Lady_Sadako

[ QUOTE ]
Im sure there some sort of ridiculously long recharge rate for each.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently there isn't.

... wait. These things give a buff to you AND YOUR TEAM?

So what happens if a team of 8 people get together, all running their buffing pets?

SHENANIGANS!

.... bwahahahhahaha

[ QUOTE ]
It was in an Interview IIRC... currently searching for it, but it does exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you remember the gist of it? My search-fu skillz are at your disposal.

[ QUOTE ]
We already know that TF changes are in the works. Thats a Red Name stated fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Citation please?

[ QUOTE ]
All this change does is ensure that you comply with what the NPC states, has stated for years, and will continue to state.

[/ QUOTE ]

In real terms, what this change does is introduce a cartload more obligatory work in the hope that you will keep a team of a certain size in order to tackle it.

Increased obligatory work for a mere CHANCE of adequate compensation = very very bad.

[ QUOTE ]
Because this change has no impact on the teaming aspect of Task Forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

The teaming aspect is the whole POINT of the change - see below.

[ QUOTE ]
But the fact remains, what you are talking about is another issue entirely removed from this change & should be addressed in its own thread... in the Suggestion Forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue is at the very CORE of this change. As the Devs themselves spelled out in post one:

' We want to continue to offer good rewards based on a group accomplishment through such missions and maintaining that requirement is the reason for this change.'

Get it? They want to maintain the requirement for a group. People were doing large swathes of the TFs without groups. They don't want them to do that any more.

They apparently think that a randomly chosen Pool C recipe is a 'good reward' for obliging a whole group to go through the whole TF start to finish.

My contention is that it's NOT a 'good reward', and their logic is thus radically flawed. They've provided the change, and their reasons for it; I'm pointing out the flaw in their reasoning. So, your assertion that this belongs on the Suggestions Forum is incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]
Nowhere does it state that if you start a TF that requires 8 members to start that if someone should quit and you are left with 7 members, that the resulting challenge is uncompletable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've missed the point. I'm talking about requiring minimum team sizes being a less than ideal way of getting people to group.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, you state that they should have worded it in a positive manor

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not questioning the wording, I'm questioning the design.

[ QUOTE ]
This is simply NOT true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't get it. I'm not talking about this change in the passage you quoted. I'm talking about ways to encourage people to team in general.

I don't think anyone disputes, for example, that 'you need 3 people to click the glowies simultaneously' was a really bad idea and didn't encourage teaming like it was meant to.

[ QUOTE ]
Heck, not being able to chose your HO in LRSF or STF is pretty bad too. I mean, I can understand the old hammie raids where they just dropped randomly not offering a choice. Fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. There's a crucial difference there. Let me explore that.

A Hami raid is one big challenge, an event at which you succeed or fail. The reward is random, but the event is discrete. That is, you choose to enter into a high-stakes gamble, but it's only one game you're betting on, one epic fight that can be won or lost.

TFs don't work that way. They aren't one epic fight or one game. They are A+B+C+D+E+F - a series of events that are, in and of themselves, not contributory to the final result.

Why is this an issue? Because by the time you've finished 90% of a TF, you have already done 90% of the work, in exactly the same way as you would have done every other time you ran the TF. When you're doing the big mission of a trial or doing a raid, the outcome of the trial is in doubt throughout the mission or the raid. That's challenge. But on a TF, all the missions you've done before reaching the end are no longer in doubt. They're finished. Done. Sewn up.

The chain of missions that leads to the final confrontation currently does not count at all towards the end result in terms of reward. No wonder people skip it.

In much simpler language, One Big Thing is a different kind of task from Lots of Little Things. It's arguably okay to give a random reward for One Big Thing, but making people go through Lots of Little Things for the CHANCE of a worthwhile reward is just plain wrong.

And that's what this new patch is about. It's about making sure that you go through every damn one of the little things. Fine, do that if you must, but make them COUNT.

Time to address the original post, I think.

[ QUOTE ]
Such missions have always been intended to be group activities, hence the reason for the minimum group size requirement to start them.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many ways to incentivise group activity. The above is a negative way. 'You cannot do this unless you have a group of at least size X.' A positive way would be 'If you have a group of at least size X, the rewards are better' or 'This challenge is so hard that you ought to bring a group of at least size X to deal with it.'

