What are the LOTRO loot developer(s) doing?

[Ferthcott]

I was just stating my opinion, same as you have been doing. No denigration intended.

Intentions aside, "stating an opinion" is not an excuse to throw random claim, like the one quoted below, while ignoring evidence to the contrary and being unable/unwilling to substantiate.

You are either mistaken or negligent when you claim

All I have seen you post are a series of unproven opinions.

Therefore, you are mistaken when you use "same" in sentence above. It's not about denigration, more about arbitrary labeling entire post using one of its components and using that as a way to reduce its relevance. We could continue this somewhere else (especially if you operate under the assumption I actually want to convince you of anything) - or you could simply deal with what is actually posted. Though if you subscribe to some modern belief system about omnipresent opinions and prefer to use axioms instead, I think I'll pass.

There is also the possibility that Turbine was worried that the easier T2 challenges could have been farmed for the increased chance of dropping the recipes (via either the chests in these challenges, or the 85 mobs inside of these areas), leading them to not allowing the recipes to drop in instances, while not predicting that the Hytbold dailies would be farmed to such an extent due to the density of level 85 humanoid mobs located here.

This is something I find hard to believe. We are operating under the assumption they know this game better than we do and have access to more data, including how people play. Mob respawn rate, morale level and density in Hytbold instances are commonly known - and earlier farming events were even better reminder how this stuff goes. At some point we might start wondering if creating a forum buzz, discussions, arguments, providing slightly different, temporary gameplay experience for the players was actual goal for this weird change. I'd rather have my tinfoil hat than believe there is someone @ Turbine periodically saying "whooops!".

I realy can't believe that all you folks are happy with farming all over the day. If there are some players who prefer to farm all day - fine by me (althoug I think there are better china-farmer-games out there). But what about all the others?

And to the devs: You are working on loot for the next update? Thanks for sharing! But...maybe you could work on the loot mechanics because that's why many people are realy pissed off this game right at the moment!!!

Technically it is not that different from running BG again and again for weeks. Except that mobkill in BG takes longer, you can wipe, you sometimes have to think... figures. I spent one evening on Sutcroft wargicide, then logged to detox, which is already taking several days and I'd rather wait for U10 to forget about it. When I started playing LOTRO, I often saw people praising the game as not as farm-friendly as competition. I wonder what I'd be seeing today.

As for dev - working on U10 loot instead is not a bad thing. Especially if there are suddenly better bracelets dropping from new cluster chests. It will mean another group of people being pissed, but... I don't mind, not at all

Right now, once you get your piece from an instance, there is no reason to go back unless you want to help a pal or you need Marks for some reason - and in that case, there are best choices. There should be increased incentive that allows a player to think they have a legitimate shot at getting one of these from any level-cap instance.

They tried that globally with Instance Finder, but that approach was... misguided at best. Imagine you get stacking daily bonus for each different instance you run, better for t2, even better for t2c. Start with currency bonus, then after 1-2 instances add something similar to present stat buff, then add enhanced droprate. Sure, it may lead to spamming easy instances and some queue tricks but at least decision and control is back in our hands. You could also have each instance apply its bonus only bi-weekly, using skraid loot locks as a model. Result: you have means to increase droprate on your own AND you have incentive to repeat content you succesfully farmed earlier.

But if I think about ToO and what would be a "raid-appropriate" bonus and then try to divvy up 9 different raid-appropriate bonuses among the 9 classes... I don't know. I can say it would take more creativity than Turbine has shown in several years, unfortunately. And it would be very hard to balance on the landscape, smaller instances and PvP.

There is an easy way out, that relies on entire raid - or even cluster - having one consistent theme. As a result we get shadow damage protection (Rift), radiance (oh, well...) or protection against debuffs :S (OD) that can be applied equally to every class. Obviously, it is not exactly creative, OD example is weak and I have no idea what would fit ToO.

There is generic way out that does not rely on raid/cluster theme - a bonus (to something), dependent on a number of fellows around you, with reasonable radius that does not require standing on each other. I can imagine raids forcing you to periodically divide into smaller groups (like Rift, but... more often ) while providing an incentive to run back together when possible. As for PvP... well, those armor sets wouldn't have Audacity

[Southpa]

They tried that globally with Instance Finder, but that approach was...

What I proposed is nothing like IF. It's tied to the chest, not to some contrived instance portal system. And it should be a flat rate - period. If they want to offer something with such low probability of spawning, why put it in the game at all?

