Boosting Rule Adjustments

[Hepallzx12]

Allowing mob tagging is a good start but revert the group dropping mechanic. Do you not think if turtle wanted to patch out this mechanic they would have? The xp reduction in group with a 60 had always been in the game and is a mechanic. So is group dropping. Calling it an exploit is misleadin. Patching it out will just lead to open world mob tagging causing more annoyance to players.

Turtle operated for 7 years with these mechanics and thrived. There’s no reason an amateur dev team should make a decision this big and not expect this huge backlash. Especially considering the way it was shadow dropped in world chat by a GM and now reverted.

[Atriana]

Guild mate made a pretty solid argument on discord:

"How is boosting a low level toon with a higher level toon any different from taking them in greens to Naxxramas and getting carried by people in full t3+? We do that with every alt, I see no difference and it's not like they're gonna ban us for it."

I agree with this completely if your guild is short a healer and one of the mains is full bis and wants to switch and get caught up, what do you expect.. he gets prebis, and all the different phase bis before he can come to naxx? We were disenchanting rogue warrior tokens like crazy on twow, a new warrior would show up get full t3 and MoM in like 2 runs.

[Yotca]

Guild mate made a pretty solid argument on discord:

"How is boosting a low level toon with a higher level toon any different from taking them in greens to Naxxramas and getting carried by people in full t3+? We do that with every alt, I see no difference and it's not like they're gonna ban us for it."

I agree with this completely if your guild is short a healer and one of the mains is full bis and wants to switch and get caught up, what do you expect.. he gets prebis, and all the different phase bis before he can come to naxx? We were disenchanting rogue warrior tokens like crazy on twow, a new warrior would show up get full t3 and MoM in like 2 runs.

Same pretty much for boosting -- we need a healer -- Who's willing to play one & who's taking turns boosting him so he can be 60 for next raids ?

[Atriana]

Guild mate made a pretty solid argument on discord:

"How is boosting a low level toon with a higher level toon any different from taking them in greens to Naxxramas and getting carried by people in full t3+? We do that with every alt, I see no difference and it's not like they're gonna ban us for it."

I agree with this completely if your guild is short a healer and one of the mains is full bis and wants to switch and get caught up, what do you expect.. he gets prebis, and all the different phase bis before he can come to naxx? We were disenchanting rogue warrior tokens like crazy on twow, a new warrior would show up get full t3 and MoM in like 2 runs.

Same pretty much for boosting -- we need a healer -- Who's willing to play one & who's taking turns boosting him so he can be 60 for next raids ?

Now we didn't boost him from level 1, everyone would just have a bunch of alts, not sure how they got to 60 though. I multi-boxed mob tagged all my alts to 60 because I'm fat and lazy. Since I'm new to octo though there's no doing that, gotta do it the old fashion way

[Kestrel]

A lot has been stated in this thread since I was here yesterday so instead of playing reply catchup, I want to focus on what you're saying in this snippet and relevant content that has been posted by others already.



We as players need a clear cut definition for what boosting is in the context of this rule.

Is the underlined component of what you stated in my quoted reply your definition of what boosting is in the context of this rule? As written, it sounds like a blanket prohibition on all boosting as described in the quote above + all boosting and potentially-maybe-it-is-maybe-it-isn't-boosting scenarios outside of dungeons (AOE or single mob tagging in the open world).

If the definition of the rule is what I underlined in your quote above and solely restricted to that, then I don't have a problem with it and I feel like a lot of people will not have a problem with it either. If it is in fact a blanket prohibition on all boosting and tangentially-related activities then that remains an issue that I simply cannot agree with you on.

Please provide us a clear cut definition. The 11 pages of forum posting and >100 replies that I've read do not provide this definition and I, among others, are confused still.



These terminology and concepts are so commonplace that you would have to be actively avoiding any and all WoW content since its inception. For this reason, I do not believe you.

The initial intention of the rule was to ban this specific practice (we don't think sub-optimal in group boosting will really be much of a thing should the loophole be closed). We also indented for it to include the mob tag lvl 60 following type boosting that occurs.

After some more internal discussions and reading at least 12 of the pages on this post (will be getting to the rest shortly and going through the cesspool that exploded in the general section another day...), we have pushed a change that we should have just made to begin with. We have pushed an update that patches out the group dropping exploit.

