Need a reason for Reaver's Refuge quests on hard and elite difficulties

[Khanyth]

The whole point of this thread is that the above statement is false. Even if elite Prey were only slightly harder than casual Prey, people wouldn't run it more than once. It would still take (even slightly) longer to complete with no increase in loot (read: runes - the thing you describe as the only reason to run RR quests). From your own arguments: More time + same loot = wasted time. This is exactly the reason Carpone has proposed that the quests drop more runes on hard/elite, and exactly the reason that many people are agreeing that it's a good idea.

Cheers,
Kernal

I don't think I said that, but if I did, sorry.

My whole point/opinion:

Fine... give 2X to hard and 3X more to elite for runes to drop. With the increase in difficulty scaling and the time that it takes to complete the run (including failed runs) that will appease 1% of DDO players. 95% of the people will still do 6 -8 runs per hour on casual. That's 6-8 runes minimum. Plus, now that runes are identifyable, people will most likely leave runes behind because they're nice. To use a previous example, if guilds wanted to help a guildie get runes, they'd run Prey 6 times to let one guildie get 36 runes. So, a 2, 3, 5X rune drop really isn't that much better than casual due to the easyness of the run.

As for the "I need a chalenge to do this" arguement.... there are plenty of other things that one can do to be chalenging without having to use up the dev's time. Do a naked run.... an all barb no spells run..... run Prey so that you kill every spawning giant until everyone has over 100 kills........... These are all things that are player driven and don't take away the dev's efforts for fixing other things in the game that need fixing.


Translation: For 95% of DDO players, greater rune dropping on hard/elite would not outweight the zerg casual runs, because of difficulty scaling in the dungeons and because with rune identification, it is now possible (in theory) to get 6 runes on a casual run. For the 5% that this does not apply for, they generally have their DT armour and runes so, no offense, but there are plenty of other things that the dev's can fix. As I said; run 5 naked barbs and no one is allowed to get to the maze until they've all killed 100 giants.

Again, jmho

[Wrendd]

I do not think that altering the number of runes that drop on hard or elite would take much time for a dev to do. Unless I am horribly mistaken (which is possible, I am not a programmer) I would think that setting the number to be 1-2 on hard or 1-2 (even 2-3) on elite would be a minor change that would please more people than you think it would.

I agree that a majority of people would continue to run on the easier settings, but people respond to incentives, the greater the incentive, the greater the response. If I had a chance at 2-3 Sov runes on an elite SoS I would be much more willing to run it. As it stands now, I have run it on elite and I have absolutely NO intention of doing so again unless the risk vs reward metric is changed. That goes for a lot of quests as well. But since RR has recently been changed (or will be when U7 is live) the door is open for additional changes to be made.

[kernal42]

95% of the people will still do 6 -8 runs per hour on casual. That's 6-8 runes minimum.

That's actually 0 runes minimum, because you're not guaranteed a rune on casual. Probably you'd get 5-6 runes from 6-8 casual runs. But that's a nitpick.

As for the "I need a chalenge to do this" arguement.... there are plenty of other things that one can do to be chalenging without having to use up the dev's time. Do a naked run.... an all barb no spells run..... run Prey so that you kill every spawning giant until everyone has over 100 kills........... These are all things that are player driven and don't take away the dev's efforts for fixing other things in the game that need fixing.

I absolutely agree. The "I need a challenge" argument to run RR quests on Hard/Elite isn't very enticing. That's why I support Carpone's proposal to include material benefits to running quests on higher difficulty settings.

because of difficulty scaling in the dungeons and because with rune identification, it is now possible (in theory) to get 6 runes on a casual run.

It was always possible to get 6 runes on a casual run - runes have always been tradeable in chests. The identification of runes doesn't change this. Most players run Prey of the Hunter to get tempest runes to crunch into Sovs (no idea if that will change). None of those players would pass runes because it wasn't the right rune. Furthermore, if I'm looking for a particular Tempest rune and you pull it, we'll trade in chest - it will likely not be a gift (for the above reason). Even if one rune is gifted because it's the exact rune that I want, that means that the other 4 players in the quest have exactly no reason to pass you their runes - you already have the one you want!

In short, the U7 changes really don't affect the number of runes you're likely to get during a run. Sure, it decreases the number of runs necessary to get the rune you want, but then, as now, the only time you're going to get 6 runes from a run is if you have generous friends.

Cheers,
Kernal

[dkyle]

That's actually 0 runes minimum, because you're not guaranteed a rune on casual. Probably you'd get 5-6 runes from 6-8 casual runs. But that's a nitpick.

