GadgetDon

[ QUOTE ]
You have entered Dark Astoria
You have defeated Bone Daddy
Your friend Flirty Superheroine is online
You have defeated Gravedigger Slammer
You have defeated Freakshow ******
WARNING! RIKTI SHIPS HAVE BEEN SPOTTED
HEADING FOR TALOS ISLAND!
ALL NON-COMBATANTS ARE URGED TO SEEK
COVER! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do the Bone Daddies spawn inside Dark Astoria? (You know you wanted someone to ask)

[ QUOTE ]
As for the concerns about disconnects ruining Task Forces... well stuff happens. I for one don't expect the coding of the game to reflect every single possibility. No one can do that. Ok, disconnects happen for a number of various reasons. This new change means that sometimes you'll be able to complete a Task Force, and sometimes you won't be able to complete it. Committing to a Task Force means you're taking a risk. What's wrong with that?

Oh noes! I won't be assured of winning 100% of the time! Waaaaaaah.

What do you mean I'll actually have to come out of my cave and deal with my fellow human beings in order to do a Task Force?? That's not fair! Some of us are so completely disfunctional and socially inept that we can't stand to speak to other human beings! Waaaaaah!

This is an MMO. You want to solo 100% of the time? Fine. Go buy one of those games that you can play all alone on your computer.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this latest change makes it EASIER to solo a TF. Start with minimum, have all but one other person quit and that other person log off, and you're dealing with two person spawns (and if you can solo the AV, you can deal with two person spawns). And that's what this latest change seems to be aimed at, based on Lighthouse's statements. In my experience, most people who quit TFs do so at the start, either "we need 7 to start and can only get six, can someone join us just so we can start" or to allow people to solo a TF.

And yes, I do intend that every TF I do will succeed,if the people playing at the end are able to defeat the final foe. To fail because the we're being penalizing for taking real human beings whose life DOESN'T solely revolve around the game and sometimes have to leave for a while or doesn't have the perfect internet connection. Lighthouse's solutions seem to be less accepting of what real human beings are like. "Bad connection, kick him. He has to go afk for an emergency, kick him. Oh, but do it in a way that there aren't hard feelings."

It's clear this is going to go live. It's clear we're going to be stuck with this desperately flawed system for months at best. And based on what Lighthouse has said and other rednames have said...I think that the problems with this "fix" will be one more problem in TFs that will be allowed to fester for years because "well, if we're going to do new content, old content and old problems can't be addressed."

And it has me hoping that someone from Cryptic is taking notes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guess I won't be doing ANY more TF/SF until THIS fix gets a FIX.

Farmers can STILL farm it, and casual players (me) get screwed even more.


[/ QUOTE ]Wait. Before this fix if it was an 8 man TF then spawns would always be for 8 even if it dropped down to 2 players still logged on.

Now, for the same TF, if 6 players just log off, nothing has changed. It still spawns for 8. But, if 6 players quit, it spawns for 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

8-man TFs aren't designed to be done by 2 people, and there aren't that many duos capable of beating the final foe in a TF (not including Quartermain, but you still need four for simultaneous clicks).

More often, you have 2 people leaving, maybe 3 if it's a rough night for connections. If the minimum to start number was 4, 2 or 3 people leaving an 8 person team wouldn't be an issue.

I sincerely hope the reason this tweak was chosen over lowering minimums wasn't for that tiny fraction of the players that want to duo 8-man TFs.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you that this looks like it's intended to be a more player-friendly compromise, and I know several people have hailed it as such. The thing is that I question whether or not that's what it actually is.

I know this has been said before, but I think it bears reiteration. You can divide the cases where you lose someone on a TF, and the circumstances, into these four cases:

Case 1: Teammate quits the team, and the team is still at or above the minimum starting size.
Live version: spawns adjust
Test version: spawns adjust

Case 2: Teammate quits the team, and the team is now below the minimum starting size
Live version: spawns do not adjust
Test version: spawns adjust

Case 3: Teammate disconnects/logs without quitting, and the team is still at or above the minimum starting size.
Live version: spawns adjust
Test version: spawns do not adjust

Case 4: Teammate disconnects/logs without quitting, and the team is now below the minimum starting size.
Live version: spawns do not adjust
Test version: spawns do not adjust

In the first and last cases, there's nothing to choose between the two--they give the identical result. In the two middle cases, one is more hurtful with the live version, and one is more hurtful with the test version.

