Is grouping to hunt, a bad thing?

[Smeglor]

It doesn't matter what the intention is. If a low rating player is in a group with a high rating player, and the monster they kill is "easy" for the high rating player, the low rating player really should not be getting any XP.

That's what the system does now. I was agreeing that it needed to be a little softer for smaller differences in rating, but wanted to warn that we were not going back to the days where a low rating player could earn rapid experience by grouping with a high rating player who then slaughtered easy targets.

I'm intentionally not using any numbers yet, as that will be based upon number crunching and experimenting that we have not yet done.

[AA0]

Smeglor, nobody here wants those old days back at all. It was just insane what could happen and lead to a lot of jerks playing.
If there is a small rating difference between players, just ignore it. Put a cushion in. If the rating difference gets large then keep the exp as it is now and make them get almost nothing.

I see way too many people get turned down for groups because of the rating differences and multiclassing experiementation one has done in low levels with other low levels.

[Dravatar]

For my own edification, this doesn't prevent grouping of highly different rated players for social or teaching purposes. It simply denies the lower rated ones almost all XP, correct?

[Aamer Khan]

Thanks once more for responding Smeglor.

I too, do NOT want to return to the rampant, easy exp leeching days. I'm not really against the current exp setup. I have played with much higher rated players in the same group while leveling up a second class, and the exp seems fair to me. I would personally prefer to earn my levels and not be handed them by some other players efforts.

However, there is something I would like to suggest.

One thing that could "soften" the blow from the current system, is to adjust the AI a bit. Make it so we can train guildmates without having to worry about them getting jumped by any mobs we pull. They already will not get exp for these kills, ( or should not ) So why should they get penalized by having DP's from just standing there watching? If exp leeching is the primary reason, then remove that reason and leave the rest.

Let me give you an example of last nights guild hunt for comps on corvus. 3 of the group had ratings in excess of 100. One had a rating under 70. Now, this AR 70 could not land a hit nor could he damage any mob directly. And as he was a warrior with no heals could not provide support. What was he doing here? Learning. As a returning player, he wanted to see what to expect later, and as a crafter primarily, he just wanted to learn how to fight better. He did get a very small amount of exp, which for the reason he was there, could have been zero with no complaints. But how did he feel about this hunt? He had a BLAST! It was great fun for him to see high levels plow through the WA. It was a good lesson in what the new aggro system does. And it was a fine lesson on how to fight effectively.

Please review the AI to see if this can be done in such a way as to meet your intentions, and still allow the social and learning side of grouping.

[Tantalyr]

For my own edification, this doesn't prevent grouping of highly different rated players for social or teaching purposes. It simply denies the lower rated ones almost all XP, correct?

It's not simply the lack of XP, the way the aggro system works is that beasties make a beeline for the lowest rated player. It's just real darned hard for that low rated player to learn combat tactics or be social while looking up at the sky all the time.

[Dravatar]

Thank you Tantalyr. So what is being said is combat tactics should be learned at far lower levels and being social in combat means taking a chance.

[Aamer Khan]

Yes that's basically true Dravatar, but it misses the point.

Right now, we have many situations where there are really high level players trying to help all the new and really low level players learn the ropes. Are you really saying that you don't see the wide gap that exists in the player base atm? Do you really want to discourage the brand new player just as he starts to learn?


Should the low level players, the new subs, be penalized simply because they started well after many players have already gotten their levels? Not getting exp is fine and is how it should be. Getting DP's due to playerbase situations caused by design decisions is NOT. If the new players go out with a high level to the beetles at Kion, they will be jumped by any attacked beetle, because that how it works.

[tramsan]

The aggro issue does not only exist when high-level players fight with low-level players. It exists across the board. The other day I was out on a three-person mini guild-hunt with my new mini-guild. We were two level 10s and one level 5. We were hunting garnet golems (L6-9) for gemstones and chips. The L10 warrior was handling the pulling.

