Tlc

[Orlun]

http://www.vanguardsoh.com/forums/showpost.php?postid=533368&postcount=173

Brad makes his case for it.

I'm willing to see how it works when you do the entire game that way. I love the prospects of little no drop and the reduced numbers of farmed items on the marketplace.

Thoughts>?

[Skarlath]

Aww, I love that Brad.

I think he is right. Its not perfect, its a contrived rule that it would nice to see the back of, but unfortunately it must be done to some degree to prevent bottom feeders ruining the game for others.

However, I am always a fan of softcaps over hardcaps. Isn't there a way we could deter the bottom feeders, without straight out having it not drop. Perhaps once you are a certain level, you will have a greatly reduced chance of drop. This time sink would hopefully deter wrongdoers... however now I come to think of it, it yields no plus side.

As long as TLC isn't used too widely, I think it is a fine technique to use.

[Ieranii]

After some thought I've decided I will give TLC a chance. I'm not convinced it's a good thing but I'd like to give it a try at least.

[Raya]

I agree with Brad. However, as far as I can see, it didn't work in EQ...it just ticked people off. I would love to see it work. Maybe Vanguard will be different.

[Skarlath]

Could you explain to a non-EQer what went wrong with EQ's TLC? Was it just annoying and silly, to the point where it damaged immersion? Under what circumstances were people effected by it - why were high levels trying to snag newbie loot in the first place?

Other than feeling entirely contrived, it doesn't really do much, but it DOES protect the game and help it live a longer life. Or so I thought.

[hawnz]

i don't like it. if i want to go kill some easy mob, why should it just not drop anything? i went back a lot in eq to zones i had outgrown and killed what i wanted. for me as a warrior, i never had a chance to solo anything, so that was the only way for me to do it. half the time i gave the loot to whoever was in the zone anyhow, but the point remains that i should still be able to do it if i want.

i can climb anywhere, go anywhere and jump off of anything i want to... but suddenly when i go kill something that is deemed too low for my level, it's loot "magically" poofs? come on. and what's a trivial fight for you might not be for me. there were tons of green cons in EQ that would totally own me one on one as a warrior, because i didn't have things like sow, snare, root, or any real "attack from afar" ability.

TLC hasn't worked in any game yet, and for good reason. I for one love to twink alternate characters. i have as much fun doing that as playing my main character. i feel the same way about level caps on items. get rid of them all. i don't even want soft caps on items, it makes no sense.

if you want to restrict items, do it in a manner that makes sense and has been used in RPGs since day one. give weapons STR and DEX requirements, because those weapons require that level of strength or skill to actually weild efficiently. basing it on levels doesn't make sense because levels aren't tangible. they're simply a means of measuring your experience meter.

let skill and ability stats determine how well you use an item, not some invisible level. let me decide whether or not i want to go to newb dungeon 5 and smash the main boss for his +2 ring of crap. don't make those decisions for me, because that's not a free environment and just serves to remind me that this is a contrived game and i'm being led along in the direction other people have decided for me.

[Skarlath]

Maybe a better alternative would simply to ensure that at every level there are numerous places to hunt, and numerous 'attractive drops' so that a player of the assumed 'correct level' will have somewhere to go. However the multitude of places to go will allow the odd high level to come back and do what Hawnz said he wants, without disrupting the lower levels too much.

But that doesn't go any distance to help stopping mudflation.

[Ieranii]

Could you explain to a non-EQer what went wrong with EQ's TLC? Was it just annoying and silly, to the point where it damaged immersion?

Trivial loot code was very limited in implementation when I left EQ. It did seem contrived and restrictive. Those were my main complaints. Ideally we shouldn't "have" to have those measures in place. Realistically I think we need something and I'd prefer TLC over no-drop.

Most of the complaints about TLC I've heard from others revolve around either:
Not being able to get items for quests
Not being able to get crafting items
Lack of freedom


Under what circumstances were people effected by it - why were high levels trying to snag newbie loot in the first place?

Other than feeling entirely contrived, it doesn't really do much, but it DOES protect the game and help it live a longer life. Or so I thought.


High levels snagged newbie loot for a variety of reasons.
Some would rather hunt their own crafting supplies.
Some sold the items (either online or on ebay).
Some farmed to twink alts and friends new to the game.

As a high level character who was a lower level tailor I generally hunted my own components. I tend to give away things in game and I am perpetually poor. TLC could have hurt my ability to craft if it had been used on the mobs I needed.

But it wasn't and honestly I can only think of a handful of zones it was used on. It really didn't effect me much.

You're right about the longevity though. In my opinion my experience as a tailor is a perfect example of why they might want to put in TLC.

TLC does encourage more balance in the economy. High levels have to farm higher level stuff for cash to buy the lower level items they want. That frees up those low level monsters for players who will get experience on them and provides money when they sell their treasures to those high level players. That makes sense to me.

As far as immersion goes...I'd rather we find an "Unidentifiable Fragment" on a monster than have a message that tells us the monster was trivial to us. Then I can flex and say "gosh I don't know my own strength! Look I crushed the contents of his bag!" The immersion arguement seems to me to be the one easiest to defuse.

[hawnz]

honestly, it's not really going to change mudflation. items are only limited to how fast they come into the world based on % chance of drop and time between respawn of the MOB that drops it. whether it's a group of players in the right level range that are farming that MOB, or a single high level player who is doing it, the influx of that item remains the same.

don't get me wrong tho. no high level player should be stomping over appropriate leveled players in the dungeon and taking their named/boss MOBs. that high level player needs to respect the rights of the lower level ones, and in a camp dispute, I would give the edge to the player group of lower level players than the high level farmer.

[hawnz]

by the way, every zone that EQ implemented TLC that i can think of became completely devoid of (player) life, and they had to go back and remove TLC to give life back to the zones.

[Ieranii]

honestly, it's not really going to change mudflation. items are only limited to how fast they come into the world based on % chance of drop and time between respawn of the MOB that drops it. whether it's a group of players in the right level range that are farming that MOB, or a single high level player who is doing it, the influx of that item remains the same.

