If doing TBM for the currency (remnants of tranquility, tradeable(!) ), then concentrate on the "lesser spirit" missions. No real need to do TBM progression for that purpose, besides the 3tasks up to and including "Into the temple (b)". I've said it before so i am sure that's just from "being used to" misuse the wording. You need one mercenary task in drowned Katta to get the first EoK partisan task done. So strictly spoken, no TDS progression is needed at all, since progression tasks are partisan tasks, not mercenary ones. And you won't encounter the "DoT" in EoK (read: the Kar'Zok AE's) anywhere in OT,SF(base zone partisans!),HS or ST progression. So you can begin with these or do these while you are getting your Essence1 done. However yes, in Gorowyn you want it done and certainly in the SF Hero mission you need it done.
Ok daybreak relife adornment no longer possible without raid gear THIS IS GROUP CONTENT IN TBM!!! what is anashti 120 or something holy cow.. i think with this upset u need to do something now ... in other words wake up revert it back and leave it alone
The Ha's (at least in DH) had already scaled to 110 pre-patch. Don't know why it all needed to be scaled to RoS, but arguing with software devs is like hitting your head against a brick wall. Therefore, I have cancelled payment on all four of my accounts. but I'm sure they don't care either way
this scaling is the best joke they ever done!!!!! shows how much DBG knows about the game, BOOT a multiple ppls who never use the word abuse, then scale and f***uck the whole communaty, even 110 raid geard 3-4 peeps take a zillion time to get a new alt upto date, they are so dumb, must be americans! never test anything, give autoreply on tickets and then put a GM on it to fix that if you dare to reply. As we all thought from the start, DBG is just here to milk the cow dry, but as long you got at least 1 main toon paying they dont seem to care, wile autobotting FM for rare loot is still a daily base, they realy have no clue of what they are doing, only thing that counts is the krono they sell ..........
The plan B is to take before the final decision. A decision without having alternative option in the backhand shows some lack of professional working attittude. But ofcourse if your secret intention was to kill the game, you reached the final lane.
yet in HA retune thread Roxxy said that a change has been decided on and tweaks will be implemented in the next patch with more details coming soon. dev tracker is your friend.
It wasn't supposed to. Mischaracterizations or attempting to demonize the devs motives are just silly. Prathun said they implemented a mechanic they did with the last level increase. If they were really gung ho about it they would of done it on ROS launch. instead they waited..who knows maybe they wanted to see the data on missions with 106+ toons before they made a change. look at patch note.. they said they wanted those to scale... indicating that data indicated ha's were getting done too fast and not just the ha's in dead hills . which can be a problem. Devs are gonna try the quickest implementation when addressing a problem especially when they are trying to get ahead. I can understand that. its efficient time management. They didn't focus much on the ha scaling in beta because they thought they already had a solution.
Without demonizing anyone the HA retuning was not done well and hopefully their return to the drawing board come out better. While they are at it they can fix the cactus thing too .
old HA's you could do 3 in about 2 hours. new HA's 1 takes 4.5 hours old HA's always groups looking for people new HA's no one wants to touch them this is really sad. i lose way more exp then i gain from doing these. i will not be doing them anymore.. maybe you should consider scaling them to the group average instead of the highest lvl in the group then. not everyone has a lvl 110 raid geared toon and it takes a group of raid geared toons to do 1 and you can't find 5 toons that have 4 + hours to kill. these are screwed up in so many ways guys. /sigh
one more thing.... i would like any one of you to take 1 toon and find 5 toons in /general chat.. run 1 HA and post how long it took and how much exp you gained. IF by chance you do find a group tell us how many of them hang out till the end, but i doubt you will find a group.
