Adeon Hawkwood

It's sad when the devs create a system that forces players to rudely intrude into other people's private gatherings.

Agreed. I'd also note that if it works I could imagine some potential usages in the medical field (potentially as a communication tool for people with disabilities) so making it as an entertainment device may provide the funding for other useful applications.

Plus they are cool.

Yep in fact we benefit (or at least some of us do). By not participating in the market you keep all of your inf out of the system which, in a minuscule way, helps combat inflation. Since marketeers are the people most likely to have large inf reserves low inflation preserves the value of them for us, so thank you (and yes I know some marketeers prefer to keep their wealth in the form of items but most marketeers have a decent amount of liquid assets as well).

If you really want to screw the market spend as much inf as possible buying stuff but never, ever, sell anything.

As I said earlier in the thread, I'd have zero problem whatsoever with this if they made them actually function as Open World events. However the trials as implemented are not functioning as Open World events. They are functioning as Locked Team events with a poorly implemented (at least in my opinion) queue system to form teams. Make them work as actual "open world" instances and I'll be perfectly content. Alternatively if they aren't open world instances don't try to set the entry system as if they are.

I believe that the trial/queue system as currently implemented needs changes. From what I can see there are two viable paths that the devs could take, either make them more functional as "Open World" events or make them more functional as "Closed Team" events. I don't mind which path the devs choose, there are pros and cons to either system but, done right, both options provide a viable system. The current half and half system does not (again, in my opinion).

If I were a dev and was trying to make this an open world system I would do the following:
1. Provide an interface to select a specific instance, each instance shows the number of people and progress of the trial.
2. You can only enter solo but once inside the instance you are automatically added to a league, the league leader cannot use the kick command (but can use other commands).
3. Trial rewards are more evenly distributed over the different stages rather than 75% of the reward coming at the end.

Now if I wanted to make it a Closed Team event but make the LFG feature more useful I would do the following:
1. Allow leagues to enter the queue in a locked configuration.
2. Provide a bonus to trial completion if you entered the queue in a non-locked configuration, this would scale based on the size of the group entering, groups of 8 or less would get the highest bonus, groups more than 8 but less than two-thirds of the trial max would get a smaller bonus, groups containing more than two thirds of the max would get no bonus (possibly decrease trial rewards and/or include a diminishing returns on the bonus to keep it balanced).
3. Change the wait time calculations to only include the wait times of people who do not enter a trial almost immediately.


In the end I think either option would be better than what we currently have. I want the LFG feature to be useful and at the moment it isn't. The basic fact is that a pre-formed team will always be superior to a random team simply because it means at least one person present is willing to lead. As such for a LFG feature to be useful then either it needs to force people to use it (i.e. don't allow pre-formed teams to access the trials at all) or it needs to provide people with a reason to use it.

tl;dr version:
Single Player Games have different constraints from MMOs.


In detail:
I touched on this in my post but since you bought it up I'll go into more detail. Unless a game uses randomly generated content the ability of a player to consume content far outpaces the developers ability to create it. What this means is that if the player wishes to keep consuming the content they have to repeat content that they've done before.

In a single player game this isn't really a problem, a person will play through the game and then either shelve it or play the same content again for their personal enjoyment. In an MMO however this becomes a problem. Content in MMOs is pretty mcuh required to be repeatable and has rewards attached to it which are balanced based on the time and challenge/skill required to complete the content. Repeating a puzzle that you've done before presents zero challenge to the player (and requires no skill beyond the ability to look up the solution online) so if you're just rewarding based solely on time you might as well have a button that says "push this button 100 times for a reward".

The "solution" would of course be to make randomly generated puzzles. The problem here is how to do it within the context of the game? Portal style world-interaction puzzles are VERY difficult to randomly generate and would require the devs to first make a random map generator (a challenging problem on it's own). A mini-game based puzzle system is a lot more viable, you can design a rule set that allows you to generate lots of variations of the same basic puzzle (Sudoku is a good example of that) but that has it's own set of problems. The obvious one is that it is still subject to automatic solution generators, after all if a computer can create the puzzle then another computer can solve it (this can be mitigated by making the puzzle something that is difficult to transfer to an external system). The second (and more serious) problem is that mini-gmaes throw people out of the system. If you could fully incarnate a character by playing, say, 300 games of Sudoku would you consider that a viable solo path?