True but I'd like to see that money/item start out in the economy in that lower level players pocket. :)



don't get me wrong tho. no high level player should be stomping over appropriate leveled players in the dungeon and taking their named/boss MOBs. that high level player needs to respect the rights of the lower level ones, and in a camp dispute, I would give the edge to the player group of lower level players than the high level farmer.

I agree with you there. When folks came into the zones I hunted silks in I would stop hunting and barter for silks (or whatever it was I was looking for). I'm not saying it's a great answer but I do think it might help and I'm willing to try it. I do wish they'd do the message a bit differently. Not so in-my-face with the TLC.

[Orlun]

by the way, every zone that EQ implemented TLC that i can think of became completely devoid of (player) life, and they had to go back and remove TLC to give life back to the zones.


But, if its TLC everywhere, then that point is moot.

[Therian]

TLC is what I'm used to, coming from FFXI. The only time I found it proved any true impediment to my gameplay was when I decided to level a new trade skill - and then only because I couldn't go nuke all the lowbie mobs in the area for a massive dropped crafting component hauls. [Which is probably precisely why TLC was implemented.]

From a player perspective, sure, when I become uber I wish I could go and make massive amounts of money really quickly with a few nuke spells and some tightly packed mobs. But given the relative disparity of dropped item worth v my level, I would have to "clear fell" entire zones of mobs to make it worthwhile. And if there were any low level items worth any real money (easy money!), then low levels would never get close to those mobs, because I would be there killing them. [Reason two for implementing trivial loot code.]

I would only consider TLC a problem if they designed their quests without thinking TLC through. If you're one level too high for an item's "drop range", then how do you complete the quest? Presumably they will be attempting to design quests so this doesn't happen (and even then, only important quests which are critical for advancement). It will be a particularly important thing to look out for in beta.

I do foresee a possible potential problem with TLC in Vanguard, depending on precisely how city resourcing works. If I understand the way work orders in crafting operate, it appears that the npcs giving you the crafting components to complete those work orders are drawing on a pool of city resources. And these resources have the potential to run low and will need to be restocked (presumably by player harvesters). The two-fold question is then:

How big a part in 'city resources' do dropped items play?

If they play no part, then obviously TLC is not an issue. If they do play a part, what happens when you have bunches of high level players providing high level dropped components, but no low level dropped components? Does the city mechanism fall over from lack of low level dropped components?

Does TLC apply to harvesting resources?

Given that Vanguard Harvesting is actually a _battle_ - it's an equivalent to adventuring combat - does that mean it will attract an equivalent TLC to prevent precisely the same bottom feeding adventuring TLC is supposed to stop? And if there is harvesting TLC, what happens to city resourcing as mentioned above?

As I said, I have no particular objection to TLC. It's what I'm used to. But all these things come down to implementation, and with a system as complex and interactive as Vanguard player cities (and npc cities), it's going to be interesting seeing how well all these issues are addressed.

[Orlun]

The biggest thing I might miss out on with TLC is harvesting tradeskill components. Sometimes, I used to love helping friends gather goods. Silk in EK was a common one... My high level rogue was immune to damage if I kept out of the way of the hill giants and it became a sort of mini game for use to race around and see who could collect the most silks. It was a good way to kill time in a relaxing way. We were aways respectfull of the younger players and left the spawns to them if they wanted them. That kind of fun I will miss.

[Loampounder]

The thing is that with TLC, it's all in the detail and the theory must be viewed in context, i.e. how does it function. A lot of the big problem I saw from EQ was that it was introduced late and people who had passed those levels complained. I think it could be very viable if started at the beginning and integrated deepingly into the loot balance.

Think about the process as a part of the entire package. As your character grows, you move onto new areas for growth purposes and because you want to see new areas. By instinct, most players stay on the wavefront of the challenge. If you do go into new lands that are not a challenge, usually you would kill a few things, notice the challenge, and move on without learning the loot table and missing the l33t stuff. Overall, you are playing the game for fun and challenge rather than loot.

The problem comes later, when players are bored. Either to make money or equip a twink, people look into the spoiler sites and find a place to camp. Hopefully a diverse, large world would not lead to too much boredom.
I just received an email asking me not to implement TLC in beta. Here is my response to that email just so everyone can read it. I also encourage you to dig up other posts I've made in the past about TLC.
WTF? Isn't beta about finding out that works and what doesn't? How can a person rationally complain about a game mechanic to a company president when he or she has on ever played the game? How do they know how TLC theory will be implemented? I could see people in beta, after playing, suggest that the idea does not go into beta, but who writes such a letter now?

[Sergo]

Really. Can I send Brad an email about my loathing of silvery cords and get a personal response? :rolleyes: For pity's sake, stick it in beta and see how it plays.

Sorry for the wee bit o'sarcasm there. As to the issue at hand, I can't see TLC affecting my playstyle one whit. Or even some fraction of a whit. And the stated goal, to make the lower-level game feel like it's worth playing, instead of rocketing to max level, is something vital to pursue.

See how it works in beta.

[hawnz]

what happens when you level past the trivial designation of a MOB that drops something you could actually use? how about jboots, shiny brass idols, FBSS's, that piece of rubicite that would complete your set, that novelty item that drops off a green con mob? Are you really going to force higher level players to purchase any item they have need or want for that drops off MOBs that are considered unchallenging to them?

i was really hoping VG would stay away from these contrived MMORPG devices. VG keeps promising the old school way of not holding hands and giving open freedom to the players, and yet probably the only thing VG is doing that is against the norm of the latest batch of dumb-me-down games is not having instancing.

soft caps, cords, trivial loot code, scaled buffs to prevent powerleveling, etc. PLEASE GIVE ME A SERVER WITH NONE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS SO I CAN FINALLY PLAY A GAME THE WAY "I" WANT TO PLAY IT! :mad:

[Orlun]

Now theres a thought. All VG servers with TLC enabled but one "Hawnz" server. Hawnz server is swamped with players... does Vanguard choke it up and change the rest?

Hawnz's post has me leaning back in the NoTlc column. :rolleyes:

[hawnz]

Now theres a thought. All VG servers with TLC enabled but one "Hawnz" server. Hawnz server is swamped with players... does Vanguard choke it up and change the rest?

