Why the hate for mindless lot runs?

[Bogenbroom]

So, basically the devs should shut down any percieved fun being had by players in favor of making them "earn" their loot.

How does this effect anybody but me? What does it matter to anybody if I have a stash of 27 vorpals, 10 disruptors, enough paralyzers to equip an army, and a hen that lays golden eggs? Does that effect YOUR gameplay and fun?

If it doesn't effect your gameplay and fun, why should Turbine spend dev hours on it instead of dev hours on new content?

Shut down? No. Bring in line with everything else in game. Not strictly in terms of loot, but in terms of the overall cost v reward. that doesn't preclude runs that are higher on the loot reward and lower on the XP reward, but there needs to be balance.

And yes, it effects everyone that you play with if you have have access to a warehouse of loot. It changes the expectations placed on every other player in the game. It effects the overall game economy if those items make it to the AH.

Look, if one person has uber loot, yeah, no big deal. If a population does it throws off the balance in the game.

And frankly, if everyone in game has all of the uber loot coming out of their noses the enemy has to be balanced to deal with that. that is what we call Monty Haul and I thin tkeh vast majority of folks have played MMos that have ended in the land of Monty Haul... it ain't fun.

[Yaga_Nub]

..you say "the DM got mad," I say "players were breaking the quest" let's call the whole thing off.

No let's not call the whole thing off. Who gives a flip that you say "the players were breaking the quest"?

We weren't breaking the quest. We were running the quest and using the tools that have been given to us.

Once again I'll point out that:

1. This was playtested on Mournlands and feedback was given.
2. This was playtested on Risia and feedback was given.
3. They STILL released it even when it was pointed out ad nausem
that the quest was going to be the new loot run.

So no, we didn't break the quest, they released it as intended and I don't give a **** if you are MT, you're wrong here.

[MysticTheurge]

So no, we didn't break the quest, they released it as intended and I don't give a **** if you are MT, you're wrong here.

You don't have to care what I say. All you have to care about is what the devs do. And it seems that it was their opinion that the method that so many people were using was breaking the quest (and by breaking I mean it was making the quest too simple/easy for the rewards it was giving). They did something about it.

You can claim they did it because "They got mad." But really "who gives a flip that you say" that?

[Yaga_Nub]

You don't have to care what I say. All you have to care about is what the devs do. And it seems that it was their opinion that the method that so many people were using was breaking the quest (and by breaking I mean it was making the quest too simple/easy for the rewards it was giving). They did something about it.

You can claim they did it because "They got mad." But really "who gives a flip that you say" that?

I didn't claim they did it for any reason. I said that it was playtested for several months and they were told over and over this was going to be a problem and they ignored it until it went live. Re-read the post.

[MysticTheurge]

I didn't claim they did it for any reason.

My original comment was in response to a poster who was claiming they did it for a specific reason. Maybe you should reread that post?

[Yaga_Nub]

My original comment was in response to a poster who was claiming they did it for a specific reason. Maybe you should reread that post?

Well when you use a quote from a person and then use the word "you" without naming a different person then it would appear to a normal person that you are referring to the person you quoted. To be clear I'm speaking about post #43.

[MysticTheurge]

Well when you use a quote from a person and then use the word "you" without naming a different person then it would appear to a normal person that you are referring to the person you quoted.

And generally, if you're going to quote someone you respond to their actual points. My point by saying "players break the quest" was to counter the "Devs got mad" rationale. If you don't want to take it in that context, then that's your call, but it's quite disingenuous.

[moorewr]

My original comment was in response to a poster who was claiming they did it for a specific reason. Maybe you should reread that post?

Back to mindlessness:

I don't think devs thought for a moment we were exploiting by pulling and frying the vampires. They just thought we'd shown the quest was too easy.

I would like us collectively , the loud, cranky end of the player spectrum, to focus on getting the devs to do more creative, enjoyable nerfing. Every time I ran Vol we joked that we should "get our fun in before they nerf it." So we can't claim we didn't see something coming.

