Lately we have seen changes to a few ranking mobs, to make them a bit beefier. As an aside, I don't mind these changes as these ranking spots where already inferior to other places, and I rarely used them much. It's probably appropriate to say, that I usually play characters that can rank well, like bards or sword spec warriors or what not.

I think there is a nice selection of ranking areas available in CF. Different spots require different eq, group setup and strategy, which is great. Also, some areas have low risk/low reward vs. others with high risk/reward.

Areas like Azuremain were grinder areas, with low risk, no spec moves, but also slow to kill, with no vulns and a fairly high amount of hp. When compared to an area like Darsylon or Eregion with iron vulns, and similar, if not lower hp and comparable exp, the exp/time ratio will be higher, but there's a catch. These areas require something other than endless grind and an ok tank. Azuremain was a place of choice for most players, why? Because it was easy. Much in the same way as easy to get eq is more usual than harder to get better quality pieces, not because poor quality is coveted (the item limits aside), but because it's easier to get.

So, who will suffer from the removal of these grinder areas? Poor groups, newer players and players who prefer classes that don't offer much utility against hard ranking areas. Not to mention, the overall variety of different ranking spots that are avilable in cf.

So, my suggestion would be, let the game have both dumb mobs and smart mobs, so different groups can benefit accordingly, and play to the strengths they have, and other can focus on something else. If you feel that a good balance of risk/reward is not struck, alter the reward (exp, notice this can be done by upping the exp of hard areas, or lowering it in easier ones), or the time it takes to kill the mobs (hp, tanking or damredux).

Either way, as I previously said, it does not concern me personally very much, but I thought I'd share my oppinions after reading the nth OMG WTF GAY post on changes, as I think my evaluation is fairly objective, and has a point.

elmeri

With consideration to newbies, there should be some "dumb" rank spots, but in return yield less reward. This of course at lower levels to break them into and then gradually it gets beefier? Slapping on the big beef stick that gets you mob killed at level 12 isn't great fun if you're new, I'd lose interest at least.

With consideration to newbies, there should be some "dumb" rank spots, but in return yield less reward. This of course at lower levels to break them into and then gradually it gets beefier? Slapping on the big beef stick that gets you mob killed at level 12 isn't great fun if you're new, I'd lose interest at least.

The NPC in question is level 20, and yields a good bit more experience than most level 20 mobs. So yes, if you're level 12, and your character is dumb as rocks, when it busts out Mental Jolt once in a while, you might get burned. Fortunately, you're very unlikely to be lagged, because you're fighting low-level transmuter, and can probably regroup.

In related news, gnomes should be careful about ranking on mace/hand-spec warriors.

As a pure mage, it also averages fewer attacks and weaker tanking than most NPCs of its level, for what it's worth. It doesn't dirt kick, disarm, kick, bash, or do anything 'extra' for a transmuter. It's great ranking for the right character.

I'm not sure what people want here. If it's "A weaker mob that's worth more XP than usual because I must be able to solo rank on extra-strong NPCs 8 levels up on me.", something will have to give.

There are literally hundreds of level 20-ish warrior-ish NPCs worth baseline XP out there if you want that experience. Finding the rare low-level transmuter NPC actually takes a bit of searching. A transmuter will fight differently, but it's not clear that (averaged across all characters) they're more dangerous.

With consideration to newbies, there should be some "dumb" rank spots, but in return yield less reward.

There are. always have been.

This of course at lower levels to break them into and then gradually it gets beefier?

That's how it works.

Slapping on the big beef stick that gets you mob killed at level 12 isn't great fun if you're new, I'd lose interest at least.

Basing your opinion on a one-paragraph log just might leave you with imperfect information. "New" level 12 players aren't running at level 20 NPCs, by the way. "Think of the children" is a bit overused.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I'm not basing my opinion on a one-paragraph log, actually. But thanks for playing.

Cause I do not want to waste time ranking because I have to wait for the boneshatter, bleeding, whatever other #### to wear off. Hard enough for some roles to find groups no need to make it even harder on those who get sporadic group leveling opportunities. And solo ranking just became 100* more dangerous. Thanks a lot!


Oh and trying to pigeonhole Daning or Elmeri into whiners or narrow sighted fools category shows how much of both you are. When the playerbase is irked do something about it. Maybe look to Privateer Press as your role model since they listen to their customer base and actually make things MORE enjoyable(ie playable) ***GASP***?

Here is something for you to chew on:
http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

With respect to Bartle's paper: note how you are managing to alienate Explorers, Achievers, and Killers.. maybe you are just in need of a BIG SOCIAL hug?


Cheers!

>And solo ranking just became 100* more
>dangerous. Thanks a lot!

You're right! You have to fight those apprentices exclusively from level 1 to level 51, and now that they cast mental jolt it's going to be almost impossible to get to hero.

