PvE droprates are too low

Fifjunior's Comprehensive Guide to this Long Conundrum

That seems pretty 'unlucky'. But you must remember that with a normal distribution curve, there is also the 'lucky' side. Just because this one romp through the SP adventures of Cardhuntria yielded minimal harvest, doesn't mean the opposite happens less.

Farming specifically for a legendary item is a foolish endeavor.

This was so true. I use to remember the days where I actually avoided MP because of this reason. I am so happy they changed this.

We've gone through this already, but yeah, no. Can you explain your reasoning behind this please? I'd like to know.

~~~~~~~~
Remember that the money in SP is geared for players who are new and just starting out. For them, I think it does the job wonderfully. I do agree farming in general should be a little more lucrative. But instead of raising the chance of rares, epics, and legendaries, why not just slightly increase the base price of common items? If we are worried about this disrupting the balance of gold for new players who have yet to complete the campaign, just make it so they sell for more - once you reach the max renown or whatever.



~~~~~~~~

One rare in fifty maps? I've only had that happen to me very rarely. Not a common occurrence at all.

It's legendary. This artifact is literally, the stuff of legend. So obscure that it only appears in myth and 'legend'. So when your adventurers go take walk in the park, of course it's hard to find legendaries. That's the point. I also would like to point out that this also applies to epics and rares. They are 'rare', you are not supposed to just find them laying around everywhere.

Hear, hear, Jarmo.

Yes pleassse, BlueManchu. *hint hint wink wink nudge nudge

I like a mix of both.

And you did a great job of it! I was so happy when MP rewards were actually viable. Valimont, you must also acknowledge, MP is no fair feat either. Let's say you are an average player, so you win 50% of your matches. Each game takes about ten minutes on each side, so 2o minutes. The expected value is you will receive a rare and some commons/uncommons over 40 minutes, with the exception of the gold chests.

It would, that is why I suggest buffing the sell price of common items and the like after you beat campaign, I don't think you should buff SP rewards, just buff the price at which you can sell some things.

You kidding me? When did Flax EVER say he favored on playing style over another? More hyporcrisy from you.

Wow. That was an amazing story Sir Veza. Told in true Cardhuntrian style and flair! Also great to serve our points. Val, as a new player who has not experienced these things, I understand if your viewpoint is different, but remember that these changes were because of previous problems.

Valimont, there is a reason why the Devs decided to remove the Kobold Mine's treasure. They didn't want boring, repetitive farming to be the best way to get game currency. They wanted players to get gold by interacting and having fun with the community, i.e, MP. Yes, I do think that there should be some change to how much money you can make in SP. I do NOT think that they should up the chance of rares, epics, and legendaries. There will always be some difference between SP and MP, and we will all have to live with it. But I think that we as a community are certainly on the right steps forward to a greater Cardhuntria.

 

Really? So people who don't play MP, like Kalin and I, aren't part of the community?

 

This thread has become increasingly populated by quote-sniping, which tends to inflate the noise:signal ratio. It's safe to say Blue Manchu is aware of these opinions and can decide what to do from here and where it should go on the priority list. Now we should stop because I am a super well-loved member of the community that everyone respects and obeys (and gives pizza to).

 

Why is money in SP geared for players who are new?
First that's not true, we all grind(ed) ..
Second, what about players who are NOT new? They should just leave the game as "money in SP is geared for new players" ..

Oh come on .. there are players with almost all the items, what "stuffs of legends" are you talking about..

So you say "they did not want boring repetitive farming to be the best way to get game currency" .. and yet you suggest that they should increase selling price, to make "boring repetitive farming" actually more lucrative?
IF you don't want farming to be more lucrative, then REDUCE selling prices, REDUCE loot in regular grey chests ... and increase DROPS in final grey chests (once per day).

As it currently is and as you said somewhere - "farming for Legendary item" does not have any sense .. only for gold..

Btw, what do YOU think is the best way to get game currency by playing?