The first big question to me is: which of those two circumstances is more likely? I really don't know the answer to that. I haven't done loads of TF's, but I've seen both happen.

The next question that occurs to me is: which of these two is more under the players' control? That's where I think the live version comes out a little ahead.

If the TF has a minimum starting size of less than eight (or better, less then seven), it's possible to isulate yourself to some extent from the live change. Start the team with more than the minimum, and then if one or two people leave, you're still okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for expressing this better than I could.

And I'll add one more thing...the only time when test is better is if someone quits and the team size drops below the minimum to start team. In my experience, with the exception of Positron, people want to run 8-person task forces (I can't speak for villainside, so I'm talking about hero task forces, but from what I hear on VirtueUnited it seems to be the same for strike forces). The only time people start with smaller teams is when they can't get 8 people. So if the minimum to start is 4 people, the team has to be really falling apart before this comes into play.

It's an issue when doing Shard TFs with minimum to start 8 people, it's an issue when doing Manticore with minimum to start 7 people. If those minimums were dropped to 4, it would be no real problem for those either. I know they want 8 for the LRSF and STF because of their epic nature, but most TFs don't need those numbers.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure the Devs would rather have devoted the bug squashing team to something else, had that been an option. But this is what got greenlighted, or finished first out of however many things they are working on.

This currently being tested fix looks to be intended to be a more player-friendly compromise. Who knows whether it will go live? No harm in testing it while datamining to see if the Live fix is sufficient.

That's better than having the Devs ignore the player outcry against the Live fix, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

It intended to be a more player-friendly compromise, and I appreciate the attempt, but I believe that it's even worse than what's on live. And Lighthouse's explanations of the appropriate way to deal with it (if your connection is at all shakey, quit, if a teammate's connection is shakey, kick them) shows the problems.

There are three problems with what's on live now.

(1) People can't softload to get recipes anymore
(2) People can't solo or duo TFs anymore
(3) If people quit or disconnect and team size drops below minimum, the team has to deal with artificially large teams.

Well, (1) is deliberate. (2) has never been the focus of a task force. (3) only becomes a problem when the team size drops below the minimum, and can be greatly ameliorated by reducing minimum team sizes.

Reducing the minimums is very easy (presumably it's a table entry, but even if it's hard-coded, it's one line of code per tf to change where necessary). And it would even have the advantage of being BETTER for players than the pre-11.5 version in at least one respect.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you assuming that just because they don't come out and spell every plan they have out for you in great detail, that means they aren't considering it at all? Have you stopped to think that maybe some of the bigger fixes or changes to TF's might come with the next issue, and right now they can't discuss anything about it because it would be giving something away which would make marketting mad?

They tell us that X, Y, and Z are coming. We get all excited because we've been looking forward to it, or we get pissed because we see the doom on the horizon. When X, Y, and Z get changed to A, B, and C because of unforseen problems, or new bugs that came about because of new features, the previously excited people get mad because what they wanted got changed, and wasn't what they were told it was gonna be. The previously pissed people are still pissed because its another way the devs lied, or misled, or whatever BS excuse they could come up with. Can't win that way, so they try not spilling the beans on everything, which makes everyone antsy and upset when they aren't being informed. Which way would you like it?


TF's are part of your fun. That's great, and I'm sorry you feel that your fun is diminished by the changes. I really don't see much of a threat to the fun myself. The minimum required to start a TF/SF is not the minimum needed to complete it. If there are plenty of folks that are willing to pad someone's mish, there will be plenty to help you start a TF. This new change will make the mishes spawn to whatever number appropriate for those who wish to continue...That's it. Those with cronic disconnect problems don't do TF's anyway, so don't worry about them. If you've got a griefer on your team that won't quit the TF and just logs out, more than likely they were gonna be dead weight anyway. If they're logged, they won't get the xp and drops for standing at the door, and the rest of the team gets to fight mobs that spawn for one more than they have in the fight anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I neither want nor need details. Just something to say "We realize that there are issues with task forces, and they're going to be a priority. It won't be now, there's no time, and it won't be in I12, that's already locked in, but it is a priority." But the comment Lighthouse made representing the choice as between "fix old or create new stuff" tells me just the opposite.

Actually, what would thrill me beyond all measure is a new thread of "We know there are problems with task forces and strike forces. We're going to be addressing them. There's no time now, and we'll be limited on how much we can fit into Issue 12, but we're going to commit the time to fix them. So, what do you as players see as needed changes? We're not going to just do whatever players ask, and parts may happen before others, but now is the time to make sure we know what you see as the problems."

