MadScientist

Perhaps coming back to this later I can better sum up how I feel.

This proposed change will alter soft-loading, and will have an impact on people who intend to be absent for all but the end of a TF. This change will also have a negative impact on people who are teaming up and simply running a TF with no intention to exploit anything.

I do not feel the gain aganst exploiters is worth the collateral damage to non-exploiting teams who suffer a disconnect or quit-via-logging.

A major reason I feel that way is because I can see better solutions to hurt soft-loaders and absent TF runners. For example, continue to count logged out players for only 5 minutes, that makes it really annoying to soft-load, but will shortly correct itself for a normal team that loses a member. Also, for people farming multiple rewards from a small active team, alter the reward system so that you don't get a reward if a player was logged out for all but the last mission - count the number of rewards they miss and deny them a recipe if they were offline too much of the TF.

Further, this change removes an improvement that was brought with the current Live setup - on Live the TF design as a challenge for X people is reinforced.


so it's not that this is a bad idea from the Devs, but it's a horribly short-sighted implementation of that idea.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
let me restate I do not want this change unless you guys can make a way to kick offline players, which doesn't seem possible without making a "team vote to kick" option that includes both online and offline players on the TF/SF.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Any griefer can do far worse.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the concern is over fringe cases where you have several legitimate player drops (ISP outage, power failure, etc.) but no way to rebalance the missions to account for that. In the current system, this isn't a problem unless you drop below the starting requirement. With this change, you would have to suffer through the spawns untill the end or just quit the T/SF. I'm not sure how often something like that would really come up though.

[/ QUOTE ]

It will come up as often as there are disconnects.

Under the system currently on Live, you can have a buffer where drops do not adversely affect your team.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

TFs and SFs are intended for groups of players who know each other, not PuGs. If you can do one with a PuG, that is allowed and encouraged, but not supported.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when? I love when people make up rules for everyone. Do you have a reference for this?

Here is one straight from the game manual "A task force is a team up of powerful Heroes that comes together to undertake a long series of dangerous assignments, which usually culminates in a battle with one of the city's Arch Villains. Task force missions require a great deal of commitment, and are very risky, but the reward for success is proportionate to the risk."

[/ QUOTE ]

I've got another reference that says this is expected for pickup teams....
"Looking for TaskForce" on the team search settings.

Interestingly enough, this change makes it easier to farm Pool C's from certain TFs by being able to reduce their challenge level below a certain team size, thus preventing certain sizes/contents of spawns. Eg, under Live, it's impossible to run the LGTF without spawning bosses; with this change you can rebalance the TF to any level you want, including a team size that only spawns up to LT's.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. I fail to see how any of this is an improvement for the average player.
Nor do I really see anything from Lighthouse explaining what this change is expected to accomplish. Exploiters can still exploit just as much as they currently do.



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

[/ QUOTE ]
Funny, a lot of us wanted to rush to the end of missions and Positron threw a hissy fit over it. I wonder why this form of unintended behavior is acceptable.

one problem with kicking an offline player is that they're not there to defend themselves.

Does this change to anything to improve the QOL of a casual player on a strikeforce? Because it seems they either break even, or potentially come out a lot worse! Is there a serious enough problem to be addressed to warrant that?

I fear this is going to throw out the SF baby with the logout bathwater. If many fewer people are even running SFs, then of course the amount of them being exploited will drop.

At the absolute most degenerate setup, I can leech a TF as much as I want. I can join a Cap SF with my SG and sit inside the door of each mission gaining XP and other rewards. (Worse, I could even do this at level 15 "fighting" +5's and +6's.)

The current change on Test does not solve THAT situation. Nor does it solve similar situations where I happen to be offline instead of sitting inside the door.

Given that this situation is not solved, why would this change be implemented that causes complications and potential bad play experiences in other non-exploitive situations? Seems we're gaining nothing, and losing in other places.

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that since the developers have access to all the numbers, like how many people run TFs, how often, how many people typically participate, how many start versus how many finish... with all the stats, they have a pretty good idea of what the majority of TFers do. Yes, there are situations where <bleep> happens, but by and large, the vast majority of people will get a positive experience from this change.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they continue to play the way the numbers show they've been playing, you may be right. But I highly doubt players will see this change and not alter their play style because of it.


If the Devs are seeing people log out and return, then why don't they just mess with the rewards that those people get? Stop giving them a reward if they log out for too long and people will stop logging back in just for 1 rewarding mission!

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the only other way. I can create a blacklist for the TF/SF Quitters and Griefers so I will be able to know at least for that account if a person is a bad player or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Better create a list of bad TF leaders, too.

This player lets his 2nd account join and log out, increasing your team's spawn sizes and making you work for his alt!
This other player kicks people who disconnected, as revenge for the team having to fight full spawns with one missing player.
And this guy kicked someone who went AFK for a bio break because he didn't want to be facing spawns for 7 with only 6 people fighting.

Honestly, I'm not going to be happy if the game goes that direction. I may just stop bothering with TFs.

and another thing... if your goal is to stop people from logging out and then returning for TF rewards, then just stop rewarding people who are logging out. If you spend too much of a TF offline, you get no reward. If people won't get an advantage in logging out, they'll stop doing it! Don't punish the rest of the team for disconnects, though.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to "solo" a Task Force (for example Positron)? Invite two others (since it is a min. 3 person to start) to start the Task Force and then have one quit. You need to have 2 people minimum in a Task Force / Strike Force or Trial for the mission chain to stay solvent. But hey, you can solo spawns for 2 with your settings on heroic, can't you? Or - duo it with a friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait... you WANT us to "solo" content that was designed for "you need a team of at least 3"???
I thought the Devs frowned upon people who didn't play the content as intended. (go ask Positron about people running to the end of missions.)

If you TRUELY feel this way, then remove the minimum from all TFs. Why should people have to borrow a warm body to start the TF and then kick them? And in that case, I hope it starts becoming clear how absurd this setup really can be.

Perhaps the best solution would be to combine the two ideas. Spawn for the number of current members (to avoid "leeching") and to a minimum of the starting value (to preserve the designed minimum team-oriented challenge).

I'm going to add my voice to those opposing this change.

I don't like the idea that my current ONLINE gaming can be affected in any way by OFFLINE players.

The need to "screen" my potential teammates is just an added inconvenience when forming a TF. At an extreme, it's downright rude.

You're creating a situation where a team has an ADVANTAGE from kicking players! I don't understand that.

I think the behavior this change actually will encourage is not the type of behavior you really want to be encouraging.

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, it will be actively harmful to people who try to do TFs and SFs in the correct way by making it progressively harder on teams who lose members to attrition. And frankly, almost all TF teams lose one or more members somewhere along the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're worried your TF team will drop below the minimum requirement and will face too hard a challenge, then perhaps you should start the TF with a few extra people to provide a buffer for that.

If you have a TF that you CAN'T bring more people then it's likely the type of thing you'd have a hard time beating with fewer than 8 even before this change. For example, one person quitting the Statesman TF is probably going to ruin your fun even without this latest change.

Good to have some official documentation on what this should be doing. Thanks.

Now, I'