There is an easy way out, that relies on entire raid - or even cluster - having one consistent theme. As a result we get shadow damage protection (Rift), radiance (oh, well...) or protection against debuffs :S (OD) that can be applied equally to every class. Obviously, it is not exactly creative, OD example is weak and I have no idea what would fit ToO.

I much prefer the variety offered by OD and ToO to the Rift. To me, the Rift was only cool because the game was new and that's all there was. Looking back, it was a pretty simple design with pretty simple mechanics.

There is generic way out that does not rely on raid/cluster theme - a bonus (to something), dependent on a number of fellows around you, with reasonable radius that does not require standing on each other.

There would be way too many ways to exploit this without actually doing much content.
Major rewards with increased odds should be tied to achievements.

[Ferthcott]

What I proposed is nothing like IF. It's tied to the chest, not to some contrived instance portal system. And it should be a flat rate - period. If they want to offer something with such low probability of spawning, why put it in the game at all?

You could always have both - I have one thing against system you suggested: it is based on size of the instance only, we know they are often dramatically different in terms of difficulty/time, so it provides even bigger incentive to farm GS - style. I consider more Durchest t1 or Iorbar t2c farms only a partial improvement when we compare with current absurd. If improving IF could mean killing two birds with one stone...

There would be way too many ways to exploit this without actually doing much content.
Major rewards with increased odds should be tied to achievements.

I am not sure what you mean - if instance is constructed in similar way to OD Wound, you don't have options or tricks - you have to divide into several groups, no new type of exploit comes to mind. Similar with final fight in Rift - you have to send some people in to complete different tasks - having lesser bonuses along the way is a constant that can be accounted for by both players and designers. It changes nothing in Distributed Damage fights either. I assume new instances would be developed with that kind of bonus in mind anyway. Landscape would not be significantly affected as having a group is already a huge bonus. PvP ones would have to be related to massive armor switching, which is already a problem, so no significant changes either.

I am wondering whether your concerns about exploits/avoiding content were related to enhanced loot droprate instead of "fellow proximity" armor bonuses. If that was the case - your idea about different % based on instance size should be a way to keep raids valuable. I could live with people playing through every 3-man or 6-man available and eventually getting good drops thanks to improved % - they are playing varied content, which still trumps farming one raid - at least as "community service" for devs being sad no one wants to play Inn of the Forsaken. If raid is already boosted thanks to eg. your "different % for different chests" model or through arbitrary "better chest in that new instance we just created", problem is solved. As for rewards tied to achievements, no one said there should be no exclusive drops for each instance as well.

[RKL]

Intentions aside, "stating an opinion" is not an excuse to throw random claim, like the one quoted below, while ignoring evidence to the contrary and being unable/unwilling to substantiate.

You are either mistaken or negligent when you claim Therefore, you are mistaken when you use "same" in sentence above. It's not about denigration, more about arbitrary labeling entire post using one of its components and using that as a way to reduce its relevance. We could continue this somewhere else (especially if you operate under the assumption I actually want to convince you of anything) - or you could simply deal with what is actually posted. Though if you subscribe to some modern belief system about omnipresent opinions and prefer to use axioms instead, I think I'll pass.

Your so-called evidence to the contrary is opinion, until proven. You make statements like; A is fact. B is fact. C is fact and D is fact. First we need to agree on the fact-ness of them. Second, once we agree, we need to address the way they are stated, so that they do not slant toward one side or the other. Third, we need to address your assumption that these “facts” lead to the conclusions that you state that they do. Fourth, we need to address all the other “facts” that you have not named that might be relevant to the subject, in the same manner. These are some of the basic steps involved.

Either we are looking for the truth of a situation or we are stating opinions. We cannot do both at the same time. You state opinions and back them up by saying fact a, b, c, d. You back up your opinion with other opinions. Simply stated, I have looked at your evidence and found it to be superficial and narrow in scope. If you wish to say that you are speaking for the truth, then you will have to demonstrate it to people if you wish recognition as a truth-teller. Otherwise, it would probably be best for you to just say; “These are my opinions”.

[Ferthcott]

Your so-called evidence to the contrary is opinion, until proven.

It looks like you have been playing for a while, so I hope you are either trolling or mechanically applying "guidelines of truth - seeking", forgetting what is the subject. Is it an opinion 3-man boss is more challenging in terms of stats, complexity and cooperation? Do you require a screenshot with boss morale or combat log with hits attached to admit it is "proven"? Do you need a comparison with 85lv solo mob to discover that the only comparable requirement between those two is using your skills as they were designed? Since you are admirably unwilling to discuss anything related to game, I'll take this one further if only to see if there is any kind of evasion you did not use yet.