[ QUOTE ]
When someone acts like a child, that's the response they get.


To those who are doing the most griping, bellyaching, and finger-pointing at devs, in this thread, I ask this:

Are you having fun playing the game anymore? From what you guys and gals are saying, or inferring, it sounds to me like fun has left the building a long time ago. Why are you still here if you think that the devs are doing nothing but your gaming life more difficult? What keeps you in Paragon City/Rogue Isles?


Take a step back...enjoy life for a minute. Deep breaths, focus on something that actually means something, and then come back and try to enjoy what's here. If there truly isn't anything worth coming back for, it might be time to try something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying this change will reduce the fun of one of the parts of the game I really like doing. With nothing to compensate, and even now an indication that any fixes to the problems to TFs aren't even on the back burner.

If their partial fix had been "OK, what we'll do is reduce the minimums for TFs except for LRSF and STF so that you need to lose more people to make it hurt, we'll be looking at further tweaks to this and other fixes to problems with task and strike forces after I12 goes live", I'd have met that with cheering.

Hell, even though I consider this worse than what's on live, if this had been introduced with the assurance of dealing with the other issues post I12, I'd have been reasonably mollified. But as it is, yes, I'm annoyed.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your argument. I play a lot of online games and sometimes when my team mates have a poor connection, we won't run stuff because we don't want to deal with them dropping.

If someone's not that savvy to realize what's going on, ok, sure I can see that. As I said above, we acknowledge that there is more we can do. However, for those people who do understand how their connectivity works and what's going on when they have a poor connection can deal with that by quitting.

Additionally, a team leader can take the step to tell the person who's dc'ing a lot that they are just going to kick them rather than dealing with the disconnecting player. Hopefully they do it in such a manner that doesn't bend feelings and they can group again another day. I myself have been in similar situations and done just that. The joys of running PUGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if someone has a questionable connection...no TF for you!

If it's during double-XP weekend or there's a special event (both of which can cause lag)...no TF for you!

If you are the caretaker for a parent/spouse/child and may have to go AFK for periods...no TF for you!

If you have a parent or spouse or someone who may need you to log off for a period and attend to something else...no TF for you!

If you're the sort of person who a friend can call and say "Hey, man, I'm stuck at the airport, my flight got in early and I really need a ride, can you come get me"...no TF for you!

And if you're the leader of a team and find you have anyone on your team who falls into any of those groups, the appropriate thing to do is kick them. Because otherwise, someone, somewhere might actually softload a TF and get a Trap of the Hunter recipe.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...

Given the choice between what's on live and what's on test now, I choose what's on live. For a fast partial fix, I'd much rather see minimums reduced on task forces. But any of them, what's on live now, what's on test, or a minor fix like reducing minimums, would be a lot easier to live with if I had any reason to believe the devs see any problem with task/strike forces other than closing an exploit and would be doing anything about them in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe we are blind to concerns or input about current TF/SF/Trial content I can assure you we are not. However, I would pose the argument of opportunity cost. In some cases, depending on the scope, you could get a whole new TF out of revamping an old one. So, would you rather have the Lady Gray TF or a revamped Positron?

As we continue to ramp things up, we will better be in the position where we can just do both. We appreciate your continued support and patronage to get us there.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the "if we're going to do new stuff, the old stuff has to fester" argue that makes me think you DON'T understand the problems in TFs as they exist. The fact that you describe them as "concerns" and "input" rather than "problems" is telling.

I understand limited budgets, I understand that you can't do everything. But there are simple things that COULD be done with far less time than this change took.

(1) Fix the minimum numbers to start. With the except of the STF and the Hallows trial, there's no reason for any TF heroside to require more than 6 to start, and unless there's a particular challenge I'd start make it 4.

(2) Spend a day or two going through the TFs, figuring out the unnecessary redundant missions, and modify the mission list and tweak the text accordingly.

(3) Cut the size of pool C to half of what it is now, moving most of the mezzes and such to Pool B. Or if you're willing to commit a little code to it, dump all of Pool C into Pool B, increase the chance of a Pool B drop for every mission, and everyone gets a Pool B at the end of the TF. Bonus, this lets you kill the TF timer

(4) To discourage softloading, you could increase the rewards when defeating the foes in a mission, so the extra influence earned by doing the TF by the rules is enough to buy the weak recipe Sam's going to get by softloading. Wait! This was already done, so you may have already done enough to discourage softloading without any of these changes.