Puzzle challenges do not work well in an video game in terms of re-playability. In a single player game this isn't to much of a problem, people will either do it once and move on or will happily do it multiple times to improve their "score" but in an MMO it becomes a real problem when balancing rewards versus time. If you've done a puzzle once there's no challenge in doing it again (except maybe seeing if you can do it faster) so a player can use that to infinitely farm rewards.

If a player can only do the puzzle challenge once this isn't to bad since even if they "cheat" and look up the solution online they only get one set of rewards. The problem is a solo/small-team incarnate path needs to be repeatable which conflicts with making good puzzles.

The devs could try and make randomly generated puzzles but the options there are pretty limited and tricky to do in a way that fits with the rest of the game. You'd probably end up with "City of Mini-Games" where the solo-incarnate path involved "boss fights" that had nothing to do with your character and instead involved external things such as a game of chess, a randomized block puzzle or similar contrived scenarios. Now while this would appeal to some people I don't think it's what people want when discussing a solo/small team incarnate path (although actually a chess-themed villain with chess piece minions could be kind-off fun).

Heck no, the diner owners serve one group and move on, that's not a sensible business model for them so how would they pay rent?

Not really. The main case where a Defender consistently out-damages a Corruptor is with Sonic Blast. Traps shifts it even more towards the Corruptor since they deal Blaster level damage with Trip Mines (if you want to go that route)

For Traps the main advantage of the Defender is actually the Defense. FFG gives about 5% more defense for a Defender (assuming ED capped enhancements) which is a pretty significant boost.

Currently none of it is and that is part of the problem.

One of the reason that top level content in MMOs (not just this one) tends to be team focused is that it is a lot easier to balance content around a large team than for a single person (or even a single person).

Content that is challenging for a veteran player on an IO'd Scrapper is going to be almost impossible for someone on a weaker Character (say a SO'd Defender using one of the less solo friendly sets). Conversely content that is challenging for lower power level characters is going to be trivial for someone on a high end character.

Now to some degree it can be done but it takes effort. Trapdoor is a good example, by favoring ranged attacks over melee he helps balance out the ATs a bit (since melee characters are, on average, stronger soloers than ranged characters).

This gets even more complicated when you start talking about small teams. An Elite Boss that is balanced to present a challenge for 1 player will become trivial for a small team of 2 or 3 players. Good solo/small team content would need some way to scale boss encounters to a much finer degree than is needed in the trials.

The problem with that is that they don't fill all available seats. Once the number of people outside reaches a certain point the invite people inside prioritizing large groups over individuals. Then once everyone is seated they lock the door and go and open a new diner even if the existing diner is not full. So someone who comes along after they've started seating has to wait until there are enough people to open a new diner.

And that is why I don't like analogies.

Here's the thing. They might not want private leagues to exist but they allowed private leagues to exist, they just made them mildly inconvenient. People join your league and you kick them. BAM! Private League.

In many ways that's what really pisses me off about this. If they did not want private leagues to exist (which may or may not be the case) then actually preventing private leagues is a much better solution than the half-***** "solution" they implemented. There are a number of solutions they could have taken that would actually prevent private leagues. The simple option would be to limit how many people can queue in a single group (either single players only or single teams only depending on their preferences) which would prevent private leagues.

First off why shouldn't players have the ability to team as and how they wish? In some ways this is similar to the various arguments that have gone on about the Incarnate Trials being the only means of progression in the system. While that is not something I feel particularly strongly about (since I enjoy the trials) I think it ties into this. People want to have control over their team based experience. In some cases this is a matter of team size (those who want solo/small-team options) in other cases it's a matter of simply limiting who they play with.

Yes, there are people who don't care whom they team with as long as they get their shinys but a system should aim to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.

Except they didn't. They implemented a system where people can be added to trials between the maximum and minimum at the start but not mid-way through. They then undermined this by allowing leaders to remove those people if desired.