If they went to make it a challenge they do it like Field of Scale was & make the HA's 2 scales you can get them on normal or Hard core. they you fix it for all of the people. people that can't beat it as it is now but can when it was normal & they can get the stuff done for Progression & move on & can go back if they would like to go back & done hard missions later
I would just like to thank DB for saving me some money. I have cancelled 3/4 accounts and probably will the 4th as well if they do not want to make a change to what they have done to the HA's! I won't say I'll never play EQ again, but not as a paying customer! I certainly do not see what was wrong with the HA's the way they were. It took me a little over an hour to finish one and now I am unable to even finish one! Hunter for my alts is certainly out of the question now! No sense in paying for what i cannot do. As I see what happens without an all access account, no merc, no DB cash and probably AA adjustments, I can only imagine my time on EQ will greatly be diminished. Which I am only guessing is what DB wants. Hopefully DB WILL do something about this issue but they do not seem to be to concerned about it as far as I can tell. It was a very poor choice on their part to fix what was not broken in my opinion.
Here is the problem with that. Older xpacs should never scale up with ha missions. All group content raid content up till current few xpacs ago never even had the scaling ability. Therefore those should not of been altered. If someone needs acheives and wants to stomp through older content it should be just that old content not older content converted to new age. If this was the case then all raids should scale all missions in the game from dodh etc the scaling for cotf should cap at 100 period. It should never extend to 110 as the content was not built around level 110 gear. As for this change dramatically changing play style for players is 100% accurate some people only have a hour or two a day to play and like to squeeze in a ha for xp cheives and possible loots for the soloing 105 player this is physically impossible now. A 110 player trying solo a simple cotf ha out of the question. Newer xpacs even more so. This change hit hard for the average geared player who cant and dont raid i feel for them i truly do. In my opinion if people want to do harder ha missions they need to go to ros or eok and do harder missions dont turn old xpacs into ros difficulty it will discourage thousands. To me the team is trying way to hard to implement too much world of warcraft stuff.. Keep everquest as everquest trying to compete with a completely different game is what turned off lots of subs already.
I just had a EUREKA moment!!!!! Daybreak thinks we are leveling in the forums and finishing forum content too fast so they added the captcha to slow it down!.
What they should do instead of varying difficulty, which is a lazy fix, they should do variable EXP based upon how often the mission is being done. They know how often these tasks are being done so.... Put in code which reduces EXP based upon how often a mission is completed. More than so many times a day then EXP drops. If a mission is completed very few times then EXP increases. There would be a minimum CAP and maximum CAP. So an example: Let's say the EXP can vary from 25% to 130%, based upon completion frequency. There would be 3% on each daily counter, and thus take 25 days to move a mission exp from max to min or min to max. Max cap is 130% of base EXP. Mission completed less than 25 times a day +3% to counter Mission completed 25-50 times a day. No change. Mission completed 50+ times a day then -3% to EXP counter. Min cap is 25% of base EXP. Simple. No need to tune old mission difficulty and would actually encourage people to go out there and try to find those 130% missions for better EXP. For people trying to go back and do old content, they don't have to worry about overpowered missions. DBG - Tune the EXP, not the difficulty.
LOL, get real! Your "scaling model" only works serverwide - i.e. how many times a mission was done per server, not per individual. (since you mention thresholds of 25 and 50 per mission, which cannot be done by an individual character) And all you would achieve with that is the "rush hour" at whatever point that server-count would reset, so the "lucky" ones get 130% - woot, a bonus even! - while the slower/later ones can consider themselves lucky to even just get "normal" XP. In other words: complete utter crap, that. Now, if you were to scale it on a per-character level with a kind of "cooldown" or "refresh" interval, that would be a different matter. But i refuse, and wouldn't stand for it, to be held "hostage" by others in what i can or can not do for a worthwhile reward. Your suggestion would also "encourage" noone to do anything but stay out of all such content unless you'd have some indication (like a scoreboard) on which mission gives which reward. Good intention, certainly. but fail for not thinking things through, so I have to get to the utter crap idea thing, sorry. There is nothing wrong with the existing method of giving an added bonus on some random (or perhaps in the future not-quite-so-random, factoring your "how often has it been done serverwide" in for example) HAs via the NPC. And while i have no objection to scaling of a sort, any model MUST provide at least the following for me: a) provide a method to do an HA at the "original" difficulty, regardless of character level (the outgrowing content aspect) and b) when difficulty is scaling, reward also has to scale accordingly (risk vs. reward) It need not be as verbose as custom settings on some single-player games, but generally the more i can fiddle with one side (and the other side is adjusting accordingly), the wider the character-range it's useable for.