In light of this we don't feel this rule is necessary any longer as the other rules sufficiently cover most of the areas we feel are most damaging to the game. Lvl 60 following/mob tagging may have it's own prevention mechanic implemented at some point in the future. Expect conversations and polls on the forums leading up to that should it happen.

Well it appears you've rolled back the rule change... maybe... so uhh thanks?
I mean I think we are all more clueless at who this was even aimed at. RMT boosting was obviously already banned.
Some people didn't like to see that others were ahead of them and thus had a 60 to carry them around? Or people who are killing the immersion of them leveling on their undead priest with their gnome warrior buddy? Well, bad news for them, even more tag-boosters are going to be massacring their precious Loch Modan ogres now with the dungeon XP tagging patched.
Just seems to be a silly thing for you guys to be wasting time on right now.

I agree its extremely silly, but one small rule change spawned this because people want to boost. The change was aimed at those who boost and want to boost. Specifically those that were abusing the group drop exploit to boost much faster than turtle intended. I think the rest of this post answers your questions if you take the time to read but I know it is a long long thread at this point.

[Kestrel]

The path of least resistance extends beyond the server. As soon as someone puts out a western TWOW copy WITHOUT a retarded ruleset, this place is going to be a ghost town. Hell I'm already seeing people bite the ping bullet and jump ship to Capy.

https://github.com/zeizei336/turtle-w

Kestrel tongue in cheek isn't the right way to go about this all while ignoring very serious points:

• Server economy especially for small populations is very dependent on leveling alts for the CD materials, that was the case on all Blizz servers and was the case on Twow -- you can disagree as you stated but you'd be wrong -- supply & demand isn't rocket science
• Turtle increased arcane crystal/black lotus drop rate via the survival trinkets for a reason -- both to fight RMT and allow players with less game time to be able to afford these materials
• A smaller portion of the player base will be coming much later than the rest due to trust issues with the server, vacations -- insert reason -- etc and they will be "solo" leveling due to lack of people to run dungeons/quests with which is why boosting friends/guildmates is a thing ; basically whoever missed the train is left out hanging in the rain
• On a PvP server staying lower level longer means being food for that much longer especially when a larger part of the server population is 60
• Most of us care about end game raiding and end game PvP -- having to play the "shit version" of the game for much longer simply isn't the fun people come here for

Those points are all addressed in other responses. The response you quote was to a post that brought up none of the points you did so I am not sure your point. When given a low effort post people will receive a low effort response unfortunately.

[Kestrel]

This is not an answer, that's a deflection back onto me instead of the actual claim. Whether I criticized Turtle's EXP change (which i did) or not doesn't change the math on OctoWoW's crafting economy, those are two different servers with two different policies right now. Turtle nerfed shared EXP gain in a party, they didn't ban boosting for using alts to farm or craft materials for other characters. Comparing "did Turtle's server survive" to "does banning boosting hurt cooldown-gated crafting supply" isn't a real comparison, it's just changing the subject.

And even if it were comparable, "the server survived" isn't the same as "the policy was good for the economy." Servers survive bad decisions all the time, players just adapt, prices shift, and the people who quit over it aren't in whatever data you'd point to as proof it worked out fine.

So I'll ask again, directly: on a server where endgame crafting mats are gated behind multi-day cooldowns and raid-scale demand requires dozens of crafter-months of output, does shrinking the viable crafter pool down to fresh mains increase or decrease supply, and what does that do to prices? That's the actual claim. If the math's wrong, show where. If it's right but you think it's worth the tradeoff, just say that. I'd rather have that conversation than another redirect.

Naxx and K40 phase are going to be hell with all the gated crafting materials that are required for 1 tier piece.

Like I said, I don't want to have an entire discussion here on how we view what constitutes a "good" economy on a world of warcraft server. You and I will not agree and I know that for a fact. The prices will go up, the supply will go down, (who knows how much) that is not necessarily a "bad" thing for the server's economy. You think reducing the crafting CD of mooncloth would "help" the server economy? Or would it change it? This is a long, theoretical discussion about game design and economics and I genuinely would like to have it, but why don't we have it at fireside or in a different thread maybe and you can get a better idea for how I personally (not the whole dev team) views managing the economy.