Second, once we agree, we need to address the way they are stated, so that they do not slant toward one side or the other.

"Slanting" (I don't need to prove a negative) does not affect your ability to deal with arguments. Also: hyperbole, sarcasm, negativity or any other sins do not influence validity of other sentences or paragraphs unless shown - just as bias is not discovered via few posts without context and further information. Internet forums offer none, so unless you just want to have an excuse for another blanket statement, this is as far as you are going to get. Which is not far, considering I am not trying to convert you to any specific viewpoint. Not when I usually require only decent arguments to rethink it again and again - hardly a mark of a good zaelot.

Third, we need to address your assumption that these “facts” lead to the conclusions that you state that they do.

Challenge or difficulty in LOTRO is defined, among several things, by stats, the only thing shared with items. I assume arguments about cosmetic raid drops have little to do with the ones about stats. If we want to upgrade our character for the progression alone, it is irrelevant where it ends in comparison to group content drops, as stats are not important - only increase is. If upgrade is related to content with stronger mobs, both stats and their increase are significant. Currently there is only one field where content for solo player involves significant increase - t2/3 skirmishes - however, they are still far below group content mobs. Game includes difficulty progression pre- and after lv cap, designed in a way to require better gear, so item progression is necessary. At the same time there is no need for introducing specific drops with equal stats in every type of content. If there is no "need", arguments in favor are reduced to "want" - nothing harmful, as long as they are not pretending to be anything else ("right", "equal", "fair"...) and no negative effects are introduced. Whether present inconsistency is affecting game in a negative way is a matter of opinion. Whoa, there's one - about time.

Pointless presentation made by captain obvious - anyone familiar with LOTRO is capable of figuring out the above and how "differences in difficulty level" lead further. But - for some reason - you asked...

Fourth, we need to address all the other “facts” that you have not named that might be relevant to the subject, in the same manner.

We? You haven't presented anything aside from meta complaints. Oh, well - "differences in difficulty" again:

There is no reason to expand "challenging" or "difficulty". While we could argue "not everyone has the same reflexes" etc, we end up with Joe Average as content is hardly designed for extraordinary. No matter what average is, 3-man will increase difficulty compared to content designed for solo as character remains the same while in-game values change. Playing with your feet or with eyes closed also increases difficulty, but it has nothing to do with content. Just like any other factors that remove you from "average" as a player. So while "other facts I have not named" may certainly exist, I feel I made reasonable effort to reduce difficulty to in-game parameters.

There is also no reason to add "preferences", reasonable or unreasonable motives for "getting better items" etc. My post dealt with introducing (another) inconsistency to rules and what follows. No matter what motives or desires are involved, inconsistency remains until either both types of content have similar challenge ladder or both lack increasing challenge.

Paragraphs above are also unnecessary as they deal with irrelevant facts, while their irrelevance required no deep analysis. Also, since we apparently enjoy obvious, I am not omniscient - the best way to prove there ARE facts that were omitted is to present them. Blanket statement is not presenting. See below.

Simply stated, I have looked at your evidence and found it to be superficial and narrow in scope.

Conveniently, you provided nothing aside from blanket statement and opinion to illustrate such verdict. It would be meaningful if I was trying to convert you. It could be useful if it shown specific errors rather than "it does not convince me" as assumption that it was a goal feels silly with no gain attached. Your "superficial" would have more merit if things you declared missing were necessary - while as shown on example above, it is not necessary to state the obvious, the basic or to prove things any person with common knowledge about the subject can realize. If you lack depth in a discussion about LOTRO loot, choosing an object and a subject that has any depth to it would be a good start.

Use that template to deal with others as I see no reason to indulge you with providing things that are already available to you with minimal effort. Whether it meets your "guidelines of truth - seeking" is not my problem, at least until you clean up that pile of blankets.

[RKL]

It looks like you have been playing for a while, so I hope you are either trolling or mechanically applying "guidelines of truth - seeking", forgetting what is the subject. Is it an opinion 3-man boss is more challenging in terms of stats, complexity and cooperation? Do you require a screenshot with boss morale or combat log with hits attached to admit it is "proven"? Do you need a comparison with 85lv solo mob to discover that the only comparable requirement between those two is using your skills as they were designed? Since you are admirably unwilling to discuss anything related to game, I'll take this one further if only to see if there is any kind of evasion you did not use yet.



