[Dev 1011] Failing Guildleves Intentionally?

[Jibe]

Ok again, since this isnt the first time this has been brung up I will recap

1) The ability to redo failed leves was added on PURPOSE by the devs
2) the devs have specificaly stated its a reward vs type thing. We are sacrificing our reward to do it again for SP
3) the inferno "bug" where you get them to pop unlimited times is not related to this issue. What you are thinking of there is called an exploit, and it is bannable to do it on purpose.

So all in all, the fail on purpose thing is here to stay. It isnt an exploit. It is an "option" that was specificaly added back in november.

TheVedis: I'm bringing it up for hopefully an official comment from SE. In my other thread I asked for a link to an official comment from SE but that did not materialize. I'm not trying to argue about if it is right or wrong, or what. All I want is SE to give a comment about it.

[Buttons]

I think the problem lies within the fact that many guild leves are just not worth doing. For people who would like to level a job to rank 50, doing guild leves with friends and linking the leves is the most efficient way to gain SP.

Now some leves only have like 4 mobs and those don't give nice SP. Other leves however spawn many mobs and give nice SP when 4 people link the same leve. It's not a question of exploiting, it's just being efficient.

If all leves actually spawned at least 15+ mobs and gave decent SP, there would be no need to cancel the good leves.

People cancel particular leves so that they have at least one good leve option after reset and that there are people able to link with yourself in parties.

I dread to think how slow getting to rank 50 would be if you had only those horrible leves that spawn like 4 monsters for 250sp each. o.o"

[solracht]

If you make it so guildleves can't be re-tried when you fail them, people will teleport to every guildleve counter every reset before choosing the 8 best guildleves.

If you make it so you can choose the 8 guildleves you want every reset (instead of the counter offering 3 random ones) people will still do the same 8 guildleves every reset, from rank 30 to rank 50, which is also horrible for the game.

To clarify on this: I actually think these two things will be added eventually, but it will be pointless (and will only piss people off) before rebalancing how guildleve rewards are awarded.

EDIT: Buttons gets it! Although personally I don't think the solution is adding 30 enemies to every guildeve, but rather doing something so short guildleves are worth your time (adding extra experience points at the end, possibly).

Something to make rewards a little more consistent (one day you get 5 pages after 5 groups of mobs, the next day you take 20 minutes) would help, too.

[Molly_Millions]

I would absolutely hate if they changed anything about failing leves. (With the exception of letting us choose from any leves we want instead of 3 random ones) My LS has been organizing leve runs around failing leves since the November patch. It's one of my favorite things to do in the game currently and is very rewarding. Sometimes we have two groups of 8 to 10 comprised of only folks from our LS multiple times per day. Check out our schedule to see how much it would affect me and my LS:

http://www.abaddon.us/phpBB3/calendar.php

[Jibe]

To clarify on this: I actually think these two things will be added eventually, but it will be pointless (and will only piss people off) before rebalancing how guildleve rewards are awarded.

EDIT: Buttons gets it! Although personally I don't think the solution is adding 30 enemies to every guildeve, but rather doing something so short guildleves are worth your time (adding extra experience points at the end, possibly).

Something to make rewards a little more consistent (one day you get 5 pages after 5 groups of mobs, the next day you take 20 minutes) would help, too.

I think this needs to happen too. Rebalancing leves seems to be the way to go. That way we could leave the fail option in, just to change leves so they are all equally rewarding in terms of SP. If we do that, we remove the desire to fail the leves.

[Rentahamster]

I think the problem lies within the fact that many guild leves are just not worth doing. For people who would like to level a job to rank 50, doing guild leves with friends and linking the leves is the most efficient way to gain SP.

Now some leves only have like 4 mobs and those don't give nice SP. Other leves however spawn many mobs and give nice SP when 4 people link the same leve. It's not a question of exploiting, it's just being efficient.

If all leves actually spawned at least 15+ mobs and gave decent SP, there would be no need to cancel the good leves.

People cancel particular leves so that they have at least one good leve option after reset and that there are people able to link with yourself in parties.

I dread to think how slow getting to rank 50 would be if you had only those horrible leves that spawn like 4 monsters for 250sp each. o.o"

Exactly. However, that still doesn't address one other issue. Even if all leves were worthwhile to do, people would still intentionally fail leves so that they would have the same leves available to link again with their friends who do the same thing.

The solution to this would be to

1. Implement your suggestion of making the potential SP gain for all the leves be relatively similar in quantity.

2. Have all leves for any given camp be selectable, not just 3 random ones.

3. Redoing a failed leve does not award SP for killed mobs, but you can still get the gil/marks/item rewards at the end.

[Zacko]

Exactly. However, that still doesn't address one other issue. Even if all leves were worthwhile to do, people would still intentionally fail leves so that they would have the same leves available to link again with their friends who do the same thing.

The solution to this would be to

1. Implement your suggestion of making the potential SP gain for all the leves be relatively similar in quantity.

2. Have all leves for any given camp be selectable, not just 3 random ones.

3. Redoing a failed leve does not award SP for killed mobs, but you can still get the gil/marks/item rewards at the end.

Would be nice if they do this.

[Nipa]

Check out our schedule to see how much it would affect me and my LS:

This. Is. Just. Wooow.

I am absolutely sure the game I want to play is the absolute opposite of one where you have to *plan* grinding sessions to be efficient.

I'm ok with planning raids for high-end content. I'm ok with having a near military organization for events implying dozen of players with no room for a single mistake. But I feel really awkward that some players are actually having a planning to grind mundane single-button smashing quests.

Well, maybe that's me. Still impressive though.

[solracht]

3. Redoing a failed leve does not award SP for killed mobs, but you can still get the gil/marks/item rewards at the end.

I don't think this is needed. What they could do is to take a significant amount (let's say, half) of the potential skill ups/exp points that can be gained from the enemies in a guildleve and award them when the guildleve is over.

[Sojiro]

If you think not dealing with the real problem is going to do anything, then think again. I agree that the way the system works right now is horrible for the game and completely backwards (I've posted a lot about it, actually), but you're not accomplishing anything unless you do a lot more.

The root of the problem is simple: most guildleves are horrible and a complete waste of time.

If you make it so guildleves can't be re-tried when you fail them, people will teleport to every guildleve counter every reset before choosing the 8 best guildleves.

If you make it so you can choose the 8 guildleves you want every reset (instead of the counter offering 3 random ones) people will still do the same 8 guildleves every reset, from rank 30 to rank 50, which is also horrible for the game.

Agreed with bolded, bring the rest of the leves up to snuff (or at least somewhat closer) and I doubt we'd see this as much as a problem.