Spawn Rates

[Kitunenotsume]

1. What is the problem for you really?
2. What do you propose we do to resolve it?

I am generally supportive of the intent, and prefer my answer not be generalized to be a post in opposition.
As stated previously my concern is not for the end result, but the means and how it could have been better approached:

While I feel the experiment is valid, I oppose on principle the manner under which it is being undertaken: with minimal warning, on the live servers, with deliberate verbiage to quell participant voices of reasonable grievances.

As to the resolution I would propose, this domes down to an unfortunately subjective meter of "How big is this change":
On significant changes, perhaps a policy should be introduced where substantiative changes to a expectedly significant portion of the playerbase should be announced a fixed number of weeks prior to commit.

A change that affects where data clearly indicates is a high-traffic area will almost certainly affect a larger number of players than an out-of-the-way map to which one is trying to draw traffic, but in either case prior notice will result in a less abrupt and more effective shift towards the objective behavior.

[Zanniej]

Thank you Kitunenotsume. This is definitely good feedback.

[DaloLorn]

JAG and Kitune largely sum up my own thoughts.

With one caveat.

I'm not going to push my own preferences with regards to leveling pace (somewhat slower than the pace maintained by most people I know!), but buffs/nerfs need a target baseline in order to make sense. In that context, JAG's remark that buffing other areas would constitute power creep (... XP creep?) is not necessarily accurate, because there's a lot of opinions on how much XP people should be getting in a given period of time. Some think it's too fast, some think it's too slow, some think it's just right.

[thepaganking]

1. What is the problem for you really? I thought the server was balanced in that there were places you could go that were lower in impact, e.g. death that you could actually obtain a decent amount of XP, meet new players, and get a bit of loot. Other areas on the server, the ones that are under-utilized, are much harder to survive because of incessant dispel, death spells, stun spells, or stoning. This restricts how you build your character, making you have to build a certain way to survive dispels, stun, death, or stunning, which also limits builds and increasing power builds and such, IMO.
a. For example - to survive the Basilisks - you need toughness and steadfast and at least a 19 Fort. Many characters cannot afford the feats, the feats do not make sense for their build/RP, or they are a class that do not progress in Fort and their fort will always be low. Therefore, low traffic area because you will always fail a roll and get stoned, or you have a high fort but no steadfast and roll a 1. I had a druid that was tanking for a slinger - keeping the slinger safe from the foe. He had a buffed 26 fort - rolled a 1 and was stoned.
b. For example - Archer with HIPS exploring the Gnolls - uses HIPS to get out of danger; but dies from area effect death spell. Any squishy character that you create; especially DEX based, will always have a lower fort and will save - thus death can be rather quick and dirty in many areas of the server.
c. For example - the Elder Ogre caves. You not only have to worry about stun spells, but also dispel, which seems to dispel many of your buffs before you get too far into the dungeon. I posted earlier about my 19th level bladsinger who was an 18th level caster - he hit three Ogre Mages in succession and lost almost all his buffs - he had to run to survive.

I started to avoid these areas because the risk to reward ratio was not worth it - These areas could be tweaked to get better traffic.

2. What do you propose we do to resolve it? take a hard look at the areas that get little traffic and ascertain why there is little traffic. Is it because the risk/reward is low, is the area too hard for many players on the server, do you have to use so many consumables that it is not worth visiting the area? It could be all or just one thing. It would be interesting to see what areas get little traffic and then an analysis of all the spawns and their abilities. When you match that with player abilities, that might give you an answer.

As to the post concerning too many spawns break RP - where did those creatures come from? Well, if you go into a cave, dungeon, old castle and stir up a hornets' nest, what do you think will happen. Do you think that just because you cleared a room that someone else in the area did not hear the commotion and come see what all the noise was about (the game probably cannot work so well that stuff would swarm from other areas without you physically triggering, but the next best thing is spawns appearing again, as if they did come from down the hall)? Furthermore, is it realistic that you would take your merry time to stand around, talk, and take time to loot while you are in hostile territory? You can RP as you walk to the next area - I would never stand around talking and such when I knew that I was in the middle of a hostile environment, that just does not make sense. Move, shoot, and communicate - get in, be quick, and get out. That is how you survive, IMO - in a game and in real life.

[JustAnotherGuy]

As to the post concerning too many spawns break RP - where did those creatures come from? Well, if you go into a cave, dungeon, old castle and stir up a hornets' nest, what do you think will happen. Do you think that just because you cleared a room that someone else in the area did not hear the commotion and come see what all the noise was about

Ok then, if we had cleared the rooms leading up to that room, and then some came from the next room, why didn't all the rest? Why would they hear their companions getting killed and stay in the next room? So the analogy falls flat right there.

