This is supposed to be a game that "encourages grouping." Your loading screens encourage players to do it, you have a group finder for flashpoints and even planet runs, and you have this whole system of "social points" to reward people for running in groups. You also have two game-breaking problems that are destroying the "social" aspect of running in random groups. Either of these problems would be enough on its own; both together are going to be fatal to any enduring sense of "community" among players.

(1) REPAIR COSTS

Fixed, apparently, according to the latest Bioware post in the 115+ page thread about it. Thank you, Bioware!

(2) GROUP XP

You advertise grouping in the loading screens and state that people will gain "more XP" when running in groups. This is false for all but the trivial case of an entire group of people at exactly the same level. A group with as little as 2-3 levels difference between lowest and highest will nerf the XP of the lowest levels to almost nothing. This happens whether people are grouping randomly on planets for things, or getting randomly assigned to FPs through group finder. This is why people sit there on fleet hitting DECLINE DECLINE DECLINE all day; because they don't want to waste 45 minutes for 1/2 a bubble of XP, when they could get 1/2 a full bar from the same time and effort in a different group.

The solution to this is also simple: As long as the lowest member of a group is "green" to the highest member, all members of the group get the same XP from group activities that they would if running in a group of people all the same level as them. Higher levels get a bit less, obviously, and lower a bit more, based on the relative level of the content. But nobody can power level, and nobody will have their XP nerfed to nothing because someone is trivially higher level than them. You might need to adjust the assignment ranges for group finder FPs, or the "green range" among player levels, to make them all consistent.

(1) REPAIR COSTS

 

Fix it now. This is not a hard thing to do

You... you do realize how that works, right?

You are billed repairs based upon the value of your gear. Wiping for content you're over-geared for thus nets you a loss. They are currently putting more credits out with the *potential* to take more back if you wipe. Similar balance as before (in terms of wiping cleaning out your winnings), with more potential reward.

If they reduce the repair costs, then they will simply need to make a quick reciprocal adjustment to the quantity of free credits that are pouring out of every gaping wound in every npc. Lower repair bill = lower mission rewards.

Did you not notice that when tfb rolled and repair costs went up, the number of credits from that Op became insane? I can wipe a dozen times in there and come out ahead.

Did you notice that when the newest world event and daily missions rolled, they drop a freaking ton of credits, as well as blue and purple items?

The group XP thing--that did always puzzle me. I've come to assume that what they mean is that the XP in a group is multiplied by the number of members in the group rather than divided among them. So you get the content done faster, with fewer wipes, but receive the same XP (unless you bring a 50 to smoosh your level 30 heroics).

I agree 100% on both points. Repair costs in particular. I don't run many dailies and don't enjoy working the GTN. In the past, this has never been a problem: repair costs were reasonable, and while I never had a lot of credits I always had enough to repair. The most I ever have on my main is around 500k, 3 wipes costs 15% or more of everything I have. I'm not interested in grinding dailies for credits, that's why I don't do it. I run ops weekly with my guild, but apart from that I'm a story player. I level alts and re-do the story.

Whereas I used to enjoy queueing in the group finder a few times a week if the mood for a FP struck me and guildies weren't avvailable, now I won't do it at all. I enter the group finder with a full (or at least mostly full) group of guildmates only. I won't random because I just can't afford it.

The group XP bonus, in this game and in the other MMO's I used to play, has always been presented poorly. What they SAY and what actually happens, while technically true, is misleading.

They SAY you get more xp in a group.

What they MEAN is in a group you can kill mobs faster, so you get more xp, over time, because you're killing more stuff than you could playing solo.

However, there is a slight reduction in xp per kill in a group, because the theory is that the quantity of kills will increase and overcome it.

What they MEAN is in a group you can kill mobs faster, so you get more xp, over time, because you're killing more stuff than you could playing solo.

There is nothing to suggest that's what they mean. They have referred in the past to a group XP buff, and there used to actually be one (you got more XP from all sources when running content as a group, just because you were grouped). That might still be the case, but the problem is that somewhere along the way the math got borked up to the point that the "anti-power-leveling nerf" far outweighs any group XP buff that applies. The problem is that the nerf hits so hard, and such a small level gap, that all it does is discourage normal grouping, by people who are all in the designated range for a given planet or instance. That's why it should just be removed as long as everyone in the group is within a designated range of levels, so that nobody loses out on anything by grouping up. If the actual group XP buff is still working, then so much the better. But right now, there is a flat out group XP nerf, which needs to be removed.