Hawnz's post has me leaning back in the NoTlc column. :rolleyes:

it would probably be cheaper for brad to have me killed. what's a hitman cost these days on a no-name civilian? 5k? 10k?

[Ieranii]

it would probably be cheaper for brad to have me killed. what's a hitman cost these days on a no-name civilian? 5k? 10k?


Probably free if he offered a beta account. :p

[Loampounder]

what happens when you level past the trivial designation of a MOB that drops something you could actually use? how about jboots, shiny brass idols, FBSS's, that piece of rubicite that would complete your set, that novelty item that drops off a green con mob? Are you really going to force higher level players to purchase any item they have need or want for that drops off MOBs that are considered unchallenging to them?
A) There would be something better at your level. The crux of the program is for Sigil to make sure that there is better, more useful items for you in challenging areas.
B) Are you really upset that you cannot waltz in, kill a green, and pick your uber loot? I don't think there should be guaranteed rewards in the game on simple items.
C) There is an assumption that the player knows the special item is there. Players do not casually hunt in areas that are green; if the boss is trivial then his minions are Sesame Street to you - why even be there? If you have not been in the area when it was challenging (and why did you not get the item there then?) then why would you know where it is or what it does? With EQ 3 years old and plenty of spoiler sites, it was easy for us to know; a new game should be wide enough and itemized enough not to know or care.
D) From three, I know players would be upset because they could not tailor their equipment from information off of a spoiler site that tells them what to kill and where to kill it. If the boss was trivial, it just makes it look pathetic. Do game designers really want to take into account this "spoiler site shopping"?
E) If you don't like TLC, you must rank the "don't like high levels farming and bothering low level players" pretty low in importance. Why? Is this not a problem? As Brad says, the only other way to reduce farming is to make less good loot.

Personally I really think it would be trivial for high level players to buy the item they want. I see very few people wanting lower-level items and those who do can affort lower level items. I think the ability to reduce farming and focus people on challenging content MUCH more beneficial than a few people who want lower level items.

[Sergo]

Are you really going to force higher level players to purchase any item they have need or want for that drops off MOBs that are considered unchallenging to them?

I really would. Really.

All farming implications aside, I don't understand why paying for an item with plat, or trading some item I earned, is less fun than whacking a green mob to get the item with no risk. Add back in the effect of pharmers taking spawns from legitimate players, and TLC is worth a serious look.

[hawnz]

A) There would be something better at your level. The crux of the program is for Sigil to make sure that there is better, more useful items for you in challenging areas.

it's impossible to make items that across the board continue to "get better" as you progress, because "better" is subjective. If you played many MMORPGs, you know that you can end up having an armor slot filled with an item you got 10-20 levels ago, because you haven't been able to acquire something that better replaces it. why should it be forbidden to go back and kill MOBs that would drop an upgrade for me, even if that MOB is a green con? why should i have any less right to fight for an upgrade as a lower level player. the end result is the same, we both want that item. the lower level player just happens to get experience as well.



B) Are you really upset that you cannot waltz in, kill a green, and pick your uber loot? I don't think there should be guaranteed rewards in the game on simple items.

are you really that upset that you can't climb to the top of that mountain? are you really that upset that the game won't let you jump off this 3 mile high cliff? are you really that upset that you can't actually swim "under" the water? yes, all things things really upset me personally. when you market your game as open ended and as giving back the freedom to the players that current games have removed, then it really frustrates me when you say "buttttt... if you kill anything that cons green, we're going to make it's loot magically "poof"."

everything is a guaranteed reward in a game. if you kill a mob that isn't green con, you're guaranteed experience. if you gather all the components you need for your recipe, you're guaranteed a new creation. if you hit level 20, you're guaranteed a new ability. if you finish your quest, you're guaranteed some kind of reward. when you kill a mob, you should be guaranteed to loot whatever he had on it. no one said anything about "uber" either.

something you need or want doesn't need to be "uber". i spent endless weeks in crystal caverns, grouping and raiding so i could complete my full set of crystalline armor. not because it was all that uber, but because it gave my druid a full silver plate appearance, which was much more valuable to me than uber stats.



C) There is an assumption that the player knows the special item is there. Players do not casually hunt in areas that are green; if the boss is trivial then his minions are Sesame Street to you - why even be there? If you have not been in the area when it was challenging (and why did you not get the item there then?) then why would you know where it is or what it does? With EQ 3 years old and plenty of spoiler sites, it was easy for us to know; a new game should be wide enough and itemized enough not to know or care.

the assumption that the playerbase knows would be correct. you don't need spoiler sites to have knowledge of where things drop and what mobs are where, especially if you're in a guild. I actively seek these things out in game. the fact that the boss is trivial has no factor in whether or not he drops something of value to me.

i'm not going there to kill him for experience, i'm killing him because he has something i need. i guarantee if you fill a dungeon with MOBs that give a 10% exp bonus, but never any loot and no named mobs, people would choose the normal dungeon without the experience bonus because loot drops there and there are named MOBs.

i don't know if you played the same EQ game that I did, but even from the beginning people knew where the good loot was. it certainly didn't take 3 years to happen. it takes a few weeks and just asking people questions when they're selling or wearing items that you're interested in.



D) From three, I know players would be upset because they could not tailor their equipment from information off of a spoiler site that tells them what to kill and where to kill it. If the boss was trivial, it just makes it look pathetic. Do game designers really want to take into account this "spoiler site shopping"?


whether they want to take it into account or not, it's going to happen. and it's not necessarily a bad thing, as it's pretty much a part of the game. websites like thesafehouse wouldn't even exist otherwise. don't clump all spoiler sites into the same pool. there's nothing wrong with a collective effort to work things out, discover things, solve quests, and collaborate to take a community worth of information and use it to the benefit of the community. guild websites, class websites, map sites, beastiary sites. the list goes on, and they all serve their own purpose, good or bad or indifferent.

i also would bet money that anybody on this forum who played EQ at one time used some form of a spoiler to acquire an item or figure out where to hunt or where certain NPCs and quests were.