"Slanting" (I don't need to prove a negative) does not affect your ability to deal with arguments. Also: hyperbole, sarcasm, negativity or any other sins do not influence validity of other sentences or paragraphs unless shown - just as bias is not discovered via few posts without context and further information. Internet forums offer none, so unless you just want to have an excuse for another blanket statement, this is as far as you are going to get. Which is not far, considering I am not trying to convert you to any specific viewpoint. Not when I usually require only decent arguments to rethink it again and again - hardly a mark of a good zaelot.



Challenge or difficulty in LOTRO is defined, among several things, by stats, the only thing shared with items. I assume arguments about cosmetic raid drops have little to do with the ones about stats. If we want to upgrade our character for the progression alone, it is irrelevant where it ends in comparison to group content drops, as stats are not important - only increase is. If upgrade is related to content with stronger mobs, both stats and their increase are significant. Currently there is only one field where content for solo player involves significant increase - t2/3 skirmishes - however, they are still far below group content mobs. Game includes difficulty progression pre- and after lv cap, designed in a way to require better gear, so item progression is necessary. At the same time there is no need for introducing specific drops with equal stats in every type of content. If there is no "need", arguments in favor are reduced to "want" - nothing harmful, as long as they are not pretending to be anything else ("right", "equal", "fair"...) and no negative effects are introduced. Whether present inconsistency is affecting game in a negative way is a matter of opinion. Whoa, there's one - about time.

Pointless presentation made by captain obvious - anyone familiar with LOTRO is capable of figuring out the above and how "differences in difficulty level" lead further. But - for some reason - you asked...



We? You haven't presented anything aside from meta complaints. Oh, well - "differences in difficulty" again:

There is no reason to expand "challenging" or "difficulty". While we could argue "not everyone has the same reflexes" etc, we end up with Joe Average as content is hardly designed for extraordinary. No matter what average is, 3-man will increase difficulty compared to content designed for solo as character remains the same while in-game values change. Playing with your feet or with eyes closed also increases difficulty, but it has nothing to do with content. Just like any other factors that remove you from "average" as a player. So while "other facts I have not named" may certainly exist, I feel I made reasonable effort to reduce difficulty to in-game parameters.

There is also no reason to add "preferences", reasonable or unreasonable motives for "getting better items" etc. My post dealt with introducing (another) inconsistency to rules and what follows. No matter what motives or desires are involved, inconsistency remains until either both types of content have similar challenge ladder or both lack increasing challenge.

Paragraphs above are also unnecessary as they deal with irrelevant facts, while their irrelevance required no deep analysis. Also, since we apparently enjoy obvious, I am not omniscient - the best way to prove there ARE facts that were omitted is to present them. Blanket statement is not presenting. See below.



Conveniently, you provided nothing aside from blanket statement and opinion to illustrate such verdict. It would be meaningful if I was trying to convert you. It could be useful if it shown specific errors rather than "it does not convince me" as assumption that it was a goal feels silly with no gain attached. Your "superficial" would have more merit if things you declared missing were necessary - while as shown on example above, it is not necessary to state the obvious, the basic or to prove things any person with common knowledge about the subject can realize. If you lack depth in a discussion about LOTRO loot, choosing an object and a subject that has any depth to it would be a good start.

Use that template to deal with others as I see no reason to indulge you with providing things that are already available to you with minimal effort. Whether it meets your "guidelines of truth - seeking" is not my problem, at least until you clean up that pile of blankets.

Another novel?

You are the one who responded to my post first. I had no desire to do more than state my opinion from the beginning. Pound away on your keyboard if you wish. All I did in my last post was detail my way of thinking as to methods of finding truth. All I ever do here is state my opinion. That is all I have ever seen anyone do here. I am not interested in proving anyone wrong or proving myself right. That is a futile and vain effort for anyone to attempt.

Edit: If you wished to find someone to debate with, then you have chosen the wrong person.

[Ferthcott]

Another novel? Annnd yes, evasion. Not surprised at this point.

You are the one who responded to my post first. Irrelevant. You are the one who responded to my post first too I had no desire to do more than state my opinion from the beginning. Pound away on your keyboard if you wish. All I did in my last post was detail my way of thinking as to methods of finding truth. Incorrect. After repeating the same blanket nonsense about "unproven" you posted a list of requirements that were mostly pointless in a particular case shown in a "novel" above. All I ever do here is state my opinion. Your choice - and your belief system, which is - as predicted - my cue. That is all I have ever seen anyone do here. Then your belief system is affecting your perception, along with preference for "every" and "all". I am not interested in proving anyone wrong or proving myself right. That is a futile and vain effort for anyone to attempt. If you post negligent claim, expect that it is treated as nonsense despite whatever you are interested in. If you then keep repeating it with only more meta added, you are just doing it badly.