Furthermore, is it realistic that you would take your merry time to stand around, talk, and take time to loot while you are in hostile territory? You can RP as you walk to the next area

When I say RP, in these specific cases, it was literally just allowing the rogue to take care of a trap, unlock the chest, and then each of us loot the chest. There were only three of us, and the repops kept happening.

I would never stand around talking and such when I knew that I was in the middle of a hostile environment, that just does not make sense. Move, shoot, and communicate - get in, be quick, and get out. That is how you survive, IMO - in a game and in real life.

Then you've obviously never been on a clearing team when there's a high probability of pressure plates, trip wires, etc. That was literally my job overseas. And when there's a high probability of traps (just like in a dungeon) you move slower, not faster. Or you die.

[FallingStar]

1.) See here and here. There are 9 pages worth of reasons why this was a poor idea.

2.) A rollback. No embarrassing apology necessary, though this an the following non-apology is quite egregious. Then, if the admins feel there's a balance issue with certain areas, this can be remedied by improving other areas.

As I've said, I challenge you to do it in one sentence, and to go beyond "it should be reverted". And I would prefer to discuss issues, not people.
A lot of good arguments fail to make an impact due to the personalized arguments, which will often be felt as an attack, which will give people the desire to defend themselves. That will put us in a loop of attack and defense, instead of moving forward. We are where we are, we have done what we have done. Let's not reminisce and just move forward.

Give the reason why this was done a chance, and maybe think what could've been done differently to achieve that result in your opinion.


As I said before, we rarely lock topics. But I see a lot of arguments that feel more like personal attacks than a discussion on changes. And that helps nobody. I'd hope to think that it is nobody's intention to make others feel bad, and that we are all actually aiming to make things better. Making things better has nothing to do with people, so let's not discuss the people and just discuss the actual issues.

Except it's people who made the decision to enact this change without a thought towards announcing it ahead of time and opening the floor to community discussion, after lip service about transparency, which we now understand was hollow.

[Bobthehero]

Compare how this was implemented versus how much we already know about the upcoming Warlock changes. This would have alleviated a whole lot of frustration from the player base. Instead, we get saddled with a choice that is clearly not popular and with no forewarning. It goes against the idea that we'll get more transparency from the dev team.

[DaloLorn]

One man's blunder is hardly the death knell of transparency, especially when he gets repeatedly chewed out over it.

[zhazz]

1. What is the problem for you really?

The problem lies in different tastes for different people, but only having one taste available. Depending on my own mood, I may swing towards a role play centric approach to going through an area one day, and then a mindless grind-fest the next. I swing both ways really. Some do too, while others don't swing at all.

1. What do you propose we do to resolve it?

As far as a solution, I will, once again, propose a solution from Sigil's book. There the group (even if solo) has the option of picking between difficulties for each area. Sigil use four tiers, with the second being the standard one. One is lower, and two are progressively higher. Depending on the choice made by the group this affects spawn rates, types of spawns, and the power of each spawn. If there is disparity between the difficulty settings among the PCs in an area the difficulty defaults closer to the standard one.

This allows for a customized experience. One group can get lots of spawns, with a higher difficulty, yielding more experience and loot. While another can get relatively few spawns, with a lesser difficulty, yielding less experience and loot. To my knowledge the difficulty changing adjusts the Challenge Rating of the area. Meaning a standard CR 10 area can range anywhere from CR 8 to CR 15, depending on the chosen difficulty.

The benefit of this is that different tastes get to enjoy their preferences, while also adding more flexibility in finding level-appropriate areas to go to. E.g. the Nashkel Mines can be upscaled to provide similar experience and loot to that of Fire Giants, through a higher difficulty. Or the Chiontiar Ruins can be downscaled to provide closer to the Hilltop Ruins.

[Theodore01]

As far as a solution, I will, once again, propose a solution from Sigil's book. There the group (even if solo) has the option of picking between difficulties for each area. Sigil use four tiers, with the second being the standard one. One is lower, and two are progressively higher. Depending on the choice made by the group this affects spawn rates, types of spawns, and the power of each spawn. If there is disparity between the difficulty settings among the PCs in an area the difficulty defaults closer to the standard one.

This allows for a customized experience. One group can get lots of spawns, with a higher difficulty, yielding more experience and loot. While another can get relatively few spawns, with a lesser difficulty, yielding less experience and loot. To my knowledge the difficulty changing adjusts the Challenge Rating of the area. Meaning a standard CR 10 area can range anywhere from CR 8 to CR 15, depending on the chosen difficulty.