Prey on casual always drops a rune. Not sure about Monastary. I know it can drop less than the usual 2 on casual though (even without "cheating" on the puzzle, and locking out the second chest).

It was always possible to get 6 runes on a casual run - runes have always been tradeable in chests. The identification of runes doesn't change this.

It certainly does change things. Before, only gifts of runes made any actual sense. Trading runes was a pointless waste of time with no expected gain.

None of those players would pass runes because it wasn't the right rune.

I could see giving someone a rune they want in exchange for their rune that neither of you particularly want. That way, you still get the rune to crunch, and they get the rune they want. They get something they want, you don't lose anything. Similar principle to putting raid loot for roll. Technically, you could "crunch" the loot into plat at a vendor, but people aren't usually such jerks, and are willing to help each other out.

[kernal42]

I don't think I said that, but if I did, sorry.

You probably didn't - I think I just declared somebody else's argument as yours. Not that it was a bad argument, of course. "More time + same loot = wasted time" is pretty reasonable. Apologies for the mixup.

It certainly does change things. Before, only gifts of runes made any actual sense. Trading runes was a pointless waste of time with no expected gain.

I could see giving someone a rune they want in exchange for their rune that neither of you particularly want. That way, you still get the rune to crunch, and they get the rune they want. They get something they want, you don't lose anything. Similar principle to putting raid loot for roll. Technically, you could "crunch" the loot into plat at a vendor, but people aren't usually such jerks, and are willing to help each other out.

I've been unclear. The U7 change absolutely affects the usefulness of trading runes. It won't, however, significantly affect the rate of gifting runes. There was a suggestion above that the U7 change will already increase the number of runes you're likely to get because of rune gifting, which is what I was disagreeing with.

Cheers,
Kernal

[dkyle]

I've been unclear. The U7 change absolutely affects the usefulness of trading runes. It won't, however, significantly affect the rate of gifting runes. There was a suggestion above that the U7 change will already increase the number of runes you're likely to get because of rune gifting, which is what I was disagreeing with.

Ah, makes sense. I had interpreted the post you responded to as U7 providing a possible choice of runes among 6 that drop for various people. I think I misread.

I agree that "gifting" of runes is not likely to increase beyond what it is now.

[sephiroth1084]

Unnecessary change.

Gianthold doesnt drop more Relics on higher difficulties.

Orchard doesnt drop more Sigil Pieces (ALthough you may get a better chance at getting one, Idont know)

Vale doesnt provide more pie pieces.

Desert never provided extra falging items.(Moot now that it sa permaflag)

I cant think of any quest that actually increases the amount of items you get for playing higher difficulty. You get more XP, Higher loot table, and increased challenge. Thats more than enough.

Just because nothing else does it, doesn't mean that it is good design.

If not more runes of the Eldritch, Tempest and Sovereign types (and I think this is a reasonable idea), perhaps bigger bunches of draconic runes?

[Fomori]

I know math is hard, but there's a reason we have a level 72 guild and others don't. Elite Shroud is part of that reason.

Guild level simply equals member time invested. You have a level 72 guild because you have people putting time into DDO looting chests. Perhaps those people are doing quests that give out more renown per chest but its simply more grinding... no higher math skills needed!

As far as your OP, I dont think that the RR should give out higher rewards. I think that Hard/Elite were designed simply as a favor and xp mechanic. I think the +1 (+2 elite) level for loot was just a small bonus for running.

They have set a precedent in raids for giving higher loot percentage on higher difficulties but I think that is because of the lockout timer. In RR you dont have a lockout timer and thus no need to give loot incentives to those quests.

What you suggest is to add loot value incentive to a set of non-raid quests where they are the only ones where that exists. Is this the only place that you want this done with hard/elite settings? If so, then it simply says 'Hey make this change because I want to farm runes faster.' No matter how much you gloss something over the core is the same. If you really think that all quests need more incentive to run on hard/elite then that is a different story, but you cant make the argument for RR and then go 'The rest of the game... it is fine as it is' and have it remain credible.

[dkyle]

What you suggest is to add loot value incentive to a set of non-raid quests where they are the only ones where that exists.

Mindsunder also incentivizes hard/elite with higher drop rate of named items, so precedent exists.

If you really think that all quests need more incentive to run on hard/elite then that is a different story, but you cant make the argument for RR and then go 'The rest of the game... it is fine as it is' and have it remain credible.

The difference with Mindsunder and Reaver's Refuge is that both are generally run more by capped characters for loot than by non-capped characters for XP, so the extra XP is not sufficient incentive, as it is for lower level quests. I'd suggest similar changes for boot ingredient droprates in Amrath, Shards and Ingredients in the Shroud, and possibly Altar of Fecundity ingredients in the Vale. The Shroud and Vale ones I'd only suggest a minor increase, as the difficulty doesn't really scale up that much for capped characters.