Give me a break. I think the risk/reward ratio is way off on those mobs (and most special mobs in general), but seriously, it's just one low-level group of mobs. Solo ranking did not just get 100X more dangerous.

Just curious. I don't remember this kind of "What is he smoking?" reaction to your posts in the past.

But let's discuss:

>Cause I do not want to waste time ranking because I have to
>wait for the boneshatter, bleeding, whatever other #### to
>wear off.

Group with a healer, then. Group with a character good at disarming who can get that mace out of the guy's hand before he boneshatters you.

Or, level somewhere else.

>Hard enough for some roles to find groups no need to
>make it even harder on those who get sporadic group leveling
>opportunities. And solo ranking just became 100* more
>dangerous. Thanks a lot!

I feel like you've lost sight of the fact that there are a ton of non-special-stuff-doing mobs worth normal XP in the game. I'd say they're a safe majority of mobs.

You've got options. You can level on cattle mobs, and that's as fast as it is, or you can level on those scary dual-mace-wielding mace spec mobs, and that might be a lot faster with the right group. Options = good.

>With respect to Bartle's paper: note how you are managing to
>alienate Explorers, Achievers, and Killers.. maybe you are
>just in need of a BIG SOCIAL hug?

I don't agree with that, actually:

Your hypothetical pure explorers aren't really about grinding mobs for XP. They're going to be interested in getting XP from exploring and figuring quests and stuff out, which they increasingly can on CF. They're going to be more interested in XP-getting that's about figuring out a clever way to do so something than pure time spent... such as figuring out a way to make killing those spear spec mobs work so XP is faster, or such as keeping a group alive in a dangerous situation like the Mausoleum.

Your hypothetical pure achievers like seeking advancement. They get bored when there isn't any more advancement to do. They get upset if newer players can get the levels that they did easier than they did. To an extent, CF has never especially catered to achievers; there's a finite amount of levelling you can do, there's no such thing as amassing a perfect set of gear, and if you did, you can easily lose it in all in PK. A pure achiever would probably rather take a soldering gun to their groin than play CF. But, hey, if you want to grind dumb mobs or practice skills or try to get the biggest bank account or whatever, you can do those things. I think people with some achiever aspect can and do enjoy CF, just not people for whom it's most of their fun.

A pure killer probably isn't out getting XP at all. He's out killing people. And, you know? Between small amounts of commerce XP / exploration XP / cabal raiding XP / etc. that an active killer character constantly accrues whether they want to or not, a killer really does not need to do a lot of grouping or mob-killing in order to advance, as long as they are interested in trying to PK with their character at any level.

Yah, right. Like we really have a choice these days on who to rank with? Maybe back around 2000 you could tailor-make a group which caters to what you have in mind. Not anymore. These days, we're happy just to have an air major shifter in the 20s to get the little extra experience to make leveling somewhat more tolerable. A healer? I'm sure there might be one somewhere between 10-51.

It becomes even worse when you hit the 30s and people decide it's important to follow cabal guidelines just so they can get inducted. It's helpful the game doesn't begin until after 25, y'know.

I have sat at pretty much the same rank for a few weeks now. I have the time to play and rank, I just lack the groupmates. Even worse, I get chastised when I do find a few groupmates because they're not kosher. That's pretty shoddy.



**This is is my kind little caveat - not trying to trash anyone in this post or add to any fire. I just think some of your arguments aren't as relevant as you might wish and it irritates me that you carelessly throw them out there like you did.

I can only say that your play experience is really really not mine. No matter what I do, I'm turning down several acceptable group requests an hour, either because I'm doing something else or because I've already got a full group.

>I can only say that your play experience is really really not
>mine. No matter what I do, I'm turning down several
>acceptable group requests an hour, either because I'm doing
>something else or because I've already got a full group.

And yours is really really not mine, except when playing a high-desirability class. Sure, if you're an awesome utility guy, then you will get acceptable group requests. Otherwise you're going to wait well over an hour for anyone to ask. Or as a mage, strangers will *never* ask you to group (unless you're a transmuter). I'm honestly not sure that I wouldn't age-die before getting to 51 as mage that only gains exp with groups that invited him.

I assure you, some of the characters I play are not what I'd call desirable groupmates. Maybe it's just how suave I am?

Honestly, I think a lot of it comes down to mindset. I don't usually log on with the idea that I'm going to go get a bunch of levels today; I log in with the idea that I've got other stuff I want to do, be it try to kill some of my enemies, explore an area I don't know well (or maybe I did explore it before, but now I've got a character with identify, or detect hidden, or something that makes me think I might spot something new), work towards getting into a cabal, try to get empowered more, whatever.

It's like that saying about how a watched pot never boils. If you log in to level, you'll be disappointed unless it happens right away and with a great group. If you log in with other stuff in mind you want to do, someone's going to ask you to group and you can drop what you're doing for that, or not, as seems fun to you.

