way of thinking works both ways.

[Hitou]

It works well in other games, I don't see why it couldn't work here, granted that SE would need to speed up the content release and that's probably not very realistic to expect.
Your argument (which I understand and honestly empathize with) can be reversed and still be meaningful.
If people doesn't, rightfully, want some LSs to "monopolize" the market, then why don't they make LSs themselves or join a LS, instead of bitching they're lonely with their 3 mules and 2 friends and demand content being made for them?
Which is an extremization of course, just wanted to show how your way of thinking works both ways.

Firstly, "extremization" is not a word. I suppose you meant exaggeration? Secondly, flipping the argument that way is like saying "instead of taxing the rich more lets tax the poor more" which isn't ever the counter argument for such a debate. I'm not getting into politics here but you can't just flip an argument for the majority to the minority and expect it to hold water. There's very little demand for 18 man content beyond a few very vocal people. That isn't to say there's anything wrong with it, but even when it's added its never "good enough" for them. Because it's not 18 man exclusive.

You say "just make 15 friends" or whatever and to use your counter argument I'll say "just split into 3 groups."

[NynJa]

You say "just make 15 friends" or whatever and to use your counter argument I'll say "just split into 3 groups."

Pretty much this

[Toth]

With 50% cape and max gifts you get +110%CP, which is like a perma 2x campaign.

No offense but that's a terrible counterpoint. You need to CP at normal rates for a looooong time to get all those gifts.

[Prothescar]

Game has very visibly advanced passed the alliance content phase, asking for or demanding alliance only content is ridiculous. Better scaling for more members beyond 6 makes the most sense, but locking content (especially something that many have been waiting for for a long time, i.e. empyrean armor upgrades) behind requiring more people (finding them, waiting for them, etc.) is dumb.

[Sechs]

You say "just make 15 friends" or whatever and to use your counter argument I'll say "just split into 3 groups."

I didn't personally say or support anything, I just wanted to show it works both ways.
If side one says "Hey stop bitching there's no content for your big monopolizing LSs, we want stuff for 6men/solo", the other side might as well say "Stop bitching you want content for 6men solo and start making a larger group of people or join an existing one".

We could also say it in other words from side one "Stop trying to monopolize content, exploiting stuff and gaining advantage over smaller groups" and side 2 could say "Stop being an antisocial who wants to play a social game meant for group interaction by demanding to be solo with your 1 friend and 4 mules".


I wasn't trying to say one side is right and the other is wrong behind the lines. If anything I was trying to say that it works both ways and that both sides have very good reasons I can understand and relate to.


(as for "extremization" I found it on a few sources online but not on my old english dictionary. Maybe it's a neologism? Altough tbf I doubt it should matters much over these boards °-°')

[Sechs]

And still on the topic, just sharing my personal experience.
By the time SoA hit my LS had died and had been dead for a long time.
I still had a couple of friends back then and we were doing/farming stuff together.
SoA came out, LSs were resurrected and I couldn't do delve alone with my friends.
Well I joined the plasm farm PUGs of course.
For once in my life instead of bitching out and getting bitter at this or that person because they could do things I could not, I simply joined another LS and started doing content with them.
There, done. Been with them ever since and I still am.

Maybe some people could just show a better, more positive attitude, they could try to adapt and try doing things in a different way (hey! They might even like it!) instead of constantly demanding stuff being done the way they want it


In the end though, given the current state of the game, I agree with Prothescar the best and most realistic solution we can expect and demand is just a better scaling (which, alas, I'm afraid will never happen)