Actually we do have that data point directly, not just an analogous one. Turtle already tried banning boosting themselves. That's not a hypothetical parallel policy on a similar ruleset, that's the exact same rule change, on the exact server this one is built off of, with years of player reaction and economic outcome already on record. If you want to know what happens to crafting supply, prices, and player retention when boosting gets banned on a Turtle-based ruleset, you don't have to guess, you have a real case study sitting right there.

So "we won't know" doesn't really hold up here. Either look at how that played out on Turtle and use it to inform the decision, or if it already has been looked at, just say so and tell us what was found instead of presenting the outcome as an open question. Given this server is explicitly modeled on Turtle, ignoring their own experience with this exact policy while claiming uncertainty about the result is a strange position to defend.

You also are sidestepping the other questions I asked, why not also reduce or remove other CD's for these mats you say are so necessary for the "economy"? Would that fix your complaint? How do you define a healthy wow economy? If you cannot provide what you consider qualifies as a health wow economy we can't have this conversation. And I doubt I would agree with your definition anyways.

[Kestrel]

Allowing mob tagging is a good start but revert the group dropping mechanic. Do you not think if turtle wanted to patch out this mechanic they would have? The xp reduction in group with a 60 had always been in the game and is a mechanic. So is group dropping. Calling it an exploit is misleadin. Patching it out will just lead to open world mob tagging causing more annoyance to players.

Turtle operated for 7 years with these mechanics and thrived. There’s no reason an amateur dev team should make a decision this big and not expect this huge backlash. Especially considering the way it was shadow dropped in world chat by a GM and now reverted.

The initial change that was "shadow dropped" was a rule change, then after the backlash the team decided it was a rule best not enforced with moderation but with mechanics. Hence us patching the exploit. If you really don't think group dropping to funnel EXP is an exploit I am afraid we don't have much common ground to meet on. If it was intended gameplay then why not remove the group EXP nerf all together and just let everyone boost while grouped with a 60 and simplify the experience?

Mage AOE farming was a core part of the WoW classic experience for well over 15 years, and turtle made the bold decision to nerf it. That was not an exploit, that was not a loophole, that was a core gameplay mechanic change. I am sure I can guess how you feel about that but it was a change that was good for the game. The community not only survived it but grew rapidly (in spite of, or because of, take your pick).

Turtle operated for 7 years with a lot of things that we will be changing, this will not be a server where status quo is always maintained. We have made changes to guild banks, pvp, phasing, and have plenty of future changes planned. Turtle did not stand still they moved forward, slow and steady, always improving the server and community and we strive to do the same here.

[Holydruid]

Like I said, I don't want to have an entire discussion here on how we view what constitutes a "good" economy on a world of warcraft server. You and I will not agree and I know that for a fact. The prices will go up, the supply will go down, (who knows how much) that is not necessarily a "bad" thing for the server's economy. You think reducing the crafting CD of mooncloth would "help" the server economy? Or would it change it? This is a long, theoretical discussion about game design and economics and I genuinely would like to have it, but why don't we have it at fireside or in a different thread maybe and you can get a better idea for how I personally (not the whole dev team) views managing the economy.

Actually we do have that data point directly, not just an analogous one. Turtle already tried banning boosting themselves. That's not a hypothetical parallel policy on a similar ruleset, that's the exact same rule change, on the exact server this one is built off of, with years of player reaction and economic outcome already on record. If you want to know what happens to crafting supply, prices, and player retention when boosting gets banned on a Turtle-based ruleset, you don't have to guess, you have a real case study sitting right there.

So "we won't know" doesn't really hold up here. Either look at how that played out on Turtle and use it to inform the decision, or if it already has been looked at, just say so and tell us what was found instead of presenting the outcome as an open question. Given this server is explicitly modeled on Turtle, ignoring their own experience with this exact policy while claiming uncertainty about the result is a strange position to defend.

You also are sidestepping the other questions I asked, why not also reduce or remove other CD's for these mats you say are so necessary for the "economy"? Would that fix your complaint? How do you define a healthy wow economy? If you cannot provide what you consider qualifies as a health wow economy we can't have this conversation. And I doubt I would agree with your definition anyways.