E) If you don't like TLC, you must rank the "don't like high levels farming and bothering low level players" pretty low in importance. Why? Is this not a problem? As Brad says, the only other way to reduce farming is to make less good loot.


the only difference between high level farming and low level farming is that the low levels get experience as well. as you get better in real life as a hunter/gamer, should you be limited to only hunting for tigers and marlin? maybe i like shooting deer or bottom fishing for snapper. who's right is it to tell me not to do that?

and again, item influx into a server is ONLY DECIDED BY SPAWN RATE AND % CHANCE OF ITEM DROP. whether you have a group of low level players camping that spot or high level players doing it, the ammount of those items entering the server remains the SAME. call one farming if you want, but in the end, the result is the same.

also, i've already stated that the high level players will need to adhere to the same "play nice policy" as anyone else. they can't just roll into a dungeon and take over a camp that the low level players are at.



Personally I really think it would be trivial for high level players to buy the item they want. I see very few people wanting lower-level items and those who do can affort lower level items. I think the ability to reduce farming and focus people on challenging content MUCH more beneficial than a few people who want lower level items.

that's fine if you want to buy those items, but don't make the decision for me. if you want to buy those items, you still can even if they remove TLC. with TLC, i'm not even given a choice. and again, TLC doesn't reduce farming.

i'd also have to say you not seeing people wanting lower level items to be counter-arguement to what you've been saying. if people didn't want those items, they wouldn't be there "farming" them, right? and if they didn't want those items, you wouldn't need TLC because they wouldn't be going to those trivial places to kill MOBs that drop items they don't want anyhow.

you can't visually "see" whether my desire for that item is for myself, to sell, for a friend, or for an alternate character of mine, so you can't determine why i want that item or what i'm going to do with it. you can ask me and i'd tell you, but people just assume i'm there to ebay it.

personally, as a warrior, i never had much money, even at high levels. casters always got the vendor junk to cover spell components. and i never rolled on loot that i couldn't use (spells and gear), unless no one else could use it either. so for me to equip a twink or a friend, or actually make some money to buy items that would upgrade myself, sometimes i would have to go to those mid-level dungeons (like lower guk) and kill green con mobs so i could support myself or my friend or my alternate character.

i don't see how this is wrong, as it was the only means for me to do so unless i went and bought plat on ebay, or started being greedy in groups, rollign on things other people could actually need and were the appropriate level for! what to do, what to do...

[Orlun]

Brad piped in today with an interesting possible modification to TLC.

The idea, thanks to this thread, that I'm mulling over in my head the most and will be discussing with others at Sigil is as follows:

If there was a way to track things in the database and let a player get an item too low level for them ONCE.

I'm not sure how that would or could work technically, but will look into it.

I also have concern about those companies who buy tons of accounts to farm and then sell for RL $$ and who would just buy that many more copies, or make that many more characters... (then again, we've promised to try to battle these folk without resorting to measures that end up harming the game more than they are).

But worth thinking about and I appreciate people looking for solutions and tweaks that could make the systems we want to try out in beta better.

That would solve a few quest related problems I have with TLC.

[Damned]

I can hear the programming and data base teams start crying when brad makes posts like this ;)

[Garioch]

My experience with the TLC and No Drop tags was this:
It would utterly disgust me to see high level players in a mid level zone training, farming, and basically laying camp claim to the entire area just to farm plat.
My wife and I would spend days in Rathe Mountains getting groups to kill the hill giants because we in the level range that they were good Xp for us, and poor enough where even spilt between 5 or 6 of the the 10 to 30 plat drops were sweet cash for us.
But we were being constantly frustrated by kill stealers and zone campers. Once the Hill Giants greened out to us, we never went back to hunt that zone.

The No Drop nerfs alot of the content.
There are many many quests in EQ that most the population on most the servers are not aware of becuase the item is no drop once it is obtained. If people cannot sell them, then those who are looking for gear upgrades do not get exposed to them, and like me, take the time to look up where they come from.
I did many quests like that because I wanted to know where something dropped, and then went about getting it, making it, whatever.....

Does it have to potential to ruin the in game economy? Yes it does, but only when the activites are not properly marshalled, and the game developers constantly back pedal off the rules instead of enforcing them.
Sony is exploiting its own game now to the point were honest folk who enjoy progression through achievement cannot stomach to play it.

This new addition to the MMOG genre is the only thing keeping me online and in game, as I patiently await its public debut (unless the gods decree I should be chosen for beta....)

I enjoy questing and tradeskilling, they are the perfect things to do when you are LFG for an hour or two.

Garioch

Stepping up next to him on the precipice Toulin turned to Garioch. Noting the look of utter despair the Ranger bore in the face of the evil before them, he said in soft tones,
“How can you feel that the gods have forsaken us, when indeed, we are here together?
If they had truly given us up to hopelessness, we would be here alone, completely.”
Quoted from the text: Epoch’s End

[hawnz]

hill (sand, and ice) giants are a good example of why people need to go back and "farm" mobs. they dropped more coin than most MOBs significantly harder than them. so you go from killing hill giants and making a good chunk of change each kill, to moving on to harder MOBs that drop hardly any coin. if the monetary progression continued, you wouldn't have the issue. so in this case, it's the developer's fault for encouraging farming by putting something (money) that's valuable to everyone, despite their level on a mid-level MOB. it's only natural for all players to want to kill those MOBs, regardless of whether or not they give experience.

and on a side note, giants were serious undercons. they should have continued to give experience long after they conned green.

[Therian]

hill (sand, and ice) giants are a good example of why people need to go back and "farm" mobs. they dropped more coin than most MOBs significantly harder than them. so you go from killing hill giants and making a good chunk of change each kill, to moving on to harder MOBs that drop hardly any coin. if the monetary progression continued, you wouldn't have the issue. so in this case, it's the developer's fault for encouraging farming by putting something (money) that's valuable to everyone, despite their level on a mid-level MOB. it's only natural for all players to want to kill those MOBs, regardless of whether or not they give experience.

and on a side note, giants were serious undercons. they should have continued to give experience long after they conned green.

Sounds like a good example of a fault in the design, that it was more profitable to kill something far lower than you.