[ QUOTE ]
We feel that the group size requirements are certainly not onerous

[/ QUOTE ]

Finding a group of 8 is one sort of challenge.

SUSTAINING a group of 8 is another kind altogether. People get disconnected, have to go AFK, have issues of all kinds that mean they have to drop out temporarily or permanently.

You really need to look at how minimum team requirements pan out over time as opposed to the start of a mission.

[ QUOTE ]
and that the need for grouping is a good dynamic in a social environment like City of Heroes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but how do you create that need? Gating content by simply setting a minimum team size on it is about the crudest way to do it.

[ QUOTE ]
We want to continue to offer good rewards based on a group accomplishment through such missions and maintaining that requirement is the reason for this change.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is the point where I really have to stand up and shout. I've not seen it picked up on yet, so I'm going to pick up on it.

A randomly selected Pool C recipe is NOT a 'good reward based on a group accomplishment'.

Some of the Pool C recipes are worth doing a TF for. Some aren't even worth getting out of bed for. If you are going to nail a mechanic in place that says 'you MUST do a certain amount of work as a group in order to earn the reward' then you have to apply a similar level of consistency to the rewards themselves.

The reason why people soft load the Cap TF and do Speed Katies isn't because they don't like fighting the opposition. It's to minimize time wastage caused by the random reward selection system.

Who in hell wants to do a whole TF just to get a - I have to borrow the delightful phrase - Crap of the Hunter recipe, or a Snipe recipe?

Let me hammer it home again: if you are going to make the challenge consistent, then make the rewards consistent. It's unacceptable to require people to do a set amount of work for a mere CHANCE of worthwhile compensation. Guarantee the worthwhile compensation, and you'll be on firm ground.

So how do you guarantee the worthwhile compensation?

Simple. Let people choose which Pool C recipe they get.

That takes the randomness out of the process. If all TF rewards are SUPPOSED to be of equivalent worth - and if they aren't, then why the hell are you requiring people to do the same amount of work to earn them - then there is no reason to prohibit the player from choosing which one they want. Inconveniencing players is not the same as challenging them.

Oh dear.

Do we have another undocumented change?

Or is this poster just confused?

[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of exciting plans in motion that we expect will knock your socks off and take the City of Heroes/Villains franchise to the next level.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what IS the next level?

(and for the first person that says he means a level cap increase, I will personally spork you in the face)

[ QUOTE ]
This is the other primary reason listed by Lighthouse. This one I agree with, partly. Teaming IS the best aspect of an MMO. HOWEVER, forced teaming, with PENALTIES if you team cannot manage to stay cohesive is not desirable, and actually DISCOURAGES teaming rather than encouraging it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. The 'click multiple glowies at once' missions should have been ample evidence of that.

[ QUOTE ]
Your time could probably be spent better than nitpicking semantics for the sake of defending the rednames as opposed to actually considering the change at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

psst. check the post above yours.

I'm neither nitpicking semantics nor defending the rednames.

OK, so.

In order to assess whether this 'fix' does what it's supposed to do well or not, we first have to ascertain just what the hey it was supposed to achieve in the first place.

Now I know plenty of you have your opinions on that. 'It was to stop Cap runs!' I think that's a mistake, and Cap runs were just one aspect of a much larger syndrome in the Devs' eyes, which is People Not Doing the TFs Like The TFs Are Meant To Be Done.

All we have to go on is the quote from LH:

[ QUOTE ]
One of the many aims of this most recent update was to address exploitive behavior that could be used for influence/infamy farming.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this change belongs in the context of a whole set of changes intended to 'address exploitive behaviour'.

So does it do that? Hell no. It ENABLES it. As has already been pointed out by more eloquent people than myself, farmers can now be assured of missions packed with mobs.

Now, I'm not about to say I'm in possession of all the facts here. Maybe there's some exploit I'm blissfully unaware of, like the 'brawl the Rikti portal and run away' thing. But it does look like the attempt to deal with one particular sort of 'exploitive behaviour', whatever it may actually have been, just blew the door wide open for another sort.

Until we know exactly what it was supposed to fix, it'll be hard to suggest alternatives.

[ QUOTE ]
The weak excuse that this change was primarily to prevent RMT'ers, when clearly it BENEFITS them more than prevents them.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that's not what LH actually says, is it?