[kernal42]

Guild level simply equals member time invested. You have a level 72 guild because you have people putting time into DDO looting chests. Perhaps those people are doing quests that give out more renown per chest but its simply more grinding... no higher math skills needed!

Your math (units) is wrong. [Guild renown increase] equals [member time invested] * [renown earning rate]. Carpone's argument for running elite shroud has soley to do with the part in red, which happens to be the part you neglected to consider.

As far as your OP, I dont think that the RR should give out higher rewards. I think that Hard/Elite were designed simply as a favor and xp mechanic. I think the +1 (+2 elite) level for loot was just a small bonus for running.

The question isn't "how was RR designed," but "how should RR be designed." The distinction is why this thread is not merely a query to the devs, but rather a discussion regarding implementing a change.

Cheers,
Kernal

[noinfo]

Unnecessary change.

Gianthold doesnt drop more Relics on higher difficulties.

Probably not the best example as this is one of the most boring flagging mechanisms ever and it probably should drop more at higher dificulties just to get it over with...

[sirgog]

Mindsunder also incentivizes hard/elite with higher drop rate of named items, so precedent exists.



The difference with Mindsunder and Reaver's Refuge is that both are generally run more by capped characters for loot than by non-capped characters for XP, so the extra XP is not sufficient incentive, as it is for lower level quests. I'd suggest similar changes for boot ingredient droprates in Amrath, Shards and Ingredients in the Shroud, and possibly Altar of Fecundity ingredients in the Vale. The Shroud and Vale ones I'd only suggest a minor increase, as the difficulty doesn't really scale up that much for capped characters.

Pre-Update 7, Mindsunder has the same drop rates on n/h/e. What changes is solely the quality of the Dream Edge drops. (Normal - 8% chance of junk Edge; Hard 4% junk 4% medium; Elite 4% medium 4% top-notch)

The Update 7 release notes state that this is changing, and other items will get better drop rates.

[Wrendd]

As far as your OP, I dont think that the RR should give out higher rewards. I think that Hard/Elite were designed simply as a favor and xp mechanic. I think the +1 (+2 elite) level for loot was just a small bonus for running.

While you may be correct that Hard/Elite was designed to be a favor and xp boost that does not mean that it would be inappropraite to increase the rune drops on Hard/Elite RR quests. DT armor is effectively "raid loot" in the sense that it is

A. A grind to get what you want

B. Better armor for most people than the stuff that actually drops in raids (not all of course, but better than a lot of it)

C. Recieved by completeing difficult quests (which become much tougher on Elite than many quests do) that require more strategy than regular quests.

D. Pay to Play content

The only difference (in my mind) from SoS and a raid is the party size (which is of course the MAIN difference between a raid an a quest). Which is why I said that DT armor is "effectively" raid loot.

I truly do not understand the opposition to allowing a chance at multiple runes to drop in these quests. There SHOULD be a reason for content to be run more often on Hard/Elite than just for the "thrill" or "bragging rights". You can get the thrill and bragging rights (and xp and favor) by running it on hard and elite once and then never again, but giving us a reason to run it more often is a GOOD thing. It makes the content more worthwhile to purchase with real money or TP, it will make it MUCH easier for a Hard/Elite run to form up if you are not just looking for people that want a challenge that will reward you with the same stuff you get on a lower difficulty.

[stoolcannon]

there used to be a really good reason to run on higher difficulty: loot. the larger problem that turbine needs to consider is, why should I open chests at all? there is so very little random loot worth having, I may as well just leave them closed and never consider difficulty in the equation.

This is VERY true. In 2 days running IQ I pulled 1 random loot worth keeping/selling in the AH. The rest went to the vendor. That's A LOT of chests.

[Fomori]

Your math (units) is wrong. [Guild renown increase] equals [member time invested] * [renown earning rate]. Carpone's argument for running elite shroud has solely to do with the part in red, which happens to be the part you neglected to consider.

Your formula says [Guild renown increase] equals [member time invested] * [renown earning rate]. You do know that a mathematical rate is defined as units per time. That means [member renown earning rate] = [member renown earned] / [member time invested]. Plugging that into your formula it then says [Guild renown increase] equals [member time invested] * ([member renown earned] / [member time invested]), simplified to [Guild renown increase] = [member renown earned]. That pretty much sums up what I said originally.