[ QUOTE ]
We considered that option along with others, but given our timeline for Issue 12 we didn't go that route. It involved a lot of risky coding in our current development cycle where we are trying to close this live branch and shift to Issue 12. We felt this was a good compromise to address immediate concerns.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is the Issue 12 is going to be months before it goes live (even if closed beta starts next week) and probably won't include a further fix to this. So the temporary fix imposed on us will probably last until 12.5 or later. That's assuming that, after people deal with it long enough, you don't say "well, the sky didn't fall, so I guess we don't have to do any more." And given how long old problems have been allowed to fester, and your own comments about the problems with the Eden trial, I'm not ready to make that assumption.

I love doing TFs, and I love doing PuG TFs. I love a semi-random group of heros working on a shared story to save the day. But in PuG TFs, sometimes players go offline, sometimes they come back later, sometimes they don't or can't. At least on live, if the team size was greater than the minimum to start, no harm, but with this proposed change, the team has to face an artificially greater challenge.

Given the choice between what's on live and what's on test now, I choose what's on live. For a fast partial fix, I'd much rather see minimums reduced on task forces. But any of them, what's on live now, what's on test, or a minor fix like reducing minimums, would be a lot easier to live with if I had any reason to believe the devs see any problem with task/strike forces other than closing an exploit and would be doing anything about them in the future.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My two cents:

Obviously this is a middle ground between "how it used to be" and "how it is now on Live." Despite a substantial amount of rational arguments in favor of scrapping the change altogether and reverting back to the old system, the rednames seem adamant on shaking things up for god knows what reason...



[/ QUOTE ]

To reiterate my original statement about farming Task / Strike Force and Trial statements for RMT purposes and to echo Positron's follow up statement; the reason for the change to these missions is to curb the following behavior:

8 people start a Task Force.
7 people log off and allow the 1 character that's a strong solo build to solo to the end.
The 7 other people log on just before the finish.
Complete the mission and 8 people obtain Pool C rewards for the work of 1 person.

The above behavior is something that we are not allowing to continue.

We understand that there is more work that can be done on these missions. We appreciate and value your feedback on that front.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think ANYONE has spoken in favor of the behavior you want to stop. But these changes will hurt people who are playing by the rules. And more, it has shown a bright spotlight on the problems that ENCOURAGE that behavior.

Specifically:

(1) Due to the imbalance of players between CoH and CoV, the lack of SFs villainside and the lack of a fast exciting TF like the Croatoa TF, the supply of recipes available redside is much reduced.

(2) Due to the range of the recipes in Pool C, the odds of getting a recipe that I would want to use is fairly low and the odds of one that can be sold for more than an generic invention recipe is even lower. For all the talk about the great work for great effort, the reward you get at the end of completing a TF is likely to suck.

(3) Heroside, the minimum numbers for task force are completely out of whack from what even a reasonably competent team would require to achieve victory, meaning the first and sometimes most difficult challenge is "get enough people to start". Allowing us to have people join to start and then quit is not a solution.

(4) While the latter TFs are great, and as I've said before I consider the Lady Grey TF a work of art (though you could cut Infernia's monologue in half), so many of the old TFs are grindy slogs that just aren't a lot of fun. And maybe you could justify that if there really was a great reward for completing it, but see problem (2)

And the ONLY response we've gotten to any of the problems highlighted by this change was "Well, we're not talking about rewards in this thread."

If, accompanying this change, there was some acknowledgement of the problems, a statement that you'll be working on a solution to them (and I'm not even asking for a commitment to Issue 12, I know that's locked in by now), it would have gone down a lot easier. But as near as we can tell, the ONLY issue that NCNC sees with taskforces and strikeforces is that people can softload.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This probably doesn't need to be asked but might as well be through,

LH, do these TF changes also apply to the Oroborous Taskforces and the Flashback Taskforces themselves? I hope so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they do. Flashback missions use the same code as Task / Strike Force Missions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That fact makes the change on test a definite step back from what's on live now. You can't even justify it with "well, but do you want people to get this great rewards with less work" for Flashback.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's compare the original TF system to this new proposed Test system. The Test system says this:
TF spawns will no longer reduce in size if players log out.

Taken in THOSE TERMS, I would hope the issue is clear. This system is terribly unforgiving of a normal non-exploitive disconnect. THAT by itself is a Bad Idea - the "experiment" they put on Live last week that they're rolling back is irrelevant to that evaluation.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're absolutely correct in this, but I think you've gotta compare it to the current Live version. If this new version doesn't work out, or creates more complaints than the Live version, I highly doubt they'll revert it back to the way it used to be. It's either gonna be this new version or leave it the way it is on Live now, or maybe they'll try something else.