[Garioch]

I was a large advocate that once a mob greens out, it drops only epic pieces and gives faction. And that is all.
I would have made the raid level minimum apply as well to nerf that loop hole.
This would have forced higher level toons to interact with the lower level toons, which compliments the community and develops mentorship.

I remember the higher level Cleric in Paineel that showed me all kinds of things in that zone that made it much easier to survive there and I was grateful for his sharing of knowledge. (wife and I struggled in game clueless until we were level 52 before we joined our first guild)

Garioch

[Feyshtey]

I'm supportive of attempts to create a good TLC system. The longevity of the game is paramount, and so many aspects of farming greens for loot damages that. Not the least of which being the secondary market.

In that TLC thread, there were suggestions (that I've made before *cough*) of allowing a flag for designated item types. Layers of those flags could satisfy most of the concerns from both camps (pro- and anti-TLC).

First, don't apply TLC to 'items' in general. You categorize all things in the game and only apply TLC to those for which it's appropriate.

Tradeskill items don't qualify for TLC. In fact anything that's consumable doesn't qualify. If it is removed from the gameworld on use, then it shouldn't have too large an impact on mudflation. So things like hides from animals could still be farmed, removing the negative impact on low level tradeskillers with high adventuring levels. Basically, anything associated with character progression beyond loot doesn't qualify. Tradeskill items are, after all, associated with character progression (since you use them to advance in crafting). This includes things like quest items, keys, etc.

Second, you create tiers of flags, associated with both the items that should be subject to TLC, and to characters. A given item is assigned a flag appropriate to itself. Maybe that particular item can be looted 1 time only by any given character, reserved for the most valuable and sought items. Anyone can loot that item once, ever, regardless of their level. If they get thier hands on it, and it's that valuable, they'd be foolish to just sell it off rather than use it. If their race/class combination can't use it, they have one oppurtunity to sell the item for profit. But in either case, they can't just sit and farm it, contributing to mudflation, and removing the incentive for others in the gamespace who want it to go and earn it.

These tiers of flags could be scaled according to value and/or risk of obtaining the item. Maybe you can loot it 4x before TLC is activated for your character.

For any immersiveness or realism arguments, I just don't see them as valid. It's no more or less immersive for an item not to drop off of a mob more than once, than it is to kill the same named mob 50 times or more to obtain 50 of a given item. Or 2 for that matter.

The key is in striking the balance. TLC has a valid purpose. But it's implementation should be taken seriously.

[Elrar (of Silky Venom)]

Sounds like a good example of a fault in the design, that it was more profitable to kill something far lower than you.


See, and this is one thing I never understood about EQ, it almost solicited farming.

I was pretty poor in EQ, I had alot of uber gear, but I never had time to go and actually pay to make profit, it was all focused purely on gaining AA's. Luckily in PoFire diamonds weren't a rarity, but those only go for ~200pp a pop. And you have to split these with group members, so you might only make a couple of K after 8+ hours of playing. Wheras I could just go to dulak, kill all of the boats no sweat in under 5 minutes, get tons of precious stones, and other things that sold for 20+pp and the occasional named with item drop, and walk away with oh probably upwards 5k an hour.

Bad design was deffinately a flaw in EQ, and the fact that in order to make money, you either had to farm well below your level, exploit, or work the bazaar market.

I hate standing around in the bazaar, so when I needed my 20kpp per peice for my Qvic armor, I had no choice but to farm.

It was boring and dull...I really hope the fix the adventurers money flow with Vanguard, and actually make it profitable to play and gain finances with content at your level.

I know I normally hawked my wares off to resellers, because I hated standing in the bazaar. So I lost alot of profit.

[Loampounder]

That was not my impression from EQ, but then I come from a day and age when no one talked about “K pp”, especially not in terms of an hourly revenue. The economy and balance in EQ has not quite been kosher for a while.

My impression was the giants were great loot only consider soloing. A group could make much more money at a good site, namely pulling in high level dungeons for “trash” rewards like fine steel. If you could not get a decent group that kept the mobs flowing, giants were obvious sources of coin. Even then, soloing was mainly for casters who could kite. It was easy and guaranteed money you could do by yourself.

I agree that there is a lot of fine-tuning of TLC that needs to be done. Quest items need to be build so that they are not covered by TLC. I think EQ2 had a subtle TLC system that functioned well. I do think TLC is a good tool in balancing, since simple balancing by lot value alone is very hard.

[Feyshtey]

I agree that there is a lot of fine-tuning of TLC that needs to be done. Quest items need to be build so that they are not covered by TLC. I think EQ2 had a subtle TLC system that functioned well. I do think TLC is a good tool in balancing, since simple balancing by lot value alone is very hard.

EQ2 did/does use TLC (it did at release at any rate). But it certainly had it's failing points. One specific failure I know impacted me, was in crafting drops. While you could farm greens all day for crafting components, the recipe's for items were often dropped (books). And those recipes were subject to TLC. I myself found myself in a position where I was unable to create some in-demand items because I lacked the recipes. And I was not able to adventure myself to get them because my level was too high.

Also in EQ, you were able to turn off xp gains if you chose to. And I know with certainty that there were people who turned off xp gains on alts in order to stay and farm items that were unavailable but still desired by higher level players.

One of the intents of TLC is to curb the disruptive high levels from interfering with appropriate leveled characters. In EQ2's case, they merely shifted the disruption of the high levels, to the higher level's appropriate level alts. And the recipe prices were inflated because of it.

[Loampounder]

I played a provisioner, so I did not know anything about the recipe books. They did seem pretty common, and I usually just sold them as junk. There seemed little point to selling them on the market because they went for little coin as people underbid just to dump them. Perhaps there were specific books that were valuable and the general population did not know about them?

I don't understand it when you say the problem was shifted to alts. Sure, camping may be an issue, but if the content is level-appropriate, then it's not the same problem. I wonder if mentoring took care of this issue.

[hawnz]

you have to be careful with the "one time only" rule. camps and social points are built around combination xp/loot spots. if you make it one time loot only, you're both killing the incentive to stay at that spot, and you're also almost guaranteeing anyone who wants that item the ability to get one, since no one will be camping there. it will also bring up grouping issues.