From what I can see the Trial/Queue is essentially combining three different systems:
1. A Team Formation Tool
2. A Locked Team Event (i.e. Task Forces)
3. An Open World Event (i.e. Hamidon/Mothership Raid)

However, I think it is combining them in what has to be the worst way possible.

We get a team formation tool that not only provides no incentive to use it but in fact actively disincentives people from using it (since it forms minimum size teams). We get the fact that people can join your event without your permission (the downside of open world events) but unlike normal open world events we also lack the ability to invite people to join an event in progress (since it becomes a locked team).

Now if the devs goal was to make the Trials open world style events that would have been fine with me, but combining Open World Events with Locked Team Events is, to me, completely and utterly illogical. What is the goal with that?

The idea of a heavily instanced open event is not a new one (there is at least one other MMO that has them) but if that is the goal then it really needs to be open for the duration.

If I was a developer and I was given the goal of creating a system for handling instanced, open events here's the process I would have used (slightly based on a similar system from another MMO). When you bring up the queue you get a list of available instances, each one shows the number of players present and the status of the instance (waiting for players, in stage X, resetting etc.). You can join any instance that is not at the cap. Once an instance reaches the minimum number of players a "pre-event" starts, at the simplest this would be a timer, ideally it would be something similar to the first stage of the current trials; the main point would be to allow time for the instnace to fill up a bit before the trial properly starts. Once the "pre-event" is complete the trial proper starts. This proceeds as the current trial with the only difference being rewards. While the current trials give some rewards during the trials and a large bonus at the end rewards would be more evenly distributed throughout the trial with the understanding that players may well come nad go as the trial progressed.

The system that we currently have sort of works but from what I can see it's failing at it's design goals (whatever those may actually be). If the goal is to allow for easy creation of teams (which I suspect is the case), it fails because it has created the perception of only forming bad teams. If the goal is to allow for the creation of TF style teams it fails because it lacks the tools to do so effectively (not just a league lock but things like allowing people to express a preference for leadership or team size). If the goal is open world events it fails because they AREN'T open world events.

Now it's entirely possible that I am mis-reading the devs intentions and their goal for the system is something I can't see. But I think they really need to review what their goal is and how they can adjust the system to support it because from what I can see it isn't achieving their goal.

Ah but now the devs moved this thread so you're back. Muhahahahhaha.

I can see that but at the same time my point is more along the line of why give us the ability to kick people from the zone but not include the ability to control who enters the zone int he first place?

People in this thread have made the analogy that the Trials are more like Hamidon and Mothership Raids than Task Forces in terms of teaming but I disagree. They have features from both but overall I think they are actually closer to TFs than they are to the existing open world raids.

Here's my basic compare/contrast:

Can you join an event in progress?
Hami/MS Raid: Yes as long as the number of participants is below the maximum for the event.
Trials: Yes, but only if the number of participants is below the minimum for the event.
Task Force: No

What happens if you leave the team/league?
Hami/MS Raid: Can continue to participate and get full rewards.
Trials: Cannot participate further.
Task Force: Cannot participate further.

When are new instances created?
Hami/MS Raid: Only created when all existing instances are full/nearly full.
Trials: Created whenever enough people to meet the minimum requirements want to start it.
Task Force: Created whenever enough people to meet the minimum requirements want to start it.

Can the event leader force people to leave?
Hami/MS Raid: No
Trials: Yes
Task Force: Yes

Can the leader control who joins?
Hami/MS Raid: No
Trials: Only in the limited case of a 16/24 man league.
Task Force: Yes

If you look at that list the Trials have a lot more in common with TFs than they do with Hamidon/MS Raids. If the devs had the goal of creating a MS/Hami style "open world raid" then IMHO they failed. What they created was a Task Force without the ability to control who joins the team.

If they really wanted to make it more like Hami/MS raid then they should have done the following:
People can freely enter/leave the zone with the raid in it (and have an interface that shows the current progress and team count of each instance of the zone).
Leaving/being kicked form a team does not remove you from the zone.

Instead what we have is a system that works almost identically to Task Forces except that the leader has no ability to control who is on the team without either filling the league (i.e. exploiting a loophole in the rules) or kicking people (i.e. being a jerk). IMHO this combines the worst of both systems. You lack the ability to fill up a league as you would on a MS/Hami Raid but lack the option of tight control you have on a TF.