Comparing the new version to the way it used to be is pointless. Is this new version better than the way it used to be? Absolutely not -- the way it used to be penalized no one, casual players or exploiters (unless you count the farmers getting a lot more Pool C recipes than the casual players). Both the Live version and the Test version can penalize both casual players and exploiters/farmers. In some situations, the Test version is better, and in other situations, the Live version is better. The question that's important is which version (the current Live one or the Test one) impacts the non-exploiters/casual players the least.

It doesn't matter how it used to be, unless you think there's a chance that the Devs can be convinced to go back to it, at least until they can work out a solution that's better than they've got so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

The test version is better when people explicitly quit the TF and that drops you below the minimum, it is the same as live when people quit the TF but the team size remains at or above the minimum to start. The live version is better when people log off without quitting and the team logged in remains at or above minimum to start, it is the same as test if the team logged in falls below the minimum to start.

Or in other words, if the team remaining logged in after someone leaves is at or above the minimum to start, the live version is better, it's unchanged from before the devs made any changes to the way spawns happen in TFs. It's only when the team logged in size falls below the team minimum, and then it's only better when people quit instead of logging off.

If it's true that more people quit than log off (which has been my experience at least), then more often than not this change does nothing or makes it worse. And if the minimum to start numbers weren't so excessive, then the version on live would almost always be the same or better than what's on test.

SuperOz, I'm glad the devs took another look at it, but IMHO they found the wrong solution. And your comment about "test and give feedback"...testing can determine if the change works as described (which is worth doing but I'm reasonably confident that it does) and whether it applies to Flashback/Ouroboros (which definitely is needed to find out). But all the artificial tests on the test server, where you have someone quit and check spawns then have someone log off and check spawns, won't answer the big question, of whether people who leave a TF and don't come back quit or just log off/disconnect and don't/can't come back.

[ QUOTE ]
most of the people complaining about these changes are the exact people who this change was meant to effect. No one who ran task forces the way they were supposed to be run has been effected by this in any way.

[/ QUOTE ]

False. Since this change went live, I've been on TFs where some people were forced by real life to log off temporarily and also some cases where people disconnected and couldn't make it back for a while (sometimes not before we were done).

In most cases, we were above the minimums for the TF, so the spawns decreased. If this new change had been in effect, we'd have gotten the spawns.

Maybe you and FragYou are able to play with people who have no life and therefore never have any emergencies that call you away and have perfect connections and never have power outages or internet connections go down. That's not the case with the people I play with.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm for how it is on Live. I'm not for this setup under test.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't understand why people are so opposed to this change. With either the Live version or the current one in testing, you have the problem with people logging off but not quitting the TF. The new version at least gives you some allowance for team attrition in lots of situations. And for the situations that it won't (someone logs off without quitting), well, it's *already* like that on Live. The things that people are worried about already happen under the current system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not correct. On live, if someone logs off and the team size is at least the minimum to start, the spawns decrease. Minimum to start for TF is four, start with eight, two people log off, you get spawns designed for the six people logged in.

For those not seeking to solo or duo TFs, the biggest problem with the new rules on live is that the minimums are unrealistically high. None of the Shard TFs justify an 8 person team, at least two of them really only need four. Manticore doesn't need 7, I've completed it with four (before the change currently on live). If their quick fix had been "we're reducing all minimums to 4 except for Positron (which is already 3) and LRSF and STF", that would solve the problems. Or the fix proposed earlier, where if team size (logged in or not) is less than minimum to start, you get team size, otherwise you get the lesser of logged in people or minimum to start.

If it had been my experience that almost all of the people leaving a TF early did so by quitting, this would be a good change. But I've done a lot of TFs in the past near-four years, and people who leave in the middle have usually been by people logging off/disconnecting and not returning. And in those cases, the majority in my experience, either this change does nothing or makes it worse.

I said earlier the only problem this issue solves is people who want to solo or duo a TF. I misspoke, it also solves the devs problems of once again being able to ignore the ridiculously high minimums for a lot of TFs, because people can still get others to join to start and then quit. I hope this change wasn't done in part to "solve" the latter, because it's no solution.