Almost every single pull the golems would hurl a chunk at the warrior, then set off straight for the L5 scout. Sure, the rating difference is 100%, but the actual difference is only 5 levels! Five! This simply isn't right. Fortunately the golems were quickly dispatched, so the scout never had to take a dirtnap.

[HratLi]

:\ Taking my wife back out for a spin in the field with the new aggro and sometimes it gets even more frustrating than that.

Some mobs will run clean across the entire spawn to attack her, and even after I do over 50 percent damage to the monster it's still glued onto her dryad wings like it were a flypaper golem. It's pretty bizarre, Monsters popping out of no where bent on Pixie toe jam. Our ratings were only 20 levels or so different. It was pretty maddening.

I DO have to say however, that she's had some reasonable luck showing new level 8-20 folks how to hunt with lower tier stuff, but it's hard when you only get a few whacks at the most before the monsters die. They run straight for the new folks often across an entire field even if not grouped.

I have to be careful to kill and have ranged spells handy when working sandstone and bronze, lest I swamp some poor guy at the other end of the field trying to hunt up his 5 bronze tokens.

-HratLi

[Aamer Khan]

What HratLi just said brings it home to me.

It's totally understandable and desirable that lower rated players get little to nothing from grouping with higher rated players EXP wise. But do they need to be further PUNISHED?

That's what it feels like to many that have to experience it. It's like, "How dare these young ones think they should be with higher level players! Each one in his place I always say, and if they won't stay in their place, well we just need to punish them till they learn to keep to their station!"

OK, that well over the top, but you get my drift. None of us want to be forced to group, ( even though that is a fact of reality with mobs like dak, faf, or valkor ) BUT... we would like to be able to hunt in a group if we choose without being penalized for it.

[Dravatar]

I don't believe it misses the point, Aamer. The original point was, as I understood it, to allow more XP to filter to lower level players in a group, with teaching and socialization being used as the grouping reasons. If the purpose of the group is to teach, the object is to learn, not gain XP. If the purpose is to socialize, the object is to enjoy the company, not gain XP. It isn't a penalty if you don't get something you weren't supposed to in the first place.

Guild chat, private chat and creating a new channel are all examples of ways to socialize without grouping necessarily. High levels can help lower ones learn without grouping and leeching XP if that is the concern. Your example of combat tactics with the Kion beetles is an excellent one. In teaching combat tactics, I would think a very important one is to teach newbies how to watch their backs and not pull more than they can handle. "Know thy enemy" is also understood to mean "know thy enemies AI."

As to the mob aggro/ai issue itself, I cannot comment. What it is intended to be is in the mind of the devs, not what I want it to be.

[LaughingOtter]

I was agreeing that it needed to be a little softer for smaller differences in rating, but wanted to warn that we were not going back to the days where a low rating player could earn rapid experience by grouping with a high rating player who then slaughtered easy targets.

I don't think anyone has asked for that. I know I have not.

I think the crushing effect of limiting XP to that gained by the highest-rating in the group is enough to effectivly curtail XP leeching. Honestly, I can live with that. The fact that mobs make a beeline for the lowest rating in the group, however, is a significant issue. Last night, my wife & I went hunting in the Staging Grounds with another guildie. My level 72 dragon got to play tank all night. Thank Drulkar for triple-teched PV scales... But I digress...

I was expecting this and was ready for it, but it's bloody annoying when I'm being out-damaged and out-healed by other party members, but 3/4 of the time the aggro is firmly on my scaled backside.

As I said, I think things like Evolved mobs and the rating-based XP cap are enough to keep XP leeching to a minimum. The aggro system and the lack of effective aggro management abilities are a significant issue and impediment to social hunting and thus to the social fun aspect of the game. I'm willing to accept a reduction in XP; the reduction in fun is where my complaint lies.

[Aamer Khan]

Actually Dravatar, you miss it again.

It was originally about grouping to gather comps, and has evolved into changing the AI to not single out lowest rated players as the focus of attack. That they should NOT get exp for fighing they have not done is NOT the issue.

It seems your defending a point that nobody has taken exception to.

[Dravatar]

It seems your defending a point that nobody has taken exception to.