Edit: If you wished to find someone to debate with, then you have chosen the wrong person.

Oh, good. I was not under the impression this was one. Must has something to do with someone using concept of opinion as an intelectual immunity clause. Or introducing quasi - scientific requirements for "truth" into field where many truths are already established and usually only require reiteration. As shown above, in a "novel". I guess your definition of a novel is as flexible as your definition of an opinion or a debate.

[RockX]

Hey guys, I'm just going to say this once, because I do appreciate the constructive discussions which have occurred within this thread. While it's very nice (and helpful!) to have people with differences of opinion have constructive disagreements etc., let's lay off the personal attacks a bit.

[RKL]

Oh, good. I was not under the impression this was one. Must has something to do with someone using concept of opinion as an intelectual immunity clause. Or introducing quasi - scientific requirements for "truth" into field where many truths are already established and usually only require reiteration. As shown above, in a "novel". I guess your definition of a novel is as flexible as your definition of an opinion or a debate.

In the absence of proof, one way or the other, your opinion is as good as anyone else’s. These particular opinions could be right and they could be wrong. You certainly have the right to have them.

As to the debate question you raise. Here is my thinking on that issue.

The most commonly used form of debating is where a person takes one side of an argument and presents only those things that are relevant to their position. It is a useful exercise in personal expansion if the debater takes the opposite side from where his inclinations reside.

It is a practice best left to high school debating teams and of course those most honest of truth tellers; the politicians.

It is akin to the Alan Watts term: ignore-ance. That state in which a person emphasizes those facts and ideas that support his position, and ignores all other factors.

Hardly a vehicle to truth. If I wish to find truth, then I have to employ quite a different process.

[RKL]

Hey guys, I'm just going to say this once, because I do appreciate the constructive discussions which have occurred within this thread. While it's very nice (and helpful!) to have people with differences of opinion have constructive disagreements etc., let's lay off the personal attacks a bit.

I am sorry if I crossed the line RockX. It was not my intention to personally attack anyone.

[Ferthcott]

In the absence of proof, one way or the other, your opinion is as good as anyone else’s. These particular opinions could be right and they could be wrong. You certainly have the right to have them.

(...)

It is akin to the Alan Watts term: ignore-ance. That state in which a person emphasizes those facts and ideas that support his position, and ignores all other factors.

Hardly a vehicle to truth. If I wish to find truth, then I have to employ quite a different process.

Sigh, at this point we are pretty much talking past each other.

You have been given a set of examples where facts were used as a basis for an opinion. You refused to accept them as "unproven" in a blanket manner. Then you were given just one, with questions attached: do you do you still think "difference in difficulty" requires proving? With commonly known differences in stat- or gameplay - related content, it might as well be labeled, for the lack of weaker word, self - evident. Since I am unwilling to spend more time on other examples, I am choosing cheap option. The moment a single fact appears, entire "just opinions" from your post is exposed as negligent and untrue. Furthermore, you have been also provided with an argument that - for the same example of "differences in difficulty" - other factors are not present. When discussed issue lacks complexity it is perfectly possible - as in that example, where other "factors" would have to be manufactured for its own sake from "individual perception of difficulty".

I am not bothered by anything you claim about opinions themselves, possibly except one thing - that granting any and all "intelectual immunity" is simply uncalled. The only kind that deserves such is related to "I dis/like" - basic and with no pretense to be anything else than stating preferences. The moment someone decides to state something more "sophisticated", repeating "just an opinion" provides no magical protection and false claims are not excusable by any modern spells as such. Calling such opinions "wrong" is obviously warranted - but if someone states an opinion your post is full of magenta, salty rubber, honey and is written in Chinese, with no explanation (in case it is eg. a metaphor...) neither "it's just an opinion" has any value nor it should be considered as such. It's simply false - and no "other factors" or "evidence" are required.

[RKL]

Sigh, at this point we are pretty much talking past each other.

You have been given a set of examples where facts were used as a basis for an opinion. You refused to accept them as "unproven" in a blanket manner. Then you were given just one, with questions attached: do you do you still think "difference in difficulty" requires proving? With commonly known differences in stat- or gameplay - related content, it might as well be labeled, for the lack of weaker word, self - evident. Since I am unwilling to spend more time on other examples, I am choosing cheap option. The moment a single fact appears, entire "just opinions" from your post is exposed as negligent and untrue. Furthermore, you have been also provided with an argument that - for the same example of "differences in difficulty" - other factors are not present. When discussed issue lacks complexity it is perfectly possible - as in that example, where other "factors" would have to be manufactured for its own sake from "individual perception of difficulty".