And I really hope the devs are listening to the other issues with TFs and SFs that these changes shined the light on. In the discussion on the change live, the issue of rewards came up, and a redname (I forgot who) said "well, this discussion is switching to the rewards for TFs and that's not the issue here." While not the specific subject of the thread, there were problems with TFs/SFs BEFORE the first change, this is all just highlighting them. TFs CAN be one of the best parts of the game. The Lady Grey TF is a work of art. But so many of the older TFs don't measure up, and there are aspects of the mechanics of task forces that hurt even the best TF content.

Even if they can find a solution that satisfies everyone on this issue of sizing spawns, if the devs say "well, we've fixed the problems with TFs" and move on, they'll have missed a huge opportunity.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This probably doesn't need to be asked but might as well be through,

LH, do these TF changes also apply to the Oroborous Taskforces and the Flashback Taskforces themselves? I hope so.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Ouroboros and Flashback "Task Forces" weren't affected by the original change (the one that's currently on Live) so I can't imagine they'd be affected by this change, since it's just an alteration of the previous TF change. It's not like the Ouroboros "Task Forces" are *really* Task Forces...

[/ QUOTE ]

Do we know that the Ouroboros Task Forces and Flashback weren't affected by the old change, and thus aren't affected by the new change?

Those are Task Forces in every other mechanism, except they have a minimum size to start of 1. So if the current system affects them, we'd never know it, because team spawns would never drop below the minimum size to start. But the change on Testing could affect Flashback story arcs. And given how long some heroside TFs are, that could be an issue.

[ QUOTE ]
I refer you to the design of the TF itself:

- hours of content.
- can't invite more people to replace dropouts.
- designed with code to allow play over multiple sessions.
- Can't do regular missions in between.

Also, this quote by Positron:

[ QUOTE ]
However, we saw a desire for a group of friends to get together and do some hard, lengthy content for good rewards. This is how Task Forces were born. They are the "casual" raid, something you can plan with your buddies that you are going to do on a certain day and for a certain amount of time, but you didn't need 30 or 60 people to pull it off.


[/ QUOTE ]

also

[ QUOTE ]
Now TFs and SFs were made for the casual group of friends. This means that the group could persist over several game sessions. To do this we made it so that when you logged off, or lost connection, you didn't drop out of the group. Coming back into the game you would find that your character was still on the TF. This way you could run a TF "every Friday night from 8 to 9" and if all the participants agreed, you could progress the TF a little bit every week.


[/ QUOTE ]

Granted, he does use the phrase 'casual group of friends', but he goes on to describe play that is definitely NOT PuG style.

Casual != PuG in this case, it would appear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that Positron said in that post that they found that most TFs WERE PuGs. And speaking personally, in almost 4 years of playing the game, the times where I've done a TF only with trusted friends is almost non-existant.

Frankly, I didn't think I could be more disappointed, but I am.

In my experience, I see people leaving the TF by logging off and not coming back more often than by quitting. They have computer/ISP problems, something interferes in real life and they say "Well, I have to go for an hour, but I'll be back before the end" and they don't make it back, it's getting late and they get discouraged and just log off.

As it is on live, if the minimum to start really represented the minimum team size to expect to succeed, the change isn't horrible. If you're down to two people for the LGTF, odds are that you're not going to be able to defeat the Honoree. The reason that change is so bad is because, particularly heroside, the minimums have little to no relationship with how many heroes or villains you need to succeed the battles.

OK, with this change, if everyone who leaves a TF early does so by quitting, this is better. But if people leave without quitting, this is worse unless the team is at the minimum to start, in which case it's no better.

And one of the examples I gave above of people who log off but don't return is the real life "I have to log off for an hour or so". Sometimes they don't return, but usually they do. Under this new system, the "rational" choice is to say "Sorry, that's not acceptable, we have to kick you."

If there was one good thing about the furor that arose over the Task/Strike Force change it's that it shown a light on the problems that exist in Task/Strike Forces. So I was really hoping for a short term fix of "we're reducing the minimum to start numbers to something more rational, and we'll be looking at fixing the other problems as we move forward."

Instead, the only fix I'm seeing here is "OK, if you want to solo or duo TFs, we'll let you do that".

I appreciate listening to us and trying something, but I don't like this change at all.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are gonna be one of many people dealing with another decision based on a few vs. the masses of customers.