The benefit of this is that different tastes get to enjoy their preferences, while also adding more flexibility in finding level-appropriate areas to go to. E.g. the Nashkel Mines can be upscaled to provide similar experience and loot to that of Fire Giants, through a higher difficulty. Or the Chiontiar Ruins can be downscaled to provide closer to the Hilltop Ruins.

excellent suggestion

[DM SummerBreeze]

One man's blunder is hardly the death knell of transparency, especially when he gets repeatedly chewed out over it.

Exactly.


Let's please refrain from attacking people who only have the best of intentions for the server. Nobody's goal is to make people quit or make the server not fun for everyone. That would be ridiculous.

We can all get our points across and ideas pushed forward without personally attacking staff or each other. Attacks are not constructive what so ever to the topic at hand and serve only to drown out much of the legitimate feedback being posted here.

[DaloLorn]

1. What do you propose we do to resolve it?

As far as a solution, I will, once again, propose a solution from Sigil's book. There the group (even if solo) has the option of picking between difficulties for each area. Sigil use four tiers, with the second being the standard one. One is lower, and two are progressively higher. Depending on the choice made by the group this affects spawn rates, types of spawns, and the power of each spawn. If there is disparity between the difficulty settings among the PCs in an area the difficulty defaults closer to the standard one.

This allows for a customized experience. One group can get lots of spawns, with a higher difficulty, yielding more experience and loot. While another can get relatively few spawns, with a lesser difficulty, yielding less experience and loot. To my knowledge the difficulty changing adjusts the Challenge Rating of the area. Meaning a standard CR 10 area can range anywhere from CR 8 to CR 15, depending on the chosen difficulty.

The benefit of this is that different tastes get to enjoy their preferences, while also adding more flexibility in finding level-appropriate areas to go to. E.g. the Nashkel Mines can be upscaled to provide similar experience and loot to that of Fire Giants, through a higher difficulty. Or the Chiontiar Ruins can be downscaled to provide closer to the Hilltop Ruins.

Not a terribly bad idea... but it will require a considerable amount of work, even if given access to Sigil's code to use as a base. For starters, chest tier is completely static, and thus incompatible with CR scaling. (This is why I've tended to speak so positively of that side of Vale's changes, because the scaling meant that weaker PCs would always be downgraded by one or two loot tiers as a general principle. Now, any loot downgrade is likely to be limited to one tier (if any).

One man's blunder is hardly the death knell of transparency, especially when he gets repeatedly chewed out over it.

Exactly.


Let's please refrain from attacking people who only have the best of intentions for the server. Nobody's goal is to make people quit or make the server not fun for everyone. That would be ridiculous.

We can all get our points across and ideas pushed forward without personally attacking staff or each other. Attacks are not constructive what so ever to the topic at hand and serve only to drown out much of the legitimate feedback being posted here.

My main frustration with these sorts of claims stems mostly from the fact that we (the staff at the time the change was implemented) knew how big a PR setback Vale's actions were going to be... and are now being proven completely right.

It's more painful as someone who has tried to announce my more controversial work, either as a warning or a request for feedback, because I'm now being lumped in with him. (Not that a retiree should have much reason to care anymore. ) Rhi's been announcing everything, and it still feels like she's taking tons of flak over his decision.

As an admin, there's not much that can realistically be done besides sternly reprimanding him... but that's no excuse to lash out at completely unrelated members of the team. Not over trying to make the best of his blunder, and not over not disagreeing with the actual change forcefully enough to try to get it reverted outright.

[Zanniej]

I'm going to repeat my request to discuss the issue, not the people.

While a single person or staff group may be behind a certain change, we're all in the same community, and all carry the responsibility for keeping this a great place together. We don't do that by singling out people or groups.


I see a lot of people really heeding those words, and offering up great feedback. Please help me keep this topic healthy and open.

[MrSmith]

1. What is the problem? The staff’s consensus is that BGTSCC is “infinitely better” when played as a group instead of playing solo. This is a cognitive bias that serves as the default setting when attempting to enhance the player’s experience. Simply put, the staff is continuously solving for group play when statistics show players game solo more frequently.

2. How is it solved? A) Recognize the bias that exists. B) Embrace all playing styles.

[VDub]

I'm going to repeat my request to discuss the issue, not the people.

While a single person or staff group may be behind a certain change, we're all in the same community, and all carry the responsibility for keeping this a great place together. We don't do that by singling out people or groups.


I see a lot of people really heeding those words, and offering up great feedback. Please help me keep this topic healthy and open.

Why should we do your "Homework" when there are 10 pages of what's wrong? Take the time to read it instead of skimming through. It's all there.