Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
So forgive me for sounding cranky here, but I just spent about 40 minutes hunting for a damn heirloom drop, and I eventually just had to give up and come back to town. Meanwhile, I'm eating up my lumnis.
And this is far from the first time- for me or anyone else. In fact, when I complained about it, several people just shrugged and said that's why they don't take those tasks.
This is ridiculous. And when you're talking about hunting areas where your AG creature type is 1 of 4 different creatures that spawn, it's borderline impossible to do these tasks in any reasonable amount of time.
There needs to be a cap. Every failed drop should increase the chances of the drop happening next time until eventually you can't go any higher than, say, 15 creatures or 20 creatures without a drop. Otherwise, you're taking something that should be a fun layer on top of hunting and making it extremely frustrating. And I really don't want to have to add yet another AG task type to the list of tasks I just don't take. I already can't deal with foraging tasks, and nobody does escort tasks (seriously- why do these even exist?). Do I really need to add heirloom drop tasks to this too?
C'mon, it's been years. Time for some tweaks.
>Meanwhile, I'm eating up my lumnis.
there is the option to drop it after 15 minutes, go back to town and use a login reward bounty task boost to not get heirloom tasks or bounty boost to do unlimited swapping for an hour until you get something you want.
>I already can't deal with foraging tasks
that is your choice not to train to forage. foraging tasks are mostly super easy.
Just because you do not like certain task does not mean we should take them away. I actually like escorts and foraging you can always contract out as needed.
i have to go back and look but i do believe heirlooms are capped at 30. I can only think of a few times over the years where i felt i hit the extreme upper limit. Also make sure you loot and no search the dead.
>>Every failed drop should increase the chances of the drop happening next time
Pretty sure this mechanism is in place, already. Also note that you gave a time, but not a body count. Brag it up a bit! It is important, though, because even your suggestion - which I believe is in place - is tied to body count, not time. And (my beef) there are some locations / creatures where that 40 minutes might generate 10 critters. . .
>>and nobody does escort tasks (seriously- why do these even exist?)
I don't actually respond to the name 'nobody' but I like these tasks, and there are a couple other folks I know who quietly just plug away with these tasks only - they position themselves in a town where that's the only feasible bounty they can get offered. Makes you go hmmmm, hmmm?
Doug
Pretty sure this mechanism is in place, already. Also note that you gave a time, but not a body count. Brag it up a bit! It is important, though, because even your suggestion - which I believe is in place - is tied to body count, not time. And (my beef) there are some locations / creatures where that 40 minutes might generate 10 critters. . .
>>and nobody does escort tasks (seriously- why do these even exist?)
I don't actually respond to the name 'nobody' but I like these tasks, and there are a couple other folks I know who quietly just plug away with these tasks only - they position themselves in a town where that's the only feasible bounty they can get offered. Makes you go hmmmm, hmmm?
Doug
Escorts are great for groups that want to have fun with occasion bits of mayhem. They are dead easy if you aren't solo (and dead easy solo if your build is focussed on them), so having a couple of people along that just want to mess around won't get you all killed like it would on most other tasks.
Heirlooms and dangerous critter tasks take rather less kills on average than culls do. It just seems like longer because you haven't got the counter counting down after every kill. There already is an accelerating chance operating, the probability tail is a LOT thinner than it would be with a constant chance. I quite like skinning as a way of keeping count even when the skins are trivially cheap. It seems like forever, but I've only got 14 skins so its not actually that bad. Yet ...
Usually the only thing stopping a forage task is player boredom. You pretty much have to be a cleric with a player shop to do Rift foraging and some locations have just one room for a lot of herbs, but mostly its 1-10 minutes of hitting the same macro over and over.
Heirlooms and dangerous critter tasks take rather less kills on average than culls do. It just seems like longer because you haven't got the counter counting down after every kill. There already is an accelerating chance operating, the probability tail is a LOT thinner than it would be with a constant chance. I quite like skinning as a way of keeping count even when the skins are trivially cheap. It seems like forever, but I've only got 14 skins so its not actually that bad. Yet ...
Usually the only thing stopping a forage task is player boredom. You pretty much have to be a cleric with a player shop to do Rift foraging and some locations have just one room for a lot of herbs, but mostly its 1-10 minutes of hitting the same macro over and over.
>that is your choice not to train to forage.
I'd argue this depends on profession. There are some pretty nasty penalties and I've argued a number of times to basically remove the professional bonus / penalty and leave it up to training and 603 only. The professional bonuses, besides for rangers, seem pretty arbitrary in any case.