Granted, I was oversimplifying the expression a little bit but my premise still holds true. I think what you were looking for is that the elite shroud renown per member avg is higher than other quests. I cannot confirm nor deny that because I do not have a large enough sample size to make that a valid claim. However I did allude to that in my post by saying those members might be pulling larger renown rewards per chest than others.

There SHOULD be a reason for content to be run more often on Hard/Elite than just for the "thrill" or "bragging rights". You can get the thrill and bragging rights (and xp and favor) by running it on hard and elite once and then never again, but giving us a reason to run it more often is a GOOD thing. It makes the content more worthwhile to purchase with real money or TP, it will make it MUCH easier for a Hard/Elite run to form up if you are not just looking for people that want a challenge that will reward you with the same stuff you get on a lower difficulty.

I understand why people want to incentiy the hard/elite versions of the this quest. Then they would be considered a run for runes instead of the other reasons. It comes simply down to one reward vs another reward. The devs think xp, favor, and +1(+2) to the generic loots tables are plenty of rewards. If you make the choice that those rewards are not enough for you (for whatever reason) then you have made the choice. Putting that the content SHOULD be run does not change that Also, worthwhile is a totally subjective term because what is worth the cost for one person might not be for another. Pretty much for me my dislike here is that saying something SHOULD be done is telling others what to do or that you alone know the correct answer.

[dkyle]

Pretty much for me my dislike here is that saying something SHOULD be done is telling others what to do or that you alone know the correct answer.

It's called an opinion.

[Fomori]

Pretty much for me my dislike here is that saying something SHOULD be done is telling others what to do or that you alone know the correct answer.

It's called an opinion.

strawman FTW!

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

[dkyle]

strawman FTW!

How so?

Pretty much for me my dislike here is that saying something SHOULD be done is telling others what to do or that you alone know the correct answer.

"Reaver's Refuge quests SHOULD drop more runes on hard and elite."

That is my opinion. There is no implication that I "alone know the correct answer". I am not "telling others what to do" in any way other than offering a suggestion.

It is my belief that RR quests offers no worthwhile rewards to a capped player other than runes, which do not scale with difficulty. Again, my opinion. Argue with it as you see fit, but don't suggest it is somehow fundamentally wrong for me to have my own opinion.

Or is it that I should only say things like "In my humble opinion, with which reasonable people could disagree, in an ideal world, the developers might perhaps consider dropping more runes on hard and elite Reaver's Refuge quests."

[Wrendd]

IMO, part of the reason for this current call for an additional change to the RR quests is because they have already instituted a change with the content and have left the door open to additional changes.

When they allowed the runes to be named in the chest they were making a tacit admission that the current mechanic for RR loot needed an improvement, and many people in this thread are saying: "Thank you for the current change, and here is another suggestion for you to consider, and this is why we want it done and why you should listen to us".

It comes simply down to one reward vs another reward. The devs think xp, favor, and +1(+2) to the generic loots tables are plenty of rewards.

PArt of the problem is that the additioanl favor and XP are effectively one time rewards and the additioanl +1/+2 to the loot tables are not worth the added difficulty in the opinion of most people. I have never seen the devs say that they are happy with the loot drop increase as the only reward increase for Hard/Elite runs (and I have never seen them say that they are unhappy with it either). If the devs come in here and say, one way or the other, what their feelings on the loot drops in RR then we will deal with it then.

We are simply saying that, in the case of RR, the current rewards for hard and elite difficulty are a poor incentive to run the quests (Monestary, Kobold, Prey and SoS) on the increased difficulty more than once per character. We would like to see a change in the missions that we feel would make these missions more enjoyable for a lot of people, would also increase the number of people that would run them often, and may even be an additional incentive for people to pay for the content. We do not feel that the change would be game breaking, nor do we feel that the request for a chance at increased runes dropping is unreasonable.

I would be happy if they let Monestary have a 40-60% chance for an additional rune on hard (2 gaurnteed, chance for a third) and a 100% chance for an extra rune on elite. Kobold should have 50-60% chance for an additioanl rune on hard, and a 100% for 1 extra and a 50% chance for a 3rd on Elite. Prey should have a 30-50% chance for an extra on hard, and 100% chance for a 2nd on elite (there should be no chance for 3 tempest runes in one run of prey, IMO) SoS should have a good chance of a second rune on hard and a gaurnteed 2nd on elite.

Any and all numbers presented here are simply my opinion and would be happily discussed and changed. But I do think that some measure of an increased reward is a good idea.

[Aaxeyu]

"In my humble opinion, with which reasonable people could disagree, in an ideal world, the developers might perhaps consider dropping more runes on hard and elite Reaver's Refuge quests."

Prove it!