 

Hahaha Drakkan. I shall answer your questions.

I see you've completely missed my point, while quoting something I said that very CLEARLY has the answer. I said:

Remember that the money in SP is geared for players who are new and just starting out. For them, I think it does the job wonderfully. I do agree farming in general should be a little more lucrative. But instead of raising the chance of rares, epics, and legendaries, why not just slightly increase the base price of common items? If we are worried about this disrupting the balance of gold for new players who have yet to complete the campaign, just make it so they sell for more - once you reach the max renown or whatever.

^ I think what I said is pretty straightfoward, I don't see how it doesn't answer your question. If you are still confused, let me rephrase what I said: The current gold system is good for people who are not finished with the campaign, therefore once someone has reached the max renown, we can buff the sell prices of common items.

Doesn't matter. Still called legend for a reason. The people who have a lot have also been playing, and I mean A LOT. How long should you play before you get most things, eh?
If you'r worried about "hyper-players" who own many of the legendaries, you think making them even more common would be the answer? What kind of logic is that? I''m not advocating this, but wouldn't the solution to be make legendaries even more elusive?

You need to understand that Blue Manchu doesn't want farming. That is precisely why they got rid of the loot of the Kobold Mines.
And to REDUCE loot in normal grey chests and REDUCE selling prices? Weren't you the one agreeing with Valimont about the massive discord between how MP was way too lucrative compared to SP?

What do I think is the best way to get gold? Well, you shouldn't really take my answer here too into matter of fact, because I have a rule where I don't sell anything that is atleast rare quality, even if it is a treasure. As a result, if I sold all my rare, epic, and legendary items/treasure right now, I could probably rake in.... a lot.
But I won't.
Anyways, I think the current best way to get gold is to go through the adventures in SP as quickly as you can. MP on average takes you 40 minutes to win 1 game out of 2, which also will usually yield you only one rare item and some commons/uncommons. It's usually much better to make money in SP, but you can get rarer items in MP. That's how I see it. But again, since I don't sell my rares, I make money slower than most I'd say.

 

I did read this thread up to end of page 4, I'll read up on it later. But for now...

1) It seems that there are few arguments that are repeated often by those that are not very fond of helping the drop rate. Unfortunately, at least two of them are the very root of the problem.
a) One of these arguments is about it being challenging this way or that better drop rates would make the campaign too easy. This is unfortunately...absolutely false. Think about it. Some of those that use this argument are very good tactical players. They can do well with sub-par equipment, thus finishing the campaign with reasonable ease. However not everyone is a good player. Many of those single-player only players are that not because they don't like the challenge and unique aspect of multiplayer games. They are single-player only because the challenge of multiplayer games is too high for them. Even if they would eventually be placed in the proper bracket, these players won't ever play it long enough for that. It would take a long time, have many losses and cause a lot of stress, so they give up quickly. To these players the campaign is hard.
I'm above average tactical player, but I'm "stuck" at lvl13+ maps. Why?! Not because I can't do them. I probably could finish them with what I have. It's because I just don't really like the idea of playing 3-4 maps where a bad draw (which is a random occurence) will have me need to restart it. There were times where having four or so movement cards in a deck I got all-move draws. Having 2/3 of the deck as attack I did get one in two-three turns. Compared to enemies that have smaller, themed decks which just don't have such a thing as bad luck (there is no option for that with such an efficient deck-building) it's just...I don't feel like doing it till I get gear that will outperform the enemies on normal run and manage with that random bad run. For less able players that "bad run" will be more frequent. They can end up against a challenge that is simply too high for them and if they can't get the items that will compare...well, they quit. This is one of reasons why players don't finish campaigns.
b) "Speed farmers". Please, don't count the people that managed to get a very good set of gear, that are very capable players AND that optimized their deck for a single, specific run as the base for balancing anything. If anything, make this just less rewarding.
Base the drop rates on the majority of players. Yes, going by raw numbers. Average player, probably casual, will play maybe for two hours a day. In that time they may finish 8-10 adventures. Don't leave em stranded just because there are people with more time on their hands. To become efficient at a map one needs the items to do that. To get those items one needs to play quite a considerable amount of time. It may take weeks for average player to get an optimal set for ONE adventure. Obviously easier for the low level maps which you can do with higher quality (higher level) items without much optimalization...but still.