>i have to go back and look but i do believe heirlooms are capped at 30. I
I forget which GM (Coase?) said it, but there was a statement that it "should" drop by 30 kills. However, there isn't actually a hard-cap. Although the probability to drop goes up with each LOOT (so far as we have been told), it never becomes 100%, which means theoretically you could literally never find it (although the probability for that to statistically approaches 100%, it is never actually 100% because, since as far as I know the probability to find it caps out below 100%. In my opinion it should cap at 100% by around 30 or 35 kills...or at some point. I have definitely done 35 o 40, possibly more. A friend of mine had a personal-worst around 50, and I've heard someone did as many as 70+ loots.
It's true that you could get it on the first kill, but there is a reasonable argument to cap it at some value. Maybe as a trade-off there can be a maximum number of kills (say, 25, similar to culling), and it approaches 100% a bit more slowly than now. If we just assume that the probabilities on each kill was equal, but you had to find it by the 30th kill, then it would on average take 15 kills. This is slightly easier than culling, although technically by being required to pick an item up, you have a chance for the janitor to get it, be a fool and sell it to the GemShop, have some zombie pick it up and run away, etc, which while minor risks, are in any case making it slightly more difficult than strictly killing the creatures. Also there are several ways of killing creatures in GS which do not allow one to loot, but those are perfectly viable mechanisms for culling tasks.
Although some minor adjustment to how the probabilities increase might need a little scaling to ensure the system remains in tact, I agreee (and have previously argued) that there should be an actual cap. If the GM said "it generally shouldn't take more than 30 kills" why not simply make it never take more than 30 kills? There's not a strong reason here to finally leave it up to chance with bad luck that can make it take twice that long.
Check out who's dying any time! https://twitter.com/GSIVDeathLog
>Daid: Pretty sure you have a whole big bucket as your penny jar. You never have only two cents. :p
I'd argue this depends on profession. There are some pretty nasty penalties and I've argued a number of times to basically remove the professional bonus / penalty and leave it up to training and 603 only. The professional bonuses, besides for rangers, seem pretty arbitrary in any case.
>i have to go back and look but i do believe heirlooms are capped at 30. I
I forget which GM (Coase?) said it, but there was a statement that it "should" drop by 30 kills. However, there isn't actually a hard-cap. Although the probability to drop goes up with each LOOT (so far as we have been told), it never becomes 100%, which means theoretically you could literally never find it (although the probability for that to statistically approaches 100%, it is never actually 100% because, since as far as I know the probability to find it caps out below 100%. In my opinion it should cap at 100% by around 30 or 35 kills...or at some point. I have definitely done 35 o 40, possibly more. A friend of mine had a personal-worst around 50, and I've heard someone did as many as 70+ loots.
It's true that you could get it on the first kill, but there is a reasonable argument to cap it at some value. Maybe as a trade-off there can be a maximum number of kills (say, 25, similar to culling), and it approaches 100% a bit more slowly than now. If we just assume that the probabilities on each kill was equal, but you had to find it by the 30th kill, then it would on average take 15 kills. This is slightly easier than culling, although technically by being required to pick an item up, you have a chance for the janitor to get it, be a fool and sell it to the GemShop, have some zombie pick it up and run away, etc, which while minor risks, are in any case making it slightly more difficult than strictly killing the creatures. Also there are several ways of killing creatures in GS which do not allow one to loot, but those are perfectly viable mechanisms for culling tasks.
Although some minor adjustment to how the probabilities increase might need a little scaling to ensure the system remains in tact, I agreee (and have previously argued) that there should be an actual cap. If the GM said "it generally shouldn't take more than 30 kills" why not simply make it never take more than 30 kills? There's not a strong reason here to finally leave it up to chance with bad luck that can make it take twice that long.
Check out who's dying any time! https://twitter.com/GSIVDeathLog
>Daid: Pretty sure you have a whole big bucket as your penny jar. You never have only two cents. :p
>>I'd argue this depends on profession.
>I have little trouble foraging in the rift with a sorcerer with far fewer than 101 survival ranks.
Well, my sorcerer has nearly 100 ranks in survival and perception. But before any ranks of survival his foraging was pretty rough. I agree at high enough level you can train for it, but the training difference is quite substantial depending on fairly arbitrary logic.
Check out who's dying any time! https://twitter.com/GSIVDeathLog
>Daid: Pretty sure you have a whole big bucket as your penny jar. You never have only two cents. :p
>I have little trouble foraging in the rift with a sorcerer with far fewer than 101 survival ranks.
Well, my sorcerer has nearly 100 ranks in survival and perception. But before any ranks of survival his foraging was pretty rough. I agree at high enough level you can train for it, but the training difference is quite substantial depending on fairly arbitrary logic.
Check out who's dying any time! https://twitter.com/GSIVDeathLog
>Daid: Pretty sure you have a whole big bucket as your penny jar. You never have only two cents. :p