What I object to is the artlessness. Give us a back-story for the change, or pick another method, like leashing the vamps or copying the cool Dolurrh effect over from Tomb of the Unhallowed. Or better yet deduct a level rating or two and favor from the quest, make the random sigil drops a little less common there, and let us go to town.

[MysticTheurge]

What I object to is the artlessness.

And that I can agree with.

It's ascribing certain motives to the devs, or trying to suggest that if they'd done it before X that it wouldn't have mattered. Those kinds of things are just silly.

[Yaga_Nub]

And generally, if you're going to quote someone you respond to their actual points. My point by saying "players break the quest" was to counter the "Devs got mad" rationale. If you don't want to take it in that context, then that's your call, but it's quite disingenuous.

Fine, you want to think that is disingenuous I'll go with that. I'll also accept your apology in advance for telling me that I said something that I didn't.

But you still aren't even acknowledging my very valid points.

How did the players break the quest? Tell me. We didn't design it, we just play it. There are people that told them from the beginning on Mournlands that the quest was broken AS THEY DESIGNED IT and they still put it in as is.

So how did the players break the quest? By using the spells and tactics that we've had in the game for quite a while now? No, that's not breaking the quest. That's running the quest.

And I know that you think that using our brains "borders" on an exploit but I don't feel like getting wasted before every DDO session to dumb myself down.

If the quest designer would have taken the feedback in the first place, he/she could have staved off most if not all of this discussion. They chose not to and somehow you equate that to "the players broke the quest." HOW?

[MysticTheurge]

Yaga Nub, every answer I could give you is already in one of the posts I've made above.

[Yaga_Nub]

Yaga Nub, every answer I could give you is already in one of the posts I've made above.

I've read them all and yet they still dont' seem to satisfy this nagging in my head of why you think the devs share no blame in the issue. Yes you've come out about the nature of the fix but nothing about why it was there in the first place. I guess that's all I'm trying to beat out of you is an acknowledgement that the players aren't at fault here. The devs are and you are letting them skate on part of that fault by completely glossing over it.

What's that old saying? Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part? Well maybe it could be changed for DDO to read - " Poor quest design on your part does not call for nerfing on my part?"

[MysticTheurge]

I've read them all and yet they still dont' seem to satisfy this nagging in my head of why you think the devs share no blame in the issue.

Ah, perhaps this is the problem. I don't feel as though the devs share no blame for this problem. In fact, I'd say most of the blame for the problem arising lies at the feet of the devs. Players will be players and they will do their best to get as much beneficial stuff as possible with the least amount of effort. This should always be taken into consideration.

However, it's also the Devs' responsibility to fix these things when they arise. I don't see how the fact that they did it monday instead of last week, or three months ago really matters, regardless of the kind of feedback they were getting. They should do it when they can do it. I think the responsibility for overreacting to this change lies largely at the feet of the players. This was perhaps not the best way to go about making this quest harder, but it's what they did. I personally hope they continue to review the quest and this change and work to improve the changes over time. But I don't see how all the cries of "You suck!" and "Why don't you do your freaking jobs and make new content instead of going back and messing with old stuff" or "You only did this cause you're mad we beat your quest" or "I'm going to quit and take all my friends with me" (and so on, and so on) help in any way. There are far better ways to ask for adjustments that are far more likely to produce real, useful results.

Yes you've come out about the nature of the fix but nothing about why it was there in the first place. I guess that's all I'm trying to beat out of you is an acknowledgement that the players aren't at fault here. The devs are and you are letting them skate on part of that fault by completely glossing over it.

I largely avoid discussing that, because I fail to see how it's relevant. Of course it's the devs fault it was there in the first place; they're the ones who code the game, so anything being there is obviously their fault. It doesn't mean that the vast majority of people who were running this quest in this fashion didn't say "We better do it while we can" knowing full well that it was probably easier that it was intended to be and that it was going to change.