[ QUOTE ]
One of the many aims of this most recent update was to address exploitive behavior that could be used for influence/infamy farming.

[/ QUOTE ]

The MANY AIMS of this most recent UPDATE. Not this particular fix, but the WHOLE UPDATE. The patch of which this particular fix was only one element, and which also includes stuff like the Intro to Vanguard fix.

[ QUOTE ]
Who really gives a good gotdamn,Lady?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone I quoted, by the look of it.

[ QUOTE ]
Get off it and onto the issue at hand regarding tf/sf's please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, so long as the same applies to the conspiracy theorists, and you tell the next person who comes up with one to 'shut up', too.

EDIT: Okay, so you edited. Fair enough.

[ QUOTE ]
That one is mine Sadako and its not suggesting a conspiracy theory, since you lumped it in with your other ones, its suggesting that once again, something that they knew would upset the PAYING customer base, was left out, imo intentionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

But... do you really think the Devs thought that leaving it out of the patch notes would mean nobody would ever find out?

Come ON! This change was picked up on, without patch notes, within... what, a day? You really think the Devs are saying 'oh! we hoped not to upset our Paying Customer Base, but despite our clever ruse of leaving this change out of the patch notes, they somehow found out!'

Again, I have to ask - once they'd made the change, what possible good would it do them to keep it out of the patch notes on purpose?

[ QUOTE ]
So...what? We should just shut up and roll over?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you should confront the actual changes instead of the whackjob conspiracy theory that people seem to think accompanies them.

[ QUOTE ]
Does it not strike you odd that it took them TWO days to admit it?

[/ QUOTE ]

'Admit'?

What, do you think they're like children hiding some guilty secret that has to be coaxed out of them?

[ QUOTE ]
Does it not strike you odd that once they do admit it, all we get is a weak excuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, what 'weak excuse' would that be? All I see is an admission that they didn't have their act together when it came to getting the patch notes out, which is HARDLY NEW.

[ QUOTE ]
Does it not strike you odd that we STILL have no further word from the devs on this issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, since they apparently don't see it as quite so important as half the people on this thread seem to.

[ QUOTE ]
But atm....it really makes you wonder. What was the logic behind this?

[/ QUOTE ]

The logic behind this change, as opposed to the way in which it came across to the playerbase?

It seems to me to be a steam roller solution that doesn't actually work. Not the first time that's happened, either.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there something useful to be gained by constantly chasing after people suggesting conspiracy theories in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

Suggesting?

'Sorry Devs....thats a lie.'
'bullcrap, I saw the post where lighthouse said this was a bug and then that was deleted, lost in the volume my [censored]'
'I call shenanigans on this one. Once again, a stealth "oops" has made it into the game.'
'I am quite annoyed with the sneaking it by (come on, that's what it was...)'
'Their PR department said "It's not going to be popular. We'll come up with a "repsonse" when they find out about it after it's live."'
'Sorry I don't buy it that this wasn't intended to be stealthed in.'
'I don't buy the "we forgot" nonsense for a second.'

That's not suggesting. That's asserting.

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say that Lady, you quoted someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look at the post you responded to, you'll see where the confusion arose.

[ QUOTE ]
Please re-read my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did. It still says

[ QUOTE ]
the "official" comments so far have been nothing but an attempt to "pull wool over our eyes"

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think anyone would pull wool over your eyes? What do you think they're trying to cover up?

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously....this is a MAJOR ball drop here, and the "official" comments so far have been nothing but an attempt to "pull wool over our eyes".

[/ QUOTE ]

So what sinister truth do you think They are trying to keep from you?

[ QUOTE ]
No conspiracies just common sense. Two days to find patch notes? C'mon...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you guys are being way too literal in your interpretation of the word 'lost' here. Look at what LH says:

[ QUOTE ]
We know that finding out about this change after the patch is already live is not the ideal way to go about it. It was never our intent to “hide” or “stealth” this change out, it was simply lost in the volume of other changes spanning many months.

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't mean the patch notes were literally lost, as in, written down and then left on a bus. He obviously means they were forgotten about / dropped by the wayside / were on someone's to do list that they then left in their other pants / were something that someone was going to do 'when they got around to it' and so on.

I should clarify that I don't actually LIKE this change, but chaos is only chaos and not malice.

[ QUOTE ]
The Devs hate villains! ... *and* heroes!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

and puppies!