2) The notion of comparing PvP and PvE is wrong. Players want to choose which they play. Both should be ideally self-sufficient, but that's just an unreachable dream. Many players simply won't start a PvP game until they have a very good gear, thus requiring a lot of playing in the campaign. If the multiplayer would give this good gear too easily, it would be bad for both PvP and PvE alike. A solution could be some "speed games" where the players don't use their gears and characters, but instead use random pre-set parties. Maybe have the players mirror each other, leaving it up to skill. This would of course put more importance on luck and tactical skills of players alienating the less capable ones till they get their rating correctly calculated, but in the end it's impossible to fully avoid that in multiplayer. In competition it IS about who is better and who is worse. Those that are too bad just don't start playing it to begin with. Trying to force them is just going to scare them away, hence making "incentives" that go too far will have an opposite effect...lower the player base. This is on a slightly different note though...


Now then, what do I suggest going by the above?!

1) Some kind of "gauge" that will decrease when a single-player map is finished and refill with time. The lower it goes, the worse the rewards. This could go down all the way to guaranteeing commons only on normal chests when its empty, hence removing the issue of speed farmers abusing better drops...while it wouldn't affect the average player that needs more time to play. It would also place an extra incentive on trying different maps, in addition to the already-available first-time only (in a day) better chest. Larger variety would slow the gameplay, making the restoration of the bar more fluent with the gameplay.
At the same time, this mechanic would not prevent anyone from playing the game as much as they want, either.
2) Some sort of adaptative difficulty. I know, this is a stretch for a small development team. But this can be in the form of a chest with a single uncommon+ item for each time a restart is used on an adventure that is not yet finished for the first three resets (the amount of resets available in each run-through without spending gold). It could reset each day but give a common+ item instead on subsequent days, to prevent people losing on purpose. This would help with the players that want to finish the campaign but can't. The attempts at least would not be wasted, they'd get something out of it.
There is no reason to give chests on resets of adventures that were finished at least once, but a common-uncommon item could be given, I guess. Probably nothing more.
3) As was suggested earlier, a guaranteed reward after a specific amount of maps finished/time spent playing collected. It could be limited to prevent abuse (like keeping the game on while doing other stuff, just to accumulate time, or farming too easy maps).
Two forms i could suggest:
a) A time gauge. After 10h of play time it would give a chest with at least 1 rare+. No more than 2h a day, no more than two chests a month. And don't count the time if the player didn't make a move for more than five minutes.
b) A game-based gauge. Each time a fresh adventure is finished a day. When 30, 40, maybe 50 are finished, give a rare+ chest. No more than two-three a month.

That's this for now...well, it's my opinion. Take it as you will.

 

Some "first run" rewards in SP are buffed to help new players get started. Otherwise, I don't think SP rewards are geared to new players. SP uses the same basic loot formula CH has used since beta for both SP and most of MP. MP got buffed, so it is now a bit ahead on a "per drop" basis, but the buff is actually pretty thin. The guaranteed epics are nice, but rares are soon filled out in either MP or SP. After that, they're just worth 5 gp a pop compared to 2 gp a pop for uncommons. The main advantage is that an upgrade from rare is usually better than an upgrade from uncommon, and tends to occur a bit more often. The nature of loot chase games is that finding all the items should take a lot of time, with the rarest items taking the longest.