[/ QUOTE ]
This change will not affect the "masses of customers" at all. It will only affect the people who run task forces (which, believe it or not, a lot don't). Of those people, it will only affect them while they're running task forces, which for most people, is a very small percentage of their game time. Of that, it will only affect the people who are on teams in which players drop off, which a lot don't. Of that, it will only affect people who start task forces with the exact number of teammates needed to start the task force or who are on teams that have multiple people drop off. And even then, as pointed out, it will only cause failure if the team cannot defeat enemies spawned as if the missions were normal ones set to Tenacious instead of Heroic (which it's not unheard of for mid-to-high-level teams to run missions on Unyielding or Invincible). When all of these factors are accounted for, this is a small percentage of "the masses."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll grant that you're correct that not everyone runs TFs.

But while not everyone has as great or common reasons to go AFK as the person you quoted, life happens to everyone. The cat just tipped over a cabinet, I got an emergency call from a friend that needs to be picked up from the airport, my parent/spouse/child really needs my attention for a while.

And remember, task forces are based off the level of the TF, not the leader or the average level of the group or even the highest level. So while a team of people fairly close in level can romp through missions on tenacious, it's not unusual for half the people to be two or three levels below the mission level (and many spawns in TFs are designed to have extra bosses). So yeah, larger spawns can be a problem.

If one person has to leave, it's not an issue if the team is larger than the minimum (though of course there are a number of task forces with minimums far higher than the actual missions justify, some with a minimum of 8 that could be done easily by a team of four facing spawns for four). Even one below the minimum spawn isn't much of an issue. But the problem is that it isn't always just one. There can be two or three.

So if someone starts a TF saying "I may have to go AFK a bit", the leader is thinking "OK, and if real life hits others, we're screwed" and the only reasonable thing to do is to tell that person "Then you can't be in this team".

Again, nobody's justifying softloading (except for the mission with the tech in the LRSF). And as much as some would like it otherwise, it's clear that soloing of TFs won't happen either. And the idea of some minimum spawn isn't a bad idea. But the minimums imposed by this change are simply done. And doing it before addressing any of the other problems for task and strike forces was wrong.

BTW, Positron just posted a reply on the reasons for the changes. And has said nothing about the problems except "well, maybe some TFs could have their minimum reduced"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone wanna take Bets on when Positron's gonna make a blurb or statement about this? I'm betting we won't see him at all even though he was obviously the one who made the call. Gawd I love it when that Power-Gamer shirks responsibility ...He finally caves to the Casual Gamers' overwhelming demands for fixing the 30-40 grind and wins some huge brownie points with this community, and then flips around and pulls this Epic-Fail "Fix" in the same patch. HUGE Lolz, son.


BtW, if anyone wants to know his thoughts on the matter, just go read the Market Forum. Those 1337 100t "flippers" are all cut from the same stone he was. The more these recipes cost, the bigger their E-dilz get, and the happier they are. That's Positron's "Fan Base" and the only justification he needs for being a total Miser.

[/ QUOTE ]if positron knows what is good for him then he needs to not touch this thread with a 1000 foot pole. I dont see how any answer he gives will be acceptable at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer he should give is "In the next partial patch, we'll be tweaking the minimum numbers of these task forces (insert list here) and we'll be watching to see what happens on completion rates of Task Forces".

Actually, the answer should be "we're reverting this for now. However, there will be some form of this returning in I12, so please be ready to test this and suggest ways to make this work." But he won't.

I could even live with "We're reading the feedback, we're looking to see what the affect is on task/strike forces being formed and how many complete. We will make adjustments in I12 or before if the numbers say it is necessary." I wouldn't be happy, but at least there'd be some sense that we're being heard.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The afk timer doesn't work on TFs.

The person logged themselves off.

[/ QUOTE ]
REALLY!!! NOW I AM PISSED, I AM GOING TO PUT THAT DEFENDER ON IGNORE!!!
Thanks for telling me this.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also possible that their computer crashed, their internet connection went out, a parental unit or a spousal unit said "You're quitting that game and coming to do this and I mean now."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Regardless of how big a change is, exploit fixes are not snd should not be tested without an NDA. NDAs are fairly useless for testing exploit fixes, since honest folk who would abide by an NDA don't knowingly exploit. Hence, no warning.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am very confused by the basic premise of your post. I've never heard of this "exploit fixes must be secret and NDA'd" rule before.

[/ QUOTE ]
It has been said many times before, but the most recent example is <a href="/showflat.php?Number=10198732" target="_blank">here</a>:

[ QUOTE ]
The reason these items were not included in the Training Room testing notes, is that try not to call attention to exploits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is Positron saying pretty much the same thing <a href="/showthreaded.php?Number=5895304" target="_blank">June 29, 2006</a>:

[ QUOTE ]
It is policy to NOT post patch notes about things that can be considered exploits or griefing tactics on the Training Room patch notes. When the fix goes to live, then the patch note appears.