I am not bothered by anything you claim about opinions themselves, possibly except one thing - that granting any and all "intelectual immunity" is simply uncalled. The only kind that deserves such is related to "I dis/like" - basic and with no pretense to be anything else than stating preferences. The moment someone decides to state something more "sophisticated", repeating "just an opinion" provides no magical protection and false claims are not excusable by any modern spells as such. Calling such opinions "wrong" is obviously warranted - but if someone states an opinion your post is full of magenta, salty rubber, honey and is written in Chinese, with no explanation (in case it is eg. a metaphor...) neither "it's just an opinion" has any value nor it should be considered as such. It's simply false - and no "other factors" or "evidence" are required.

We ‘are’ talking past each other. We have been since the beginning. We each have different opinions on what constitutes proof. (among other differences)

No immunity of any kind was ever asked for. That was an invention of yours. You have my permission to state your opinions all day long, accusing me of anything you like.

[RKL]

I have never been overly fond of the whole system. I realize that my subsequent ideas are not likely to be implemented at this late date. (extreme understatement) I prefer having one set of armor, jewelry, LIs, character stats and the like. Say; starting at a certain level, (possibly entry into Moria) and they all become stronger as the character advances.

That way, grinders will become better fighters as they grind. (honing their fighting skills) This will give them an advantage appropriate to their contributions to the cause of freedom. Raiders will acquire skills and/or stats relative to their so-called ‘harder’ completion of group activity. Everybody will have different levels of stats on their items and characters according to what they have done in the game. The people who are both, grinders ‘and’ raiders, will acquire the best stats of all.

Edit: We might even have a multiplier, or divisionifier (if I may now coin a word) that would be applied to a character, which would take into account the time that a character has been online. This would help those people who have little time to play the game. i.e. What have you accomplished relative to time played. Crafting could also be used as ‘accomplishments’ in these equations.

[Whatevaplz]

I think what the original thread meant to say is the degree of difficulty and base it on rewards. There is a big difference between a grinder/farmer and a raider. I can simply roll a lvl 85 with no gear whatsoever, all 1 virtues, grab a weapon and press 1-2 and maybe sometimes 3 to get a chance on an epic item. Trust me I done it! Literally i spent hours farming that all my armor broke and still able to kill multiple mobs to get an item coz i got a weapon in hand (which by the way 2 recipes drop, yey).

Now look at a normal raider, he will spend lots of time gearing up, work on their virtues, plan for the raid and buy necessities. All of this doesn't GUARANTEE a successful one and this include 12 PLAYERS. Not just ONE it involves ELEVEN other players with you. After all of this GRIND you face with a ridiculous odds of winning an epic item. There are no PROGRESSION whatsoever. You are bound to get the same RESULT if you decide to try again, very DETRIMENTAL.

Mind as well bring the whole group of raiders in a hytbold instance and mash 1-2-3 button because it is much more REWARDING. You get more ixp and relics in those areas than fighting your way thru BG t2. I done it, after many failed BG T2C loots, I decided to stand in a corner press 1-2 and win. Hey at least i got 2 recipes doing it the "grinder" way. .

[Ferthcott]

No immunity of any kind was ever asked for. That was an invention of yours. You have my permission to state your opinions all day long, accusing me of anything you like.

If "this is an opinion" is the only thing that one is able/willing to say to comment a random claim, and considers such phrase as absolving from... well, anything, it effectively creates an immunity from any responsibility. With the exception of various mutations of "being nice". While it's not a recipe for creating "wrong" opinions, it provides an opportunity to go into "three monkeys stance" whether it is about "Durchest has the same stats as Shak-hai from Hytbold daily" or "I like BG better than GS" -as if both were equally eligible. Regarding what constitutes a proof - is "difference in difficulty", between specified content and in terms of game-related values, proven (if not simply illustrated by those values) or is it an opinion? If it's an opinion, then I guess basic math is entering The Age of PoV

Mind as well bring the whole group of raiders in a hytbold instance and mash 1-2-3 button because it is much more REWARDING. You get more ixp and relics in those areas than fighting your way thru BG t2. I done it, after many failed BG T2C loots, I decided to stand in a corner press 1-2 and win. Hey at least i got 2 recipes doing it the "grinder" way. .