On Farming
Basic farming is nothing more than playing, and can be done in any mode.
Leagues pay the most, and (with a few exceptions) the games tend to be more relaxed because the "rank thing" doesn't count.
Playing MP to the 20th chest daily definitely counts as farming, and produces great rewards over time.
SP Farming can simply be running the campaign, in whole or in part, on a daily basis. That was Oberon's method, and he was one of the best.
Repetition (speed) farming is often referred to as being boring. Sure, it's running an adventure over and over again. I think of it more like playing computer draw poker. Not too complicated, but it's not automatic, and it keeps me occupied. To me, boring is playing MP and waiting 2 minutes for my opponent to make the obvious move. The hardest part can be staying awake.

@Drakkan - Being at at 90+% after 4 months is WAY ahead of the curve. I don't buy pizza chests, and I got almost all my legendaries from SP, so I can attest that it is possible. My method would be to use neoncat's tools to find my gaps, then speed farm the easiest adventures in the level ranges where they might drop. I don't know how much time you have to play, but you can open a lot of chests in a short time if you optimize your build and don't have to adjust it. If you find it mind-numbingly boring, don't do it. If you can do it for short (15-20 minute) periods daily it should also work over time. It somehow gets less boring when the orange starts popping.
Note: The actual calculated drop ratio is about 1 legendary per 24 adventures, not 1 per 500 maps. If you just run all the adventures in the ranges where you need things they'll show up eventually, but it will be a slower track than the one you've been riding. The more you get, the slower the gaps fill. If I knew an easier method, I'd have used it by now.
You shouldn't need club all the time. If a legendary item (don't waste it on a treasure) you really want drops behind the glass, just spend 80 pizza for a 7 day, then play like the dickens for the next week. The 7 day option is best for me because I can usually stay motivated to play heavily for a week, but if I buy a 30 day I usually waste half (or more) of it.

On Further Reduction of Loot Drops.
This seems to be based upon the false premise that BM lowered drop percentages to compensate for aggressive farming. They didn't. Let's put it into a real world perspective:
If you go to a gym for an hour, three times a week, you should not expect to achieve the same results as someone who works weights and cardio six hours a day, six days a week.
Moral: More effort should produce greater results. If it doesn't, you're doing it wrong.

 

Actually it's you who missed a lot of things..

- if you increase gold reward, you'll encourage farming (and you said BM doesn't want that)
- I wont comment that about "legend is called for a reason", we would take this the wrong way
- I'm not worried "about hyper-players who own lots of items" .. where did you get that at all - I was a HYPER PLAYER and I OWN a lots of items - 95/96% total.
- I was not one agreeing about the massive discord between how MP was way to lucrative compared to SP

You probably didn't read the conversation in the first place and as you missed a lot of it, I wont argue or this conversation will go off topic..

 

Some of us like this game because it is so challenging. I've played every day for 16.5 months and I'm proud to have 84% of the items.

It's not just about being "good" or "bad", it's more about playing styles, and how well you do can vary a lot even within SP and MP. For myself, I'm good (on average) at leagues, great in SP, practically undefeated in co-op, but I haven't won a real ranked MP game since last May.

As a side note, we have a whole section of the forums for people to ask for help on specific maps. And you're not the first person I've seen hit the wall at level 13 (it used to be everyone hit the wall at trogs).

The RNG will screw over monsters too, sometimes. Remember the Tin Golems that are supposed to introduce new players to armor cards? I once saw them go 3 whole rounds without drawing a single armor.

Yes, actual numbers would be good. I suspect 8-10 is above the actual average for SP.

Many leagues are fixed deck or draft (Quick Draw). But people who find MP stressful (like me) will still find leagues stressful. Plus, you really need to be online for an hour when the league is scheduled.

A lot of your suggestions are similar to what we already have (adventures becoming exhausted) or would make SP drops even worse compared to MP.