Exploiters and griefers don't always "share their tactics" on how they do stuff. We would not knowingly put into a patch note that something is getting fixed on the training room that could be used to exploit/grief. This is so that players on the live servers don't abuse the bug until it gets off the training room and onto live.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, it has been well established that the above policy is in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and when they are changing a game mechanic that affects people who play the game normally, that policy needs to change. It needed to change for the Rikti Portal change, and it sure as hell needed to change for this. If this had been in the patch notes, the issue of the Shard TFs requiring 8 would have been raised in testing, where either this change could have been adjusted or the minimums could have been adjusted.

Few if anyone here is saying "yes, we have to be able to solo these task forces". The only mission I've heard people say "we need to solo" is the bugged mission with the technician in the LRSF. The goal of the change isn't the issue. But the side effects are very bad, and those side effects are made worse by the problems already existing in the task forces and strike forces.

And no, I don't expect any significant changes to task forces in I12. I'd love to see them in I13, but I doubt it. The last official comments we've gotten on task forces was Positron saying "yeah, my task force sucks but we've never managed to schedule time to fix it" and Lighthouse commenting on Eden's problems with "We work on new content, we can't waste developer resources on old content". Just yesterday, Back Alley Brawler talked about Dr. Quarterfield, perhaps the most broken in terms of fun factor TF in the game, "Yeah, it sucks, but that's what the badge is for, to say you did something that sucks."

(No, those aren't exact quotes, but I think I've captured the essence of the statements.)

If there was going to be another patch before I12, I'd suggest some tweaks to TF/SF minimums and some tweaks to this change to make it workable. But since Rage's further changes had to be abandoned to work on I12, this change needs to be reverted. The side effects are just too bad to live with them until I12 goes live.

That's nice, but I hope some specific things are going to be fixed.

(1) Big patch, and once again, the players are having to dig out things that look odd, document them, and be told "Oh, yeah, this didn't make it into the patch notes". This has gone on simply far too long. It has to end. The patch notes have to be complete.

(1a) The policy of "we don't document exploits in test server" patch notes has to be looked at, particularly when they are more than just "close that exploit". The XP for Welcome to Vanguard has no significant impact in real play, it's the Ouroboros flashback that had a big impact, so I don't mind that not being documented. But the Rikti Portal XP and the task force changes impact people playing the game as designed. I'm not going to say those changes are right or wrong, but when they impact normal game play, they have to be in the test server patch notes so they can be discussed and adjusted and removed. A hard and fast "if a change is to deal with an exploit, we don't document it" simply isn't acceptable.

(2) New content is great. But much of the old content is broken. There are some serious bugs in the Eden trial, there's a bug in the LRSF that is a REASON that the first mission is often softloaded. And even where there aren't bugs, the Freedom Phalanx and Shard task forces need work. Bases also need work.

New content is great, I'm looking forward to seeing what's coming in I12 and beyond. But if the current problems are just allowed to fester, that's not a good thing. And beyond my disagreements with some of these undocumented changes, I'm appalled at the "well, these things happen" attitude I'm hearing at these big changes going live without documentation. As you recruit and expand your team, will you be fixing your systems so these things can't happen, or will things just be multiplied?

I've been on Statesman Task Forces where we lost two people and managed to succeed. So while I agree that it and the LRSF should require 8 to start, I don't think that spawns should remain at 8 if people leave.

There are two things this change is meant to block. One is having people solo TFs meant for groups. The other is softloading to quickly do a TF.

I've got no problems if changes make TFs unsoloable, but I fail to see why it's a problem worth hurting teams if they can be soloed. With the possible exception of Positron (blueside at least), soloing a TF isn't the easy way to get it done. People solo TFs either because they can't do one teamed for one reason or another, or they really want to push themselves for maximum challenge. Of all the ways to earn XP or Influence quickly, soloing TFs is far far down the list.

Softloading a mission is something that can cheapen the reward of a mission. I've got sympathy to those who want to softload to avoid a bug in a mission (LRSF), but "this will slow down how fast we can get the recipe" doesn't earn much sympathy. However, the solution chosen hurts those who are doing TFs as intended but have problems.

Are we even being listened to? Based on the silence so far, the message I'm getting is "this is it, like it or lump it".