Imagine the difference if instance mobs were respawning into stronger versions based on number of people present. 5 seconds later: "but this is solo instance, it should be easier, stop forcing me to group". Sadly, quick and easy solutions are just as silly - close the instance, remove "public" flag from the instance, remove meaningful loot from the instance, ignore it and/or call "equal way to get gear"... Oh, yes, about that. If Turbine helps people to get used to zero difficulty progression, they will eventually start treating it as "WAI" and soon - demand, as "accessibility". Or: "die, DFB, die". I am still shaking my head at "Thirst For Blood", which turned out to be a nice, if not overly complicated, puzzle by mistake. That's right, we apparently can get interesting solo instance, but bugs/typos are needed. Obviously, it got nerfed to hell and beyond so it resembles every other "bruteforce dps it".

Hytbold is an obvious improvement when compared to RoI daily set, but it's quantity (and ofc separate environment to play in), not quality in terms of challenge. Tiers, or even better - mixing various levels of difficulty in 5 x daily set, would be at least partially redeeming for better and better loot. After all, we get non-combat quests as a token for some other niche. Sadly, it feels like it was easier to start from the opposite end - and not much on this end either: gold loot is still "stats from difficult content" copypasta into different, mostly static environment.

I want to be surprised by Wintermore, but something tells me the best I can expect is another LG, which means content designed for groups from the start. I wouldn't dream to complain about such zone on its own, but... no independent solo ladder, still. I guess non-RNG items from solo Wintermore will be worse than current Gold For Nothing, which technically makes even less sense if it is supposed to be "later".

[RKL]

If "this is an opinion" is the only thing that one is able/willing to say to comment a random claim, and considers such phrase as absolving from... well, anything, it effectively creates an immunity from any responsibility. With the exception of various mutations of "being nice". While it's not a recipe for creating "wrong" opinions, it provides an opportunity to go into "three monkeys stance" whether it is about "Durchest has the same stats as Shak-hai from Hytbold daily" or "I like BG better than GS" -as if both were equally eligible. Regarding what constitutes a proof - is "difference in difficulty", between specified content and in terms of game-related values, proven (if not simply illustrated by those values) or is it an opinion? If it's an opinion, then I guess basic math is entering The Age of PoV

I never asked for absolution from anything, nor said that I consider that “this is an opinion” absolves me from anything. Perhaps I am forgetting a post I made. If so, then you can correct me by referring me to the post/s.

[0rdinary0wl]

Remember back in the glory days of SoA when you could get really good loot by killing landscape mobs?

More like back in SoA you could get really good loot just about anywhere. Why this game ever decided to leave the philosophy of comparable-incomparable behind is beyond me.

[cdq1958]

More like back in SoA you could get really good loot just about anywhere. Why this game ever decided to leave the philosophy of comparable-incomparable behind is beyond me.

I don't think that it did. I certainly see RockX trying to do just that, but he's having some trouble getting it right. Just writing the spec for comparable incomparables for the coders will have its own 'translation failures' then you have the artists who have to make the visuals. RockX needs chocolate or pie. I hope he gets enough sleep right now.

[Ferthcott]

If so, then you can correct me by referring me to the post/s.

Sure, every one of those:

...when you remove "it's my/your opinion" and turns out it is the only response to equivalents of "do elaborate" or "what else is needed in this particular case?". Granted, it happens only if you treat using stuff like "you claim these sentences here are in Greek, but it's just your opinion, so they are still Chinese" as actual answer. If, however, there is some personal and/or secret reason to repeat solely "it's my/your opinion" even when such "blanketing" includes values established in-game on mathematical level as well, then you are correct, there's no absolving or anything like present and there is no argument to be had. Could be called an evasion, but for Internet, or LOTRO forums... *shrug*.

Even when thinking everything is Chinese until shown otherwise, it is nonsense to throw "unproven" about a Greek encyclopedia that has been already reviewed, catalogued, advertised and sold as Greek. When complaining about encyclopedia for having 1% (very good ones) definitions spread randomly, you don't have to prove "encyclopedia has alphabetical order". Lack of consistency is still not an opinion. When, in some new edition, index gets extremely small font, like... eg. chest drop rates, it's no longer just inconsistency, it negatively affects one way and promotes the other. What happens later or how we judge two of those ways is indeed a matter of an opinion. But that's it.