I have to think, if there are still areas I'm seeing for the first time, still quests that have been in for years that I'm figuring out for the first time, still classes or combos I'm trying to figure out how to PK with at a given level range for the first time... there's got to be lots out there to do for everyone. Is it a little crazy trying to smoke your enemies solo as lowbie shifter? Sure, but it's also a lot of fun. You know that when that fire warrior sees you coming he's not running the other way.

If you have a sub-par group, the lower-XP generic NPCs are still out there in large numbers. If you happen to have a tougher group, higher-XP NPCs are available.

If you happen to have a lot of healing but no tanking, or unusually good saving throws, then ranking on pure magi (who have inferior melee abilities) looks better. If you have a top-notch tank but lack support characters, take your chances with the NPC who only deals real damage through attacks that can be parried. Having multiple types of ranking trips available makes more groups viable, not less-- if the only option was warrior-ish NPCs, you could make a stronger case that a high-melee PC was a prerequisite for any group.

Again, old-style generic NPCs worth baseline XP are not only available, but they're by far the majority of NPCs. You're writing like we took them all away from you somewhere.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Thanks for the reply. For the most part, I agree with you. But it doesn't curtail the frustration of trying to level with limited options outside of a player's control (time, groupmates, comparative ease of past ranking, character restrictions). I'm definitely not about to take my ball and run home, either. I will enjoy my time as best I can for as long as I can.

I've read his work previously. It's a bit dated, but archetypes are still useful. Few players are well-described as purely in one "box", however.

With respect to Bartle's paper: note how you are managing to alienate Explorers, Achievers, and Killers.. maybe you are just in need of a BIG SOCIAL hug?

Of the groups you mention, Explorers and Achievers generally prefer a higher skill filter in ranking (player vs. environment, or PvE) scenarios precisely because it creates a skill filter-- Explorers because they like optimizing their way through webs of options, and Achievers because it stratifies players further, allowing a "best" ranking to be meaningful. If PvE is trivial, these groups feel like they've "beaten" the system and lose interest in the medium or long term.

Pure Killers prefer a lower barrier, because for them PvE is an obstacle to PvP. A pure Killer would prefer a system where all characters started at hero. (Pure Achievers would, of course, hate this more than anything.)

Socializers don't really care what the barrier is. They're only going to go ranking if other people they find interesting want them around, and don't really measure success in levels or other quantitative variables anyway.

All of the above is largely academic, anyway, since this change does not impact the baseline PvE barrier-- generic, low-XP NPCs are still by far the majority. If your group is poorly suited for fighting high-XP, weak-melee NPCs which cast spells, you still have the option to fight low-XP all-melee NPCs that don't cast spells.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Those mobs just got about 5X less desirable for ranking, because you'll have to rest a whole lot more if you fight them. But they haven't gotten a 5X boost in exp value. They were decent for a certain level range to fight, but now they're really not.

In general, the exp bonus that you get for killing mobs with spells really doesn't match the extra challenge they represent at all.

>In general, the exp bonus that you get for killing mobs with
>spells really doesn't match the extra challenge they represent
>at all.

I agree with this statement. I'd personally would prefer to rank with challenging mobs, if the xp reward would only match the challenge..

Essentially, you'd get more xp/time unit in exchange for more dangerous ranking.

>I agree with this statement. I'd personally would prefer to
>rank with challenging mobs, if the xp reward would only match
>the challenge..
>
>Essentially, you'd get more xp/time unit in exchange for more
>dangerous ranking.

I feel the same way. I really like the idea of being able to take on a challenge and not feel like ranking is a mindless grind, but right now it's pretty stupid to fight the special-ability mobs because they're just not worth it. The only real problem with this is that seeking challenging ranking requires a really solid ranking group, which is a bitter pill to swallow when it's hard to find any group at all sometimes (especially if you aren't one of the obviously best ranking classes).

As I see it, right now either the normal mobs need to be worth less exp or the special mobs need to be worth more. Right now special mobs really are far, far worse for ranking because you can't tank them nearly as easily as regular mobs. And tanking is almost always the factor that limits how fast a group can go. There are a few (rare) groups that don't need a good tank (ones with two utility/healer classes), but those groups are still going to be better off fighting normal-difficulty mobs.

Of course, I also don't want it to take 200 hours to get to hero, so it would be sad to see normal mobs go down significantly in exp value. For me, 75ish hours of pure ranking time (not counting rp/pk, etc) is my outside limit. Usually I'm expecting more like 40-50.

Right now special mobs really are far, far worse for ranking because you can't tank them nearly as easily as regular mobs. And tanking is almost always the factor that limits how fast a group can go. There are a few (rare) groups that don't need a good tank (ones with two utility/healer classes), but those groups are still going to be better off fighting normal-difficulty mobs.