/shout "anyone want to group at frenzied?"
/glip ooc's "nah, already got that"
/brad ooc's "another yak rotting, we all have gotten one already"
/jansan auctions "selling my paper hat"
abigale shouts "SH*T, i just dinged, and now frenzied spawned and cons green. can someone come revive me after i suicide, so i delevel?"



and on a side note, TLC is once again not going to prevent farming. if nothing else, you will end up seeing high levels using their alt characters (with their help/buffs/heals/clearing out all the non-named) to kill the MOBs that drop the loot they want to circumvent to TLC coding.

[Feyshtey]

I don't understand it when you say the problem was shifted to alts. Sure, camping may be an issue, but if the content is level-appropriate, then it's not the same problem. I wonder if mentoring took care of this issue.

I was refering to situations where people had alts with xp gain turned off, so that they could remain in lower level areas indefinately farming items subject to TLC rules.

[Orlun]

Hawnz, are you refering to the one time only rule on TLC that Aradune posted? If so, that only applies to content that is below your level range. If the encounter gives xp, then you can loot normally.

[Dillgaar]

I think my experiences are similar to those around here in terms of TLC vs pharming for necessity vs pharming for cash...

In terms of TLC, I used to play in stonebrunt mountains trying to get items to quest for my SK, I was questing for a wakazashi of the frozen skies and the ONLY things (besides the elder pandas which were blue at the time) that dropped the items needed were green mobs.

My sk couldn't have done the quest and I couldn't have improved my faction with the kerran's if I hadn't been able to do these sorts of quests.

It was an ok weapon for his level but it was a nice quest weapon I could get for him fairly easily (after pharming some greenies) no one was in zone and when there were, I would share spawns or group up... if TLC was there I would have been screwed as My SK couldn't really use any items from mobs that I could have killed for exp as a good deal of them had level restrictions (most of them were no drop anyways) and anything he could get on his own wasn't really worth getting.

This was in the early levels before 30... in EQ it is tough for characters of those levels... but as Brad has said he wants to itemize more for players of these levels so maybe TLC wouldn't be so bad...

In terms of pharming for necessity, like many of you I had to pharm for crafting items... it just has to be done... skins here, silks there... etc etc etc... lots of time spent to get the items and most of it done on greenies, in terms of TLC this would have screwed me (unless TLC allowed for trade items to drop without any special items that may go with it). So unless something is added to keep people from having to pharm lower level critters for things such as tailoring or made them available on all level creatures then this could be a problem when combined with TLC.

As for pharming for profit, a lot of people did this... why fight a long time with serious risk to get something that would be about the same amount of plat as a whole bunch of lower level items from greenie mobs at little to no risk and about the same time frame. I ran into this a lot and even ended up doing it myself when I was desperate for cash... it sucks... as Brad and many of you mentioned the influx of these types of items that are used merely for cash created mudflation and then these items become worthless so in essence people following this practice tend to shoot themselves in the foot... and if you dont get on a trend fast you will miss out... IN my opinion TLC is great for controlling this type of behavior and as I stated in the above examples, as long as there are considerations of some type for my first two concerns then TLC could and would be a fitting piece to keep things in control enough to stabalize the economy without criplling any other group of players in the process.

[Eclipse]

I'm so sick and tired of hearing people say TLC sucks only because of their experience with one form of it in another game. The examples I keep hearing revolve around specific instances in EQ1 or EQ2 where TLC ruined their lives. Vanguard is not EQ. Please remember that.

Was TLC in EQ1 right from the beginning? I was told no it was not. That means the game was not set up to support the system. The main problems I see are the fact that some quest items and crafting items were affected by the code of EQ...that does not mean they will be affected for Vanguard. When they come into a new game and announce they want to implement this from the beginning and make sure everything flows and works well with the code, and KNOWING the pitfalls of EQ2's TLC, I have much higher hopes than most people do.

You cannot gauge future success on past grievances, it is an irresponsible way of looking at a situation. I have noted the disadvantages and the advantages from arguments made by players and by Brad. I keep hearing angry players state that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, but have no solid evidence to back that up. Brad has stated how he will do things, now the onus is on the accuser to bring evidence forward to prove his method is flawed. The onus is not on him at this point.

How do we come upon this evidence? We beta test the game with the code in it. We keep our flapping gums to a dull roar until we know with assurance how it will work before we completely rag on it. But if it turns out to be a faulty system, we step up and make it known. Sorry to rant, but sometimes people get way too caught up in the sins of the past and let it cloud their judgment before they are even given something to judge.

Keep an open mind, that's all I ask.

-Eclipse

[hawnz]

i don't understand why people are differentiating between farming for tradeskills and farming for items. it's the same thing. you can't say one is wrong and the other ok. if i should be forced to buy items that drop from mobs that are lower level than me, then you better damned well make crafters buy items that drop from lower level mobs as well.

however, i'd rather not see either one of us have to. let's be honest, if you can get the same tradeskill components from lower level mobs as from higher level mobs, you're gonna go farm the easier, lower level mobs because the end result is you get more of the item you need at less risk.

when they implemented the guk faction quest, i spent friggin weeks in lguk killing undead froglocks to build faction. i didn't even care about loot, and everything in the zone was a seriously green con. but i was there because i needed something, whether or not that zone offered me a challenge.

but as you can see, a lot of this revolves around design flaw. but i think it's impossible to avoid all these flaws without sacrificing something else or causing problems elsewhere.

[Feyshtey]

i don't understand why people are differentiating between farming for tradeskills and farming for items. it's the same thing. you can't say one is wrong and the other ok. if i should be forced to buy items that drop from mobs that are lower level than me, then you better damned well make crafters buy items that drop from lower level mobs as well.



Sure you can.

Farming tradeskill items that are then consumed in the process of tradeskilling does not create a glut of that item in the gameworld, and therefore does not contribute to mudflation.

Farming tradeskill items is a necessity for someone to do in order to advance in crafting. It's a needed means to progress. You have to be able to get the items to advance at all. This is not the case with cash or loot. You will gain the loot or cash through regular play on encounters that provide a challenge. You will not gain low level tradeskill items while doing high level adventure groups for a challenge.

