Significant decrease in Materials from Gathering Favors - Patch 3.07

[Valinthor]

There have been requests for changes to be made to endgame Gathering concerning Favors amongst other issues.

With the changes introduced in Patch 3.07 concerning Favors....

**
The duration of favors has been reduced from fifteen minutes to five minutes.
The rate at which concealed gathering points appear has been increased by 300%.
**

It would seem the change of Duration to Five(5) Minutes is just too short, unless the intent of the changes were to lessen the amount of materials gathered from Favors.

Pre-Patch I would average gathering Four(4) - Five(5) Rare Materials per Favor with a high of Seven(7) from some and a low of Two(2) from others. Never Gathering less than Two(2) per Favor.

Post-Patch I now have only gotten One(1) - Two(2) Rare Materials from each Favor with the exception of one which I gathered Five(5).

**End of Post One(1) of Two(2)**

[Valinthor]

**Post Two(2) of Two(2)**

Of course this could be just extremely Bad Luck on my part, but regardless of that I still do feel the Five(5) minute Duration is too short. Just by making a slight error in positioning causing aggro from a nearby creature, having to cast/remove stealth or even having to simply step away from the PC for thirty(30) seconds now has a significant impact on your Gathering haul.

In my opinion a Ten(10) minute duration would be a good fit for the Favors, not too long, not too short.....but just right.

Regards,

Froya

[ValkyrieL]

No, 10 minutes is too long, if u are getting less than 300% need to change to 400%

[Aeyis]

Then you were pretty lucky before the patch, if you never got below 2, and averaging 4-5.
The problem is not so much duration, as the whole timed buff/RNG spawn itself.

[MN_14]

Over a large enough sample size, it'll average out to be the same, assuming that the drop rate for items has increased 3 times.

I had lots of favors in which I only got 1 item in the past (3 favors in a row once), so the kind of rng that we're seeing is the same. However, even during my limited favor grinding in the past, it took me 35 favors for two offhands, which was close to the expected average.

[Valinthor]

Thanks for the Replies everyone.

I've just gone through 10 more Favors with the following Results...

Favor 1 - Gathered 3 Favor 6 - Gathered 4
Favor 2 - Gathered 4 Favor 7 - Gathered 4
Favor 3 - Gathered 2 Favor 8 - Gathered 4
Favor 4 - Gathered 2 Favor 9 - Gathered 3
Favor 5 - Gathered 5 Favor 10 - Gathered 3

A little less than what I have been used to but with the amount of less time required now, it seems to be a fair trade-off.

Looking forward to hearing more results from other Gatherers

[Espritduo]

300% is a fourfold increase (100% increase is doubling, so 200% is triple, and 300% is 4x), so a 4x increase with a third the time should end up giving you more mats per favor on average than before.

[BonzaiFerroni]

300% is a fourfold increase (100% increase is doubling, so 200% is triple, and 300% is 4x), so a 4x increase with a third the time should end up giving you more mats per favor on average than before.

Unfortunately there can be some ambiguity whenever you talk about percentage change. The wording from the patch notes: "The rate at which concealed gathering points appear has been increased by 300%."

This can be interpreted as "it is 300% of what it was" (which would mean a 3 times increase, this interpretation is most common) or "the value that is 300% of the original value was added" (which would mean a 4 times increase).

Actually wikipedia disagrees with me about which interpretation is most common.

[Aeyis]

No ambiguity in its meaning. A 300% increase can only mean that the new value is 400%. Whether they translated or phrased it properly remains to be seen however, as personally I've not noticed a relative increase compared to the value of the 15m favors.


Ofcourse, that is assuming proper English. Or math.

[BonzaiFerroni]

No ambiguity in its meaning.

Well, that wikipedia page would disagree with you too ;D This is also supported by the fact that it was intended to mean 3x increase. There is a convention for how to write this type of expression but isn't consistently followed, that's all I was saying.