As I noted above, the NPCs in question are significantly easier to tank than other NPCs of the same level. Specifically, to rank on them most easily, you wouldn't care much about tanking, but you might want better saving throws and/or smarter characters. The existence of these kinds of mobs makes traditional tanks less crucial, not more.

The change to transmuters, by the way, was general, and not specific to the NPCs in question-- all casting transmuters gained a number of options at all levels, and better mimic PCs. Note that this doesn't necessarily make them harder-- as one example, the old version threw a ton of Disrupt Organ if the NPC's level was high enough, whereas the new version picks from a variety of spells if it decides it wants to throw damage.

They are probably tougher than old transmuter-NPCs at the lower levels, however, largely for the same reasons PC transmuters are tougher at the lower levels these days-- more direct combat options to complement the support spells.

In general, these types of posts exhibit a selection bias, also. No one posts about how ranking has changed when a PC class gets a new ability that helps out. Some changes makes ranking easier, some make it harder, and many just make it different. On the forums, you'll only hear about the latter two, which often get conflated.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Valg:
>As I noted above, the NPCs in question are significantly
>easier to tank than other NPCs of the same level.
Daevryn:
> Something like a pre-parry healer/shaman/druid might be a really
> good tank there since most of the damage that's coming out is
> unblockable anyway.

They might be easier to tank in melee. When you take into the account the dismember they throw out every few rounds, not so much. And yes, it's possible that they're still okay to fight for soloing healer/shaman/druids. But in a group it's still a bad idea because the non-tanks get hit. Yeah, it can be done, and sure, maybe solo it's not an utterly terrible idea for certain characters, but it's way, way less efficient than just sticking with the merchants across the street, or picking any of the other mobs that give good experience and don't ream you.

Anecdote: I was ranking there with a couple people recently as a mage, the group was somewhere in the 12-16 range (don't remember exactly). I was an arial mage with snow worm, 50 hp in trains, other misc lowbie gear, and 23 int. After the second apprentice I'd been jolted down to 18% and had to flee. The two other guys had both been jolted down to about 60%. This is the kind of scenario that makes it not worth fighting special mobs.

I'm really not saying "oh my god how could you make this change wtf." The changes are fine, in theory. My point is just that risk/reward ratio on these mobs is much higher than on any generic mob. Shouldn't the ratio stay the same, so that if you go for high risk/high reward you're not just taking risks for little gain?

Have you ever noticed that people usually don't bother with the prophets because they kick too much? At those levels, half the time it's not even worth fighting a mob that kicks, because your tank will need rest all the time.

Valg:
>Specifically, to rank on them most easily, you wouldn't care
>much about tanking, but you might want better saving throws
>and/or smarter characters. The existence of these kinds of
>mobs makes traditional tanks less crucial, not more.

Savings throws? At 15? I'll take your word for it that there is some decent lowbie saves gear, but it really seems like a waste of time unless you plan to stop and fight a lot of casters/communers at that level. As for int, how much do you need? If 23 isn't enough then only elves and drow are safe.

When I said you'd need a better group, I didn't mean a better tank. I meant that a healer, bard or muter becomes *neccesary* in order to rank well, instead of just being the best group member (this is in the hypothetical case where all mobs are special and do significant unavoidable damage)

Valg:
>one example, the old version threw a ton of Disrupt
>Organ if the NPC's level was high enough, whereas the new
>version picks from a variety of spells ...

True. Higher-level NPCs probably did get a little weaker. Then again, high level transmuters are an absolute nightmare and you'd have to be insane to try to rank on them unless you're a healer/invoker/bard group.

Valg:
>In general, these types of posts exhibit a selection bias,
>also. No one posts about how ranking has changed when a PC
>class gets a new ability that helps out. Some changes makes
>ranking easier, some make it harder, and many just make it
>different. On the forums, you'll only hear about the
>latter two, which often get conflated.

I generally don't post kudos unless I have a question or something to add to the conversation. That said, I do like any change that is in the direction of correcting the imbalance of melee vs casters ability to rank. If you made it so low-level warriors miss almost all their swings so that they need mages as much as mages need warriors to tank, I would applaud, though most people would consider that a horrible thing that makes ranking harder.

For the sake of honesty, I admit that I am biased in favor of mages. The sad thing is, I always *want* to play them, but almost never do. The last real mage I had was Elrys, which was over 4 years ago (oh god how did I get so old?), though I have had a couple hero-level shifters since then.

nt

It sort of depends on what's special about the special mob.

Something like a low level transmuter mob like the mobs in question are actually about the easiest thing for a poor tanking group to take on because, while they have offensive spells, their melee attacks are few and weak compared to all of the unspecial mobs of their level. Something like a pre-parry healer/shaman/druid might be a really good tank there since most of the damage that's coming out is unblockable anyway.