[Eclipse]

You're right about the design flaws, but wrong about it being impossible to avoid.
If you take any example you can think of and then ask yourself what could have been changed to make it work with a TLC code, you might find a few little details.
For instance, everyone always talks about needing to kill lower level mobs in order to collect tradeskill items, but everyone is just used to that. What if that didn't happen at all? What if the collecting of said materials that would have TLC conflicting situations in EQ are set up in a different way to avoid the trouble in Vanguard?
With VG's TLC, perhaps items still do drop from "green con" mobs, but not weapons or armor or wands of any sort. Perhaps their basic loot still drops and is worth nothing except to crafters and vendors? That would be a soft code, and would work perfectly. No more grinding low lvl mobs for xp and phat loot...but the tradeskill guys could go and kill them for 'sinew' (for example) that is worth nothing to anyone BUT the crafter.

I have to get going, but the possibilities are endless. When they know they have a TLC to implement when they begin to develop, then they can more efficiently set it up.

Class is in session, and I'm late.
Chau!

-Eclipse

[hawnz]

I'm so sick and tired of hearing people say TLC sucks only because of their experience with one form of it in another game. The examples I keep hearing revolve around specific instances in EQ1 or EQ2 where TLC ruined their lives. Vanguard is not EQ. Please remember that.

Was TLC in EQ1 right from the beginning? I was told no it was not. That means the game was not set up to support the system. The main problems I see are the fact that some quest items and crafting items were affected by the code of EQ...that does not mean they will be affected for Vanguard. When they come into a new game and announce they want to implement this from the beginning and make sure everything flows and works well with the code, and KNOWING the pitfalls of EQ2's TLC, I have much higher hopes than most people do.

You cannot gauge future success on past grievances, it is an irresponsible way of looking at a situation. I have noted the disadvantages and the advantages from arguments made by players and by Brad. I keep hearing angry players state that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, but have no solid evidence to back that up. Brad has stated how he will do things, now the onus is on the accuser to bring evidence forward to prove his method is flawed. The onus is not on him at this point.

How do we come upon this evidence? We beta test the game with the code in it. We keep our flapping gums to a dull roar until we know with assurance how it will work before we completely rag on it. But if it turns out to be a faulty system, we step up and make it known. Sorry to rant, but sometimes people get way too caught up in the sins of the past and let it cloud their judgment before they are even given something to judge.

Keep an open mind, that's all I ask.

-Eclipse

just to make a point...

all the games using TLC have failed in some degree. i think what proof there is clearly shows that TLC has never been successful, and thus the burden of proof has already been provided by the anti-TLC crowd. we've seen it done, we've seen it fail. how can we not use that as our sources of reference in regards to another game giving it a whirl?

the truth of the matter is developers don't care about higher levels camping low level spots. they care about trying to control how much money comes into the game. that's why EQ NPC vendors don't pay squat for 99% of the items you loot. that's why horses cost so much. that's why there are money sinks.

the faster you accumulate wealth, the more quickly you can buy yourself upgrades, the more powerful you become and quicker you level, and eventually, the faster you get bored with the game and cancel your subsciption. money sinks, time sinks, epic (unfinished) quests, item restrictions. they're all progression control tools that devs use to slow you down and keep you paying. call me a cynic, but that's my observation after 6+ years of playing MMORPGs.

[hawnz]

Sure you can.

Farming tradeskill items that are then consumed in the process of tradeskilling does not create a glut of that item in the gameworld, and therefore does not contribute to mudflation.

Farming tradeskill items is a necessity for someone to do in order to advance in crafting. It's a needed means to progress. You have to be able to get the items to advance at all. This is not the case with cash or loot. You will gain the loot or cash through regular play on encounters that provide a challenge. You will not gain low level tradeskill items while doing high level adventure groups for a challenge.

that's simply incorrect. the tradeskill items are not consumed, they are transfered into a new product. so for every 3 hides and a spiderleg hair you farm, you're putting a piece of armor into the market, creating your said mudflation. absolutely no difference.

if you read my post, i stated that if tradeskill items drop from MOBs your own level and on much easier MOBs, you're going to be farming those easy MOBs because you can accumulate more tradeskill items in a faster time.

your tradeskill progression is no different combat progression. the better my gear, the faster i progress and the more efficient i am in combat. gear costs money, more money than can simply be gained by xp grouping. if i need to go farm lower level MOBs for items to sell and then buy myself the gear i need, ijust progressed in a very likewise way that you would through your tradeskill component farming.

if i can't progress by killing green mobs, why should you be able to progress by killing green mobs?


edit: and if i can make enough money to buy gear through normal grouping, you should have enough money to buy tradeskill components by selling the creations you make right?

[Feyshtey]

Well, all of our arguments are largely based on paradigms of the past, and many not applicable at all to Vanguard.

For instance, there isn't likely to be the same kind of tradeskill item farming in Vanguard. At least not in terms of requiring advancement. You get the supplies you need to advance from the NPC's who give you work orders. Supplies gathere would really only be needed for sellable products.

In your argument about the consumables being transfered to end items (in other games), you're absolutely right. But in those systems rarely were the created items realistically sellable anyway. ANd were instead vendor fodder. Equipment gained while advnenturing was nearly universally superior. But I do see your point.

TLC is one of those things that simply cannot be accurately judged without knowing the full spectrum of the systems used in the game. I am 100% confident that a TLC system could be created in a game designed with it from the start, that does less harm than it's absence. I just don't think anyone has considered it carefully enough from the start to date.

I'm more than willing to entertain whatever ideas Sigil wants to try out in beta though. And I'll be the first to pan it if it sucks.

[hawnz]

i know, it needs to be tested first. i'm just so tired off all these MMORPG gimmicks, when i know there's a really strong chance that it's still going to suck, and that even if it does suck, that the devs have already made up their mind, long before we even started testing it and regardless of what we say about it.

maybe VG will be different, but i'm not so sure. i've tested a lot of games, and major features such as these rarely get put into beta and then tossed out.

[Dillgaar]

that's simply incorrect. the tradeskill items are not consumed, they are transfered into a new product. so for every 3 hides and a spiderleg hair you farm, you're putting a piece of armor into the market, creating your said mudflation. absolutely no difference.