Lowering the crafting cooldowns wouldn't fully fix it. It's not really about the CD number by itself, it's about how many people are actually crafting the stuff at all. Cutting mooncloth's cooldown in half means each crafter makes more, sure, but it only matters if enough people are willing to sit there tailoring every couple days for months on end. Shortening the CD helps a bit, but the bigger issue is that alts let more people casually contribute to that supply without having to relevel a whole new main just to cover one profession. Take that away and you've still got fewer people willing to bother, even with a shorter CD. Example.. I have enchanting and mining, so i am depended on alts or others people. But for the rare materials we will need for T3 Naxx. People will focus on their own tier first. S

As for what I'd call a healthy economy, since you're asking straight up: supply keeps up with demand well enough that gear doesn't cost a fortune for a normal raider, not just the guys who play 8 hours a day or RMT. And it shouldn't be hard for regular players to become a supplier of stuff people need, so it's not just a handful of crafters controlling the market. By that definition, cutting down the number of people who can realistically craft this stuff and driving prices up is moving away from healthy, not toward it. That's regardless of whether you think that tradeoff is fine.

You might not agree with that definition, that's a real difference in values and that's fair. But I'd rather just say it out loud like this instead of "healthy economy" getting thrown around in the original post without either of us actually knowing what it meant.

[Kestrel]

Actually we do have that data point directly, not just an analogous one. Turtle already tried banning boosting themselves. That's not a hypothetical parallel policy on a similar ruleset, that's the exact same rule change, on the exact server this one is built off of, with years of player reaction and economic outcome already on record. If you want to know what happens to crafting supply, prices, and player retention when boosting gets banned on a Turtle-based ruleset, you don't have to guess, you have a real case study sitting right there.

So "we won't know" doesn't really hold up here. Either look at how that played out on Turtle and use it to inform the decision, or if it already has been looked at, just say so and tell us what was found instead of presenting the outcome as an open question. Given this server is explicitly modeled on Turtle, ignoring their own experience with this exact policy while claiming uncertainty about the result is a strange position to defend.

You also are sidestepping the other questions I asked, why not also reduce or remove other CD's for these mats you say are so necessary for the "economy"? Would that fix your complaint? How do you define a healthy wow economy? If you cannot provide what you consider qualifies as a health wow economy we can't have this conversation. And I doubt I would agree with your definition anyways.

Lowering the crafting cooldowns wouldn't fully fix it. It's not really about the CD number by itself, it's about how many people are actually crafting the stuff at all. Cutting mooncloth's cooldown in half means each crafter makes more, sure, but it only matters if enough people are willing to sit there tailoring every couple days for months on end. Shortening the CD helps a bit, but the bigger issue is that alts let more people casually contribute to that supply without having to relevel a whole new main just to cover one profession. Take that away and you've still got fewer people willing to bother, even with a shorter CD. Example.. I have enchanting and mining, so i am depended on alts or others people. But for the rare materials we will need for T3 Naxx. People will focus on their own tier first. S

As for what I'd call a healthy economy, since you're asking straight up: supply keeps up with demand well enough that gear doesn't cost a fortune for a normal raider, not just the guys who play 8 hours a day or RMT. And it shouldn't be hard for regular players to become a supplier of stuff people need, so it's not just a handful of crafters controlling the market. By that definition, cutting down the number of people who can realistically craft this stuff and driving prices up is moving away from healthy, not toward it. That's regardless of whether you think that tradeoff is fine.

You might not agree with that definition, that's a real difference in values and that's fair. But I'd rather just say it out loud like this instead of "healthy economy" getting thrown around in the original post without either of us actually knowing what it meant.

Halving the CD (in theory) would double the output server wide. Removing boosting (lets say for the sake of the conversation) cuts the amount of tailors by half. That in theory events out. The point I am making that by your definition if we allow boosting and also halve the moon cloth CD that is only a good thing as it "makes the economy healthier" and I firmly disagree.

Why stop at halving it? Why not a 1 hour cooldown? Then everyone can get whatever they need nice and cheap. There is a balancing act, and the answer is not "cheaper = better".