But I guess now that you've beaten that out of me we can move on to more constructive debate?

Edit --

What's that old saying? Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part? Well maybe it could be changed for DDO to read - " Poor quest design on your part does not call for nerfing on my part?"

See, and here we disagree, yet again. If there was poor design in the first place it's absolutely the devs responsibility to fix it. Sure, they probably should have realized earlier and fixed it before now, but that's all pretty much moot at this point, just like when we fell into this scenario with Whisperdoom. There's no sense crying over spilt milk, and all that. What's already happened is not something anyone can do anything about. But that doesn't mean the devs shouldn't fix problems with the game.

And it's the so-prevalent attitude by so many players that it's personal which bothers me the most. Why should you take it personally that they're changing a quest. Your aphorism displays this. How is your character nerfed by this change? There have been, are and always will be some enemies in the game that are immune to fire. Adding some to a specific quest doesn't nerf you in any way. All it does is adjust the difficulty of a quest. So why do you (and everyone else) take it so personally?

[Yaga_Nub]

But I guess now that you've beaten that out of me we can move on to more constructive debate?

Absolutely.

[LogannX]

Ifeel bad for any game developer these days but especially for DDO devs. They have put in a huge effort to make unique quests and dungeons of different types instead of generic overland grind fests. The thanks they get is players trying to go as fast and easy as possible, to skip as much as they can to get it done. To make it worse the players who invent the strategies and exploit things to make it faster and no risk are the ones that cry for harder quests but then immediately look for the easy button again. Then the complain when it is changed to be harder.

If I was a dev in this game Id just be shaking my head. What do you want? You have many dungeons of vareid styles and tons of loot...too much good loot if you ask me. Many dungeons arent run because they take longer than 10 mins and cant be vorpal'd. It's sad. There could be 10 times the dungeons and people would still gravitate to the easiest and most exploitable. It says a lot about the general gamer population and that this style of game isnt what people will play.

It would be intersting if you could alter time and have ddo come before wow and eq. Would people put up with crazy grindfests and purposeless random mob killing? Or would we be complaining how few dungeons tehre were compared to ddo? I dont know.

Don't hate the game, hate the player

Sarkk

[Big_Russ]

And yes, it effects everyone that you play with if you have have access to a warehouse of loot. It changes the expectations placed on every other player in the game. It effects the overall game economy if those items make it to the AH.

Look, if one person has uber loot, yeah, no big deal. If a population does it throws off the balance in the game.

And frankly, if everyone in game has all of the uber loot coming out of their noses the enemy has to be balanced to deal with that. that is what we call Monty Haul and I thin tkeh vast majority of folks have played MMos that have ended in the land of Monty Haul... it ain't fun.

A few things.

1. The economy has NO impact on how you play a dungeon.

2. The economy has been broken for six months and there are NO signs that Turbine is serious about fixing it. The fact is that nothing that is more usefull than a Vorpal has been introduced in over a year WITH THE EXCEPTION of items that bind. Paralyzers drop every time you turn around in just about every lvl 12 quest. Heck, I tried to sell a +1 paralyzing battle axe for 12 consecutive days on the auction 4 weeks ago. My last asking price was 15K plat starting and 25k plat buyout. It didn't sell. I actually GAVE it away. I just sold a +4 wounding battle axe for a whopping 7k plat. If Turbine wants to worry about the economy, cutting back loot now is TOO LATE. The only way now is to introduce rarer, better items.

3. EVERYBODY can only run the same quest 10 times in 1 week. Therefore, on a weekly basis, you have the same shot at loot as everybody else.

[Big_Russ]

Furthermore, I don't believe that an economy is very relevant in a game that does not have crafting.

[Bogenbroom]

A few things.
1. The economy has NO impact on how you play a dungeon.