There is nothing to suggest that's what they mean. They have referred in the past to a group XP buff, and there used to actually be one (you got more XP from all sources when running content as a group, just because you were grouped). That might still be the case, but the problem is that somewhere along the way the math got borked up to the point that the "anti-power-leveling nerf" far outweighs any group XP buff that applies. The problem is that the nerf hits so hard, and such a small level gap, that all it does is discourage normal grouping, by people who are all in the designated range for a given planet or instance. That's why it should just be removed as long as everyone in the group is within a designated range of levels, so that nobody loses out on anything by grouping up. If the actual group XP buff is still working, then so much the better. But right now, there is a flat out group XP nerf, which needs to be removed.

I was referring to grouping with the same level players, or similarly leveled. Within 2-3 levels I haven't seen much of an xp nerf that you're referring to. A level gap, of say 5, yes, there is a BIG hit to xp. My opinion is that it's there on purpose to keep people from power leveling "lowbies" through stuff. I think it's a good policy to have.

I was referring to grouping with the same level players, or similarly leveled. Within 2-3 levels I haven't seen much of an xp nerf that you're referring to. A level gap, of say 5, yes, there is a BIG hit to xp. My opinion is that it's there on purpose to keep people from power leveling "lowbies" through stuff. I think it's a good policy to have.

Running with a 5-level difference in a group is not "power leveling." And the nerf kicks in at less level gap than that. But you might not have noticed it at all if you're always the highest level player in your groups. The typical level range for planets is 4-5 levels, and the FP auto-group range is even wider. This "policy" isn't solving any problem, it's just screwing people over who are playing the game exactly as its designed (not to mention people who are automatically assigned to groups for FPs, who have no control over what the range of the group is).

Power leveling is 50s dragging 10s through content. Or 40s and 20s. Even 30s and 20s. This "feature" is doing nothing to discourage that, and groups like that should result in everyone getting zero XP. That's not the problem that we're talking about.

I was referring to grouping with the same level players, or similarly leveled. Within 2-3 levels I haven't seen much of an xp nerf that you're referring to. A level gap, of say 5, yes, there is a BIG hit to xp. My opinion is that it's there on purpose to keep people from power leveling "lowbies" through stuff. I think it's a good policy to have.

There is, AFAIK, a group experience buff that increases the total experience per mob(this is still divided up amongst more people though). Fortunately, the player receives experience off of bonus missions completed by allies as well, and the easy ability to complete heroics makes grouping on an xp-basis well worth it(excepting this level range issue which I'm not overly familiar with).

I've played two MMO's before this. WOW (briefly) and Star Wars Galaxies. In each of those the same thing happens with XP in groups. I think it was actually worse in SWG.

Levels are FAR more important here than SWG, and a level difference of 5 is HUGE in terms of in game combat. At level 20 try killing 3 lvl 20 gold npcs and then, at level 25 (even wearing the same gear you had at level 20) try to kill those same 3 mobs. It is MUCH easier.

That is what I'm basing my opinions on.

Someone at the end of the planetary quests say at level 25, helping someone at the start of the planetary quests, say at level 20...the level 20 is going to get through everything much faster, but lose out on xp.

I think that's a fair trade.

a level difference of 5 is HUGE in terms of in game combat.

No, it isn't. If this was true, then FPs would not be rated for ranges that are up to 6 levels wide. Also, the range at which you can be auto-grouped into them is even wider, because it will let you in a little lower, and will still group you into it when you're a couple levels higher. The time and effort required to complete the content is substantially the same regardless of the level of players in the group. You might have some chance of dying if you screw up at the lowest levels, and no chance of dying at all on the highest, but that's about it.

To the extent that level matters more at lower levels than at high levels, this is already accounted for by the point at which things go grey to you at each level (it happens with smaller gaps at lower levels than it does at higher levels). If the level of the lowest level person in the group would represent green content for the highest level person, then there is no reason for nerfing the lowest level's XP. If the lowest level would be grey for the highest level member, then nobody should get any XP from the group.