 

@SirVeza - you speak wisely as always.
However I know all the tactics -> I've tried my share of Speed Farming .. few times repeated 1 map for 1h - although Kobolds were ok, they gave enough treasures, but even that gets "mind-numbingly boring" after few attempts
And especially other maps .. that rarely give anything .. true, occasionally you get "yellow" and that keeps you for a while .. but then you come back to reality

Anyway - I prefer finishing a dungeon .. but you cant always play for 6h a day .. after 5 months you play less, and less = you rarely see any Legendary ..
Maybe that's the problem here - were one to farm 7-8h a day, one would probably get one or few Legendaries and he wouldn't felt losing time..
But when you play less, you feel like you play in vein so you play even less .. if that is meant to be, then OK .. but this has its limits (of type of players that are willing to play) ..
(and I dont have the impression that 1L drops per 24 adventures)

Actually effort/reward it's best described by Kalin's example -> 16.5 months every day for 84% ..

Maybe some like that "challenge" , but that is by far over my tolerance to challenges

 

So what have we discovered so far in this thread? My biggest takeaway so far is that everyone likes to play the game differently and wants/expects it to favor different things. With that in mind, we should have some goals for designing something that can best empower many different philosophies at once. We need something that will:

- Provide some relief for players who feel repetition grinding is boring / unrewarding
- Close the perceived gap between MP rewards and casual SP re-play
- Allow some manner of upward (hopefully unlimited) farming potential for those who enjoy spending large periods of time hunting items
- Keep MP players from feeling slighted or obligated to engage in SP
- Engage SP players who have completed campaign but don't want to switch to MP extensively

If anyone has anything to add to that list, feel free to chime in. So far, the idea I've heard that best fits the bill is to have some sort of challenge mode with endless dungeons and perhaps limit item usage to whatever you find during the challenge. Some other ideas fix one or two of the issues, but in most cases they hurt some of the others which is overall bad for at least some part of the community. This is about the only one that provides engagement for SP users who completed campaign and a less grindy way to achieve higher rewards without seeming to cost anything in any other area. Discuss.

 

I totally agree. You have my vote

 

Challenge mode with endless dungeon is a great idea for SP-endgame, but unfortunately its development would require some time.

For the time being, I believe some better daily incentive to play, targeting SP-players, who completed campaign and most of quests, should be introduced. Loot fairy is great, but it can be found only once or twice per day.
I think this solution could work: for each set of 10 completed adventures (in particular day, only first completion of module in that day counts) player would get one gold chest (4 items, one/two rare or better). It would provide additional goal for casual SP players and wouldn't cause a migration from MP to SP (because winning one MP match yields more). Guaranteed rare item in chest might cause Club Membership more worthwhile for SP-only players.


In addition I would slightly redesign Loot Fairy. Currently it works as additional, daily incentive to play CH, but it affects mainly people who know where Fairy can be found (checking all modules every day is unrealistic) - in other words it affects mainly game's veterans and "engaged" players (people who for example visit forum, or in other way communicating with rest of community and can learn about LF tracker). But majority of players (as a general rule in online gaming, I don't think that Card Hunter is an exception ) are not in that category, so they may not know about easy way to find Loot Fairy. I would say they generally both need incentive (and loot in case of beginners) more and are less motivated by LF to visit Cardhuntria daily than players, who use tracker. I think this situation should be fixed, for example by making information about Loot Fairy's current whereabouts visible in-game.

 

Hilariously, this is a long-floated idea that the development team has repeatedly said we want to do. Including a few times in this thread. We just haven't done it yet.

 

For what it's worth, I did not know about Loot Fairy for majority of my campaign play-through. Heard about it somewhere toward the end (in lobby chat) and until that point had never encountered it randomly. I also never saw a single Bandit until well after my campaign was over. I think it's a valid point that Loot Fairy and Bandit provide daily incentive to play, but not if you haven't already encountered and then read about them. If we're currently relying on forum and word of mouth to accomplish this... I'd say that approach should be reevaluated. I like what I've been hearing for Loot Fairy - that it should be public, marked on the map so everyone knows. I also suggest this for Bandit:

- Bandit is redesigned to include a Bandit "chase." You would be given the first link in hunting down your bandit, and upon completing that module, you'd find another clue leading to the next module. After a set number of modules (maybe 3?) you'd catch up with the bandit and receive the bandit drop. In this way bandit doesn't become a freebie, but you also don't have to play 30+ levels sometimes to find it, and it would better engage new players in daily activity instead of hoping they somehow stumble into it.