2. The economy has been broken for six months and there are NO signs that Turbine is serious about fixing it. The fact is that nothing that is more usefull than a Vorpal has been introduced in over a year WITH THE EXCEPTION of items that bind. Paralyzers drop every time you turn around in just about every lvl 12 quest. Heck, I tried to sell a +1 paralyzing battle axe for 12 consecutive days on the auction 4 weeks ago. My last asking price was 15K plat starting and 25k plat buyout. It didn't sell. I actually GAVE it away. I just sold a +4 wounding battle axe for a whopping 7k plat. If Turbine wants to worry about the economy, cutting back loot now is TOO LATE. The only way now is to introduce rarer, better items.

3. EVERYBODY can only run the same quest 10 times in 1 week. Therefore, on a weekly basis, you have the same shot at loot as everybody else.

Okay, trying this again, had a major ramble going delete-restart.

1) Wish I'd seen the axe, would a bought it.
2) Your point 1, I'd have to argue with. Speed at which dungeons are completed (and the easy at which they are completed) greatly effects how quickly wares reach the economy. The quicker they appear the further down the prices go.
3) Just because the economy is out of whack is no reason to not to try to stay to to an balanced economic approach.
4) Your point 3. The point is certainly true, but I don't think is really important in the overall discussion about how easy loot should be to get.

I guess what I am reading from you is is that you believe loot should be as easy to acquire as a player wants it to be. I can only assume that most of the population, and certainly the game designers, would disagree. RPS are about 2 things, 1) Character development (XP) and 2) item acquisition (loot.) The bread and butter of continued interest in a game is to make goal acquiring attainable, but challenging... but completion of all goals either very difficult or very time consuming. I read your suggestion as saying item 2 should be "at will" if the players wants it to be.

All of that doesn't even speak to the indirect effects it has on other players in terms of expectations and the softening of the game structure due to overpowering characters make both goals too easy.

[lostinjapan]

Developer decides he doesn't like how 'easy' his quest Temple of Vol is and decides to make a change it harder (be it ego, concern for the game, or whatever...I'm not talking reasons, I can't read minds...I only read actions/lack of).

Bad change: Blanket immunity against fire by the majority of the mobs in the dungeon which oh, by the way, also affects those same mobs everywhere else in the game.

Better change: Add blackbones to the dungeon (which ARE immune to fire already) AND add DM text to the quest giver to account for it.

All it takes is a little creativity and a little less OMGMUSTNERFITNOW!

[Yaga_Nub]

But I guess now that you've beaten that out of me we can move on to more constructive debate?


See, and here we disagree, yet again. If there was poor design in the first place it's absolutely the devs responsibility to fix it. Sure, they probably should have realized earlier and fixed it before now, but that's all pretty much moot at this point, just like when we fell into this scenario with Whisperdoom. There's no sense crying over spilt milk, and all that. What's already happened is not something anyone can do anything about. But that doesn't mean the devs shouldn't fix problems with the game.

And it's the so-prevalent attitude by so many players that it's personal which bothers me the most. Why should you take it personally that they're changing a quest. Your aphorism displays this. How is your character nerfed by this change? There have been, are and always will be some enemies in the game that are immune to fire. Adding some to a specific quest doesn't nerf you in any way. All it does is adjust the difficulty of a quest. So why do you (and everyone else) take it so personally?

Dang it MT I thought we agreed to move on. What I, me and only me that I can tell, was taking personally was the statement that "the players broke the quest." I take that very personally because I can't design the quest myself, and the devs won't take feedback, so I will use every weapon, spell and tactic at my disposal. That is not "the players breaking the quest," that is just good gamesmanship. Nor is it an exploit that I am human and can devise tactics that prey upon the tendencies of the AI.

I could care less, personally, about the change because I can complete the quest just as easy as before, IMHO. But I will always take it personally when a fellow player tells everyone that it's our fault that the quest is easy and has to be changed.