[RKL]

Sure, every one of those:



...when you remove "it's my/your opinion" and turns out it is the only response to equivalents of "do elaborate" or "what else is needed in this particular case?". Granted, it happens only if you treat using stuff like "you claim these sentences here are in Greek, but it's just your opinion, so they are still Chinese" as actual answer. If, however, there is some personal and/or secret reason to repeat solely "it's my/your opinion" even when such "blanketing" includes values established in-game on mathematical level as well, then you are correct, there's no absolving or anything like present and there is no argument to be had. Could be called an evasion, but for Internet, or LOTRO forums... *shrug*.

Even when thinking everything is Chinese until shown otherwise, it is nonsense to throw "unproven" about a Greek encyclopedia that has been already reviewed, catalogued, advertised and sold as Greek. When complaining about encyclopedia for having 1% (very good ones) definitions spread randomly, you don't have to prove "encyclopedia has alphabetical order". Lack of consistency is still not an opinion. When, in some new edition, index gets extremely small font, like... eg. chest drop rates, it's no longer just inconsistency, it negatively affects one way and promotes the other. What happens later or how we judge two of those ways is indeed a matter of an opinion. But that's it.

And, as I said: I am not asking for immunity or absolution from any posts; such as this current one. As I said before: You have my permission to state your opinions all day long, accusing me of anything you like.

[Ferthcott]

More like back in SoA you could get really good loot just about anywhere. Why this game ever decided to leave the philosophy of comparable-incomparable behind is beyond me.

There's one possible reason - current a'la carte model can always benefit from more incentives. Wouldn't work for pre-f2p design, obviously, but years already passed, so...

You can have various shapes of PvE and then PvMP, offering significantly different gear, not necessarily limited to "useful only for content it was found in". Want to get Unseen set? Pay for VIP. "Maximize" stats? Here you go, instance cluster on sale or some skraids you are missing. Solo? Oh, well, crafting tiers... or... wait a moment, we have nothing special to sell you. With that low potential solo might as well be considered something like Medium Warsteed. Still, whatever issues Audacity has, Turbine made one good step, which thankfully was not the end (Promotions), and can always make another - whether it is "instance - specific" bonus or just "role - specific" / "differently - awesome" for gear from content that can be monetized. No, I wouldn't call such approach greedy.

After they introduced Hytbold along with armor sets, I started to wonder if something better outside of number of dailies could be finally offered - at least better than playing static set to get "stomp-em all" gear that serves only to kill the same orcs made even weaker. Gear, that might not even be considered during development of new expansion. Balance for crafted & rep, move on, just like RoR - unless future players will be expected to grind Hytbold between 85 and 86 or Hytbold itself will be having permanent "90% sale", with older players telling scary stories.

[Ferthcott]

And, as I said: I am not asking for immunity or absolution from any posts; such as this current one. As I said before: You have my permission to state your opinions all day long, accusing me of anything you like.

You are giving me something I don't need nor asked for in the first place, neither it was denied to you. If you are asked to elaborate or provide substance for some claim and you answer "it's an opinion", then alternating between meta and blanket statements, it is effectively an evasion. If you are answering "it is an opinion" as in "that's good enough", it is implying - not asking for it - that having an opinion is equal to being absolved from being eg. specific. "I prefer not to" would be more honest - or even if not honest, then at least without such implications.

[RKL]

You are giving me something I don't need nor asked for in the first place, neither it was denied to you. If you are asked to elaborate or provide substance for some claim and you answer "it's an opinion", then alternating between meta and blanket statements, it is effectively an evasion. If you are answering "it is an opinion" as in "that's good enough", it is implying - not asking for it - that having an opinion is equal to being absolved from being eg. specific. "I prefer not to" would be more honest - or even if not honest, then at least without such implications.

Interesting opinions, thanks for sharing.

[Ferthcott]

Interesting opinions, thanks for sharing.

You give me too much credit, there is only one, in the last sentence.

As for the rest - not... really, it is either proven by few posts back, some third party documents or works how described in related conditions.

Here's one more so you can have that plural "factual": clinging to definition sensu largo is not necessarily interesting, but thanks for sharing anyway.

[RKL]

You give me too much credit, there is only one, in the last sentence.

As for the rest - not... really, it is either proven by few posts back, some third party documents or works how described in related conditions.

Here's one more so you can have that plural "factual": clinging to definition sensu largo is not necessarily interesting, but thanks for sharing anyway.

That certainly gives me a lot to think about. Thanks again.

This is nice, isn’t it? Especially since we are past the point of: (How did you express it in post 101 of this thread?) Ah, yes.

We could continue this somewhere else (especially if you operate under the assumption I actually want to convince you of anything)

We are now just two people exchanging pleasant posts back and forth, without any ulterior motives, on a Super Bowl day. Life is good.