Except if that is the case how come the trial leader can kick people out of the zone?

You know, so did I but I'll admit I haven't really tested it and both redtomax and Mids say 2 so that's good enough for me.

Precisely, I don't mind being placed on a random team as long as everyone involved has chosen to be placed on a random team. Gating team content by saying you have to have a random team (or use the loopholes in the system to avoid it) is asinine.

Nope, I'm lazy so my trials are always first come, first served. I do prioritize slightly in that I use certain methods before others but in general my recruiting strategy is:
1. Go to one of the RWZ zones (select one that isn't to full to avoid having the league not fit).
2. Post messages on a few global channels, take whomever responds
3. Broadcast a LFM message, take whomever responds
4. Send tells to people with their LFG or LFT flag up and ask if they want to join
5. Send tells to people in other instances of the RWZ who don't have their flag up but look like they might want to join.
6. GOTO2

I do this until either the league is full or I am bored and think we have enough at which point I start.

The only reason that I pre-form trials instead of using that queue is that in my experience not enough people are using the queue to make it worth it. I'd rather grab people ahead fo time, it's simpler.

"Because that's the way it works" is not a reasonable argument. We're asking why it works that way. Now obviously you can't know the reasons that the devs made the decision but from what I can see this is a design decision with several potential downsides (of a primarily social nature) and no real upsides.

So I'll ask you this. What advantage is there to the player base as a whole in not allowing leagues to "lock" themselves given that:
1. Leagues can queue as a full size league to get around the lack of a lock
2. The league leader can kick extra members if they desire providing another way around the lock

If a group of people want to play as a private league they can already do so either by forming a full 16/24 man league or by forming a short league and kicking any adds. However, kicking adds is rather rude to the person being added so why not provide a way to allow the league not to need to do it?

Hamidon and MS Raids are a different situation. There is no zone control at all so a league does not have the option of removing unwanted members.

Yeah, this is pretty much the point I was making.

Making judgments about other players based solely on whether they want to team with random people is pretty harsh of you. I'd also caution you against making assumptions as to how people run trials based on their viewpoint in this thread.

It is a given that some players will want to be selective in who they team with. Sometimes it is elitism (and IMHO there is nothing wrong with a bit of elitism as long as it's in moderation) but that is not the only reason people could want a private league. It could just as easily be that they want to team with their friends and chat about personal topics without an outsider being able to see the chat. Or maybe they want to do some runs under controlled conditions in order to test something in which case having an extra player would change the conditions (for example an all-Defender BAF which has a Tanker added to it).

There will always be people who want to form a specific team and as long as the queue allows them to join as a league and gives the league leader the power to kick people they are already able to. Adding a "lock league" feature simply means that they can do so more conveniently and avoids putting other people in the position that Halon was put in.

If someone is added to a pre-formed but understrength league wouldn't it be better if they were added to a league that wanted them instead of one that didn't?

That's kind of my point. Since there is no way for a league that is planning to kick adds to prevent adds from being added joining through the queue carries an inherent risk of being placed in a team that does not want you. Not because of anything you personally have done but because that team does not want anyone in addition to the people they queued with. Some such teams will tolerate you but it's also possible they'll just kick you at which point you've just wasted a bunch of time and lost your position in the queue.

Allowing leagues to specify "no-adds" means that people who do use the queue are only added to leagues that are happy to have more warm bodies or leagues that are formed solely from individuals and small groups in the queue.

I agree. Unfortunately at this point taking the option away would cause a lot of outcry. My suggestion would be to allow leagues to queue and add a "lock league" option but then provide a bribe (i.e. increased rewards) to people who queue singly or in small groups (not sure on the number, I think max 4 would be a good number for the bonus but it might be easier code wise to just say any number that can fit on a single team). My suggestion would be a bonus E Merit the first time each day and 2 bonus Astrals each additional time.

Ok, so what is the justification for it only working on those particular numbers?

Which is pretty much already happening. The fact is there IS a league locking option, it just only works for 16/24 man leagues.