An excellent way to win arguments if you ask me....

[Dhalin]

I still say, the #1 best thing Tulga could do (and neither Smeglor nor Dravatar replied to this), is to simply put a cap on the Mob Targeting AI. When my GF and I go out hunting, we are usually 1-2 levels apart, MAX. Yet, the lower level almost always ends up tanking nearly ALL of the fights, despite Gold Rages, Instant Heals, Ravages, Silver Strikes, NOTHING will pull the mob off the person who is 1-2 levels lower.

I've seen this time and time again, like the last time. We were hunting Winter Gruoks in Trandalar. I was Lv53. She was Lv51. I would pull with something like Snarl or Dragon's Reach. Mob comes to me, I hit it a couple times, and then it changes target to her. She is only TWO levels below me. I see it go after her (she was already wounded from the last fight) and I throw a Gold Rage at it, near killing it. It STILL attacks her. I throw an Instant Heal on her. It STILL attacks her.

This is just outright stupid. Make it so that:

Tier 1: 3 or under Level Gap, Level means nothing in the Mob's Targeting AI. (Example: Lv3 paired with a Lv6, no penalty. Lv2 paired with a Lv6, Penalty.)
Tier 2: 5 or under Level Gap, Level means nothing in the Mob's Targeting AI. (Eample: Lv21 paired with a Lv26, no penalty. Lv21 paired with a Lv27, penalty).
Tier 3: 8 or under Level Gap, Level means nothing in the Mob's Targeting AI. (Example: Lv41 paired with a Lv49, no penalty. Lv41 paired with a Lv50, Penalty.)
Tier 4, 5, 6: 10 or under Level Gap, Level means nothing in the Mob's Targeting AI.
Lv100+: Level means nothing in the Mob's Targeting AI.

Its kinda stupid when a Lv100 dragon is paired with a Lv150 biped, that the dragon ends up tanking 100% of the time. He's PENALIZED becuase of the system not ALLOWING him to Multiclass. Highly stupid. Way to say "Dragons, don't party with Multiclassed bipeds, EVER."

That way, if you have a Lv53 partying with a Lv51, the Lv51 isn't unfairly discriminated against when trying to group hunt, just because of a _TWO_ level difference. Its not like a TWO level gap is going to create XP-Leeching. Its not.

--Dhalin

[Tigris]

That's part of the reason I never heavily multiclassed, to be able to group with and be NEAR the XP range of dragon buddies. >^.^<

*adds that to her signature*

[Dravatar]

Smeglor, of course what paragraph was ridiculous... it was meant to get a response. If nothing else that paragraph did exactly what I was hoping it would... get one of you to acknowledge a bit and explain what you can do and why you can't do other things yet.

Trolling is against forum rules. I've copied the relevant passage pertaining to this from our general forum rules.

The dictionary describes trolling as follows:
"To leave an intentionally annoying message on a part of the Internet in order to get attention or cause trouble." (From Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary © Cambridge University Press 2003)

Please refrain from this in the future. Thank you.

[tramsan]

That was not trolling, Dravatar. Do not overmod, that will only spell disaster.

[Seranthor]

With all due respect Dravatar, wouldn't the majority of dev messages that outright dismiss the concerns of the masses be 'intentionally annoying' and 'causing trouble' also and thusly fit very nicely into that definition?

There have been mods in the past that have allowed their positions to inflate their egos and to become driven by them, I ask that you not become like them and I ask that you continue to remain on the side of fairness and objectivity.

[Aamer Khan]

It's ok tramsan and seranthor, I understand about having feelings and reacting .

I was trying to get a response thats true, but NOT stirring up trouble. I was doing no more than anyone does that champions a cause. I, like everyone here including any of the mods, was attempting to reach the proper person to modify their view.

Why else do any of us post here? Does this reaction by the mod mean that we can expect to see the rules "adjusted" to meet the needs of any mod? And I thought a mod would use the stated method to resolve these kinds of issues and send a pm to the offending party. Posting in an open thread seems worse than anything I did.