This in a way is incorrect if you look at how the devs are planning to run tradeskill levelling up... in cases like these the components will be used to make itesm which will then be turned in for quests which would then yield the experience... we have not yet heard any details as to how quest vs construction experience is going to be split with tradeskills but until then I will reserve my judgement


if you read my post, i stated that if tradeskill items drop from MOBs your own level and on much easier MOBs, you're going to be farming those easy MOBs because you can accumulate more tradeskill items in a faster time.

This won't be the case if the devs create a constant source of these components on all varieties of levels of mobs and institute a decent TLC to help push the players to fight mobs of their own level to get the comps from


your tradeskill progression is no different combat progression. the better my gear, the faster i progress and the more efficient i am in combat. gear costs money, more money than can simply be gained by xp grouping. if i need to go farm lower level MOBs for items to sell and then buy myself the gear i need, ijust progressed in a very likewise way that you would through your tradeskill component farming.

The same goes for crafting... you will need crafting gear to be able to sufficiently harvest the resources you will need. While fighting you may come across items that will help you both in combat as well as with crafting... the same goes with crafting... in combat you will need to be successful in defeating your opponents to gain exp in crafting you will need to be successful at creating items, to be successful in combat you will nead gear, to be successful in crafting you will need gear and components which are consumed in the process.

In terms of being able to progress better, if you are pharming greenies for cash to buy better gear, you would bne better off fighting mobs of your own level in a group to get gear. The money you would get from green mobs will be negligible to the items you could get from fighting mobs your level plus you would be advancing in your combat sphere. IN terms of pharming for items the same could be said for crafters, fighting higher level mobs would yield components but depending on your combat skill, you could be fighting mobs that drop components that are way above your crafting level and therefore are forced to fight greens to get comps... of course you could buy them from someone but then you get into the problems of being able to find the comps as well as the lower levels driving up prices on simple common comps just to make a buck. being able to go back to fight greens to get comps isnt a gereat solution, a better one would be to put the common comp drops on all levels of mobs to counterbalance this and drop in TLC to keep the players from going to the greens for the comps


if i can't progress by killing green mobs, why should you be able to progress by killing green mobs?


because the combat progress and the crafting progress have different dynamics... at your combat level if you tried to advance at crafting and your crafting was lower level than your combat you would probably have to make items that are useless to you to catch up. Unless your crafting and combat levels were close enough to make use of the items you craft then I can see how pharming greens could be the only option. Again adding the common comps on mobs of all levels and adding TLC would help with this.


edit: and if i can make enough money to buy gear through normal grouping, you should have enough money to buy tradeskill components by selling the creations you make right?

right and wrong...

IN VG we really are only going to be able to focus on one sphere at a time without suffering greatly in our progress to them all...

to continue grouping to get the cash to pay for tradeskill comps would lead to you eventually outlevelling more sources of the comps and possibly your gear in general... then you would have to re-equip yourself to make yourself useful to a group again and therefore have lost the profit you were making to cover the crafting you wanted to do to begin with... in the end you would nearly have to buy or collect your first comps, make gear, sell that gear and then turn around and use that profit to continue crafting, it would be hard to squeeze in buying adventuring gear during this time while trying to scrape together enough cash to buy comps, at this point it is easier to pharm greens... racing to the highest level and then turning around and starting crafting once you have maxxed out may be the way to go in the end, by then you will have all of your gear and you will have the coffers to supply a good deal of crafting and if you need more you know where to get it at the higher levels...

I think TLC will have its uses but I think there has to be more then just popping in the TLC like what happened in games that came before, and YES we do look at the past failures if only to avoid what happened back then andf to hopefully drive forward with new ideas and altered concepts as to how exactly TLC could fit into a system instead of being piggy backed onto it...

[Loampounder]

i know, it needs to be tested first. i'm just so tired off all these MMORPG gimmicks, when i know there's a really strong chance that it's still going to suck, and that even if it does suck, that the devs have already made up their mind, long before we even started testing it and regardless of what we say about it.

maybe VG will be different, but i'm not so sure. i've tested a lot of games, and major features such as these rarely get put into beta and then tossed out.
I have seen a number of things (like silvery cords, sheathing, maps) that Sigil has all ready announced changes from the initial arrangement. Brad has said repeatedly that they understand they must learn from past mistakes. Despite all of the experienced, wise, and well-meaning voices on this forum and OVF, the Sigil team still has much more insight and experience in building MMO's. Perhaps I'm just being a fanboi, but I trust that they are not blinded by their own intellect. I do not get that "I am right so there" attitude from Brad, despite the concept of "the vision(tm)" as being set in concrete.

There are upsides and downsides and I enjoy talking about the issue in an academic way. But in the end, data rules. It needs to be in beta, and then if there are problems we don't like, we should get specific then.

[Eburk]

Could someone explain to me what TLC is? Don't really have time to scan, working on homework.

[hawnz]

trivial loot code

if you're fighting a MOB that is considered too easy for you, when the MOB dies, the game program code makes any loot it had on it "poof". so basically, you don't get any loot from green con mobs.

[Orlun]

Could someone explain to me what TLC is? Don't really have time to scan, working on homework.


Here you go
http://www.silkyvenom.com/forums/faq.php?faq=faq_22#faq_22_21

[Eburk]

Much obliged :)

I know WoW didn't have any sort of TLC established...you would see lots of players farming lowbie areas for items they needed and such (I'll admit, I did this for feather components a few times) and just using the greens/blues to skill up their newly-acquired enchanting skill instead of helping those who could actually use the item.

[Eclipse]

Yes it's true, but I don't hold too too much sympathy for the guy who can't make an alt and do it with the alt instead.
Some will say: "What is the difference? It's the same player!" Yes it is the same player, but the whole point is risk vs reward. The lvl 50 has absolutely no risk, whereas the alt might.
I am so not done writing about this! :D

-Eclipse

[Heloisa]

I have faith in Brad and the developers to implement TLC responsibly. I agree that they've probably looked at the past mistakes made in other MMO's and won't use TLC as just another gimmick.

I guess we'll just have to wait and find out. :)