 

I used to see people mention the Fairy's location in world chat when he's found. Does that still happen reliably?

(This doesn't help SP players who don't watch world chat. How many SP players know that's even possible?)

I love this idea!

First adventure completed since Bandit move: "I heard that someone was robbed in the Sinister Woods."
Completion of Sinister Woods: "I saw the Bandit flee towards Shieldhaven Prison!"
Completion of Rescue from Shieldhaven Prison: Bandit found!

We could even set it up so the clues never point to exhausted adventures.

 

Good, but if a clue is in a treasure hunt they haven't bought, the trail is lost. What is a good way around this? A second chance to find the trail? A "tough luck, Charlie" ending?

Could a clickable Loot Fairy Tracker link be put on the Portentous Proclamations screen?

Do we need to flood you with maps?

 

There are far more players that are poor and impatient than there are those that are good and devoted. In other words, a game that is difficult and there is no way to make it easier is always going to severely limit its player base.

It's easy to make an option to increase the challenge. Heck, a player can self-impose challenges onto themselves, like countless players around the globe did for RPG games like Final Fantasy and such, deciding to avoid leveling up and such.
It's impossible to "self-impose" an easier game. That's something which the game needs to provide. In other words, a game can fit tastes of both good and bad players if it have customization (which Card Hunter have) and is mechanically aimed at the less capable players. It can only aim at the good players if it's optimized for them.

It is the developers decision on what target audience they want to aim for, but that doesn't mean I can't state my opinion on it, keh.

"Good" or "bad" is not clearly defined. If you do below average in something, you are bad. If above it, you are good. It is separate for every action, so it is separate for multiplayer and for single player. Then even that is separate for Card Hunter and for different games.

In the end, what matters is what the player believes. If they don't think they will do well in multiplayer they will act as bad player even if they would completely overwhelm others in reality. Humans just don't like the idea of challenge that is insurmountable for them, and to know whether it is like that, they first need to try it.

Irrelevant. I already said that I most likely would be able to finish those adventures on my first go-through. I do not want to TRY, not that I cannot do them.
Up till the point I am at, I had issues only in the one of map of the two mauvre manticore adventures I did (the quest with guard running from zombies only) and on two ocassions when the random generator just was not on my side (but was on my enemies). Hence...this "wall" o mine have nothing to do with my abilities.

Except it's hardly a problem. As I said, the early enemies are weak on purpose. Whatever they get as cards, they will lose unless they will have a GOOD draw...and players a bad one.

I'm talking about the higher level mobs. Muscular Zombie is the one that stands out the most in my mind, seeing as he can regularly slaughter a mage or priest in a single turn at the point he first appears if you make a single mistake. And it is nearly impossible for him to get an unusable draw more than once each few rounds.

Honestly speaking...I forgot about quick draw...Oh well.

If you think so then you clearly did not really think through what I suggested.

The thing that you compare to exhausting adventures is actually nothing like it. The only similarity is that it decreases drops if a requirement is met.
It's function is entirely different however. It is to prevent uncontrolled flood of good items were the drop rates raised. Basically it removes entirely one of the counter-arguments to this topics starter...that the speed farmers can get ridiculous amounts of maps done in a short time, compared to the average player.

An average player wouldn't ever really notice much change from it, unlike the adventure exhaustion.

It's also incorrect that these suggestions would hurt the single players drop rates. I don't know how did you get to that conclusion, unless you took my post out of context of this thread. It's obvious that I wouldn't suggest the above diminishing returns on too...so to say...extreme farming, without increasing the base drop rates (or more precisely, drops quality). That's what this thread is about, isn't it?!