I think you forgot the actual reason grouping doesn't work so well in TOR.

#1

The only game to ever release with less group content, and less reasons to group, has been Solitaire.

I think you forgot the actual reason grouping doesn't work so well in TOR.

 

#1

The only game to ever release with less group content, and less reasons to group, has been Solitaire.

looks at all the group quests on every planet, ability to share conversations, not to mention flashpoints...

huh? I guess its not group content then?

ok then

I COULD bring up other MMO's that have no leveling content other then dungeons that you actually need to group for, but... they are not subject to same rules apparently >_>

I think you forgot the actual reason grouping doesn't work so well in TOR.

 

#1

The only game to ever release with less group content, and less reasons to group, has been Solitaire.

Each planet has several heroics groups about a flashpoint per level and had one op at release and the second op was released soon after so im not sure what you are talking about. If you dont like the group content that is completely understandable but what you said just isnt true

I was referring to grouping with the same level players, or similarly leveled. Within 2-3 levels I haven't seen much of an xp nerf that you're referring to. A level gap, of say 5, yes, there is a BIG hit to xp. My opinion is that it's there on purpose to keep people from power leveling "lowbies" through stuff. I think it's a good policy to have.

I just ran a random group last night, my first one since returning to this game, and the group finder put me (19) in a group that ranged from 16-22.

The group XP for any random should not have a power-leveling correction in effect. Period. If it puts me in that group, that run needs to be worth my time. That means I need to get a reasonable amount of XP and credits per hour, at least comparable to what I would get questing with my time.

looks at all the group quests on every planet, ability to share conversations, not to mention flashpoints...

 

huh? I guess its not group content then?

 

ok then

 

I COULD bring up other MMO's that have no leveling content other then dungeons that you actually need to group for, but... they are not subject to same rules apparently >_>

There's a big difference between "group content" and solo content that can be done while grouped.

One's a mutiplayer game, the other isn't.

There's a big difference between "group content" and solo content that can be done while grouped.

 

One's a mutiplayer game, the other isn't.

Every planet has quests that require a team. If you can solo all of the H4 content without out-leveling it, then you are in the extreme minority.

Every planet has quests that require a team. If you can solo all of the H4 content without out-leveling it, then you are in the extreme minority.

Yes you are correct. Each planet has roughly 1 or 2 truely group-oriented Heroics. They are also purely optional, and most can be done in less than 30 minutes each.

It's an MMO. Group content should be the majority of content, not a few optional quests. Designing an MMO to be 95% solo game makes no sense at all. It would seem to be pretty obvious to me that making a multiplayer game actually mutiiplayer for the majority of the play experience would be a no-brainer.

Yes you are correct. Each planet has roughly 1 or 2 truely group-oriented Heroics. They are also purely optional, and most can be done in less than 30 minutes each.

 

It's an MMO. Group content should be the majority of content, not a few optional quests. Designing an MMO to be 95% solo game makes no sense at all. It would seem to be pretty obvious to me that making a multiplayer game actually mutiiplayer for the majority of the play experience would be a no-brainer.

If it is so obvious, and such a great business model, you should start a consulting firm and make millions advising pretty much 100% of the MMO market.

Is there even a single major title that works like you claim should be a no-brainer for the industry? Not one that I've played.

It's an MMO. Group content should be the majority of content, not a few optional quests. Designing an MMO to be 95% solo game makes no sense at all. It would seem to be pretty obvious to me that making a multiplayer game actually mutiiplayer for the majority of the play experience would be a no-brainer.

Some people can only play 30 minutes at a time, and it can often take longer to get a group than it takes to run an instance. Others have to deal with unavoidable interruptions (i.e., kids) when they play, so committing to a group run is either impossible or irresponsible, when you might have to go /afk or log off for a while halfway through.

There is also a high correlation between people being in the situation of having little time or lots of interruptions, and those same people having more money to spend on the game (in other words, being the ones who dump a lot of cash on stuff like cash shop loot). Making a game that doesn't offer a lot of playable content for those people doesn't make an awful lot of sense from a developer's perspective, assuming that the developer is in this business to make some money.

Having lots of content that you have to group for is good, because requiring a group means it can give good rewards, for the increased time and effort put in. Making a game that requires a group for everything, all the time, is a great way to have a really tiny player base (and a really crappy looking quarterly report).

Yes you are correct. Each planet has roughly 1 or 2 truely group-oriented Heroics. They are also purely optional, and most can be done in less than 30 minutes each.

 

It's an MMO. Group content should be the majority of content, not a few optional quests. Designing an MMO to be 95% solo game makes no sense at all. It would seem to be pretty obvious to me that making a multiplayer game actually mutiiplayer for the majority of the play experience would be a no-brainer.

ah, you are one of them old school people.

most people who have disposable income to pay subscriptions ect, rarely have large chunks of time to set aside to find a group for pretty much everything in a game. so modern purpose of an MMO is to make grouping possible and encouraged, but NOT necessary. otherwise, they would make no profit and will no longer manage to exist.

MMO, contrary to what you seem to believe is NOT forced group content. MMO is a persistent world where grouping with a lot of different people is possible and can be fun. which SWTOR actually accomplishes. and encourages, in contrast to quite a few other MMO's on a market, who are successful in their own right but a lot more solo extensive. even old school MMO's the ones that used to require you to group for much of the content, or be unable to progress - have abandoned that model as its not sustainable.

If it is so obvious, and such a great business model, you should start a consulting firm and make millions advising pretty much 100% of the MMO market.

 

Is there even a single major title that works like you claim should be a no-brainer for the industry? Not one that I've played.

Every MMO before WoW was group-oriented. That was when the industry was thriving and exploding in popularity. Now it's contracting and dying, with most new releases fairing anywhere from fair to terrible.

The facts speak for themself. The industry can't sell subscriptions anymore for the games they are making. If the product is so good, and this is what people want, why can't they attract anywhere close to the numbers EQ had 15 years ago, even when giving it away for free?

Some people can only play 30 minutes at a time, and it can often take longer to get a group than it takes to run an instance. Others have to deal with unavoidable interruptions (i.e., kids) when they play, so committing to a group run is either impossible or irresponsible, when you might have to go /afk or log off for a while halfway through.

 

There is also a high correlation between people being in the situation of having little time or lots of interruptions, and those same people having more money to spend on the game (in other words, being the ones who dump a lot of cash on stuff like cash shop loot). Making a game that doesn't offer a lot of playable content for those people doesn't make an awful lot of sense from a developer's perspective, assuming that the developer is in this business to make some money.

 

Having lots of content that you have to group for is good, because requiring a group means it can give good rewards, for the increased time and effort put in. Making a game that requires a group for everything, all the time, is a great way to have a really tiny player base (and a really crappy looking quarterly report).

I don't disagree.

Having solo and group content is essential. They have just shifted far too much to the solo side and the industry is dying because of it.

It's one thing to try and attract new customers. When what you are doing though is killing the market you had, and not actually attracting new customers, then something is terribly wrong with the strategy.

Your lack of spelling skills in the thread title caused me to discount your credibility and question your intelligence, thus negating the effectiveness of the message you're trying to get across.

Wow, just wow. Let me guess, you play all your characters on the Empire side and achieve 100% dark side points.

The facts speak for themself. The industry can't sell subscriptions anymore for the games they are making. If the product is so good, and this is what people want, why can't they attract anywhere close to the numbers EQ had 15 years ago, even when giving it away for free?

The industry as a whole is orders of magnitude larger than it was 15 years ago. And the market has gone mainstream now, where 15 years ago it was just nerds making games for nerds (remember when we used to call them nerds?). There are lots of titles that fail, but that's a product of the fact that there are dozens of companies and hundreds of games in release or development at any one time.

If the game is fun and people like playing it, then they will line up around the block to give you their money. A lot of new MMOs are not fun, and people don't enjoy playing them. Many of them just rehash the same tired old model that has been done twenty times before with a new skin, and many game makers are so consumed with trying to make a game that you have to play, they forget to make a game that you want to play. Game companies are no different than other companies in this way; a lot of them just have no good ideas, no ability to execute, and disgusting, condescending attitudes toward their customers. Some don't, and those are the ones that will win once in a while . . . if they're lucky (and if they can get enough money to try).