The remaining suggestions only add drops to single players. How could that make campaign drops worse compared to multiplayer?!
Yep, clearly you didn't really read my suggestions carefully.

 

I like the idea of an endless dungeon as endgame PvE content.

One good thing about this thread is I now completely understand how drops work in PvE and PvP.

My viewpoint on all of this remains pretty straightforward and simple:

I prefer PvE to PvP in this game. Not that I hate PvP but I just really love the PvE maps. I really, really wish BlueManchu would let me turn the storylines back on for each time I replay the missions too (meaning the dialogue with Gary et al).


As someone who would like to be able to casually play PvE here and there, I would like the following:

1. I would like not to have to "grind" or "gold farm" if I don't want to. I find that boring. It's more fun to enjoy the PvE casually.

2. Pursuant to 1. above I would like it if people who prefer PvP would stop speaking/thinking as if PvE and gold farming are the same thing. They are not the same thing at all. They are drastically different ways of using the content for different goals.

3. I think it is a bad thing for the game if PvE of the sort I enjoy playing is subject to drop rates calculated based on gold farming. I am not gold farming and I don't want to be treated like I am. I want to play 10 maps per hour, casually, and I want the rewards to be decent. Right now they are not decent, and the reason is mostly because everyone wants to make the argument that I could be gold farming the levels much faster so the drop rate has to stay low. That is ridiculous and untrue. If the game just gave a gold chest for your first campaign level beaten daily (just like your first PvP game won daily), you would not be hurting anyone, but only helping players like me.


That's one example, but in general it is very, very easy to make changes so that someone who plays a few levels per day can have nice rewards, while at the same time someone who gold farms doesn't have unfair rewards. You don't have to buff all PvE rewards to make this happen, but just the first few.

BlueManchu has a great system in place with first-time-per-day end maps giving good prizes. However, the prizes they give right now are still much worse than the PvP prizes you get for a single win. Well, it's just as easy to get 1 PvP win as it is to beat 3 levels of PvE. That is not fair to PvE players. I don't want to feel forced to play PvP just to get a good return on my time in terms of items.

The best way to get items from PvP is illegal. That way would be to trade losses by auto-resigning. You could get all the chests very quickly that way, with no effort. But that's against the "rules."

What if you couldn't stop people from doing that? Seriously, just think about it. What if you couldn't stop people from auto-resigning in PvP matches? Maybe you had no way of tracking it or whatever. The answer is simple. If you couldn't stop people from auto-resigning, you would have to find a way to make auto-resigners not be able to grind PvP for ridiculous amounts of loot.

Important theoretical question to understand: Should all PvP loot be nerfed just because it's possible two people could trade losses and win all the chests in 5 minutes? If you couldn't stop someone from doing that, would your solution be to nerf all the PvP chests?

The same consideration is all I would ask for PvE. Stop thinking that all PvE'ers are gold grinders. We are not. Saying to a PvE player that it's fair 4 PvE levels a day will get you no drops "because you could be grinding instead" is extremely unfair. I do not want to play that way.

Come up with a way for the first few PvE drops daily to have good rewards, the same level or at least comparable with PvP rewards. The correct response here is not "they are the same." No, they are not the same. The chest you get at the end of a PvE campaign is a less good chest than you get for your first victory in PvP.

Anyhow thanks to everyone for their thoughts and contributions to this thread. It says good things about this community that people can debate these types of topics and remain civil, and also intelligent in their views (which I think most people here are).

Cheers,

- Sir V

 

Drop rates are fine. They could maybe use a small boost if (when) more expansion packs come out so people aren't facing an even steeper uphill battle. Outside of that the drop rates are MUCH better from launch, although not being able to farm the Diamond Mine levels with global range FS is a bit frustrating... but whatever.

The simple fact is that you don't want to make getting loot too easy. Then people won't stick around. It is a very delicate balance of what to give out and when. Right now it feels pretty decent. Challenges giving Epic chests was a huge boost to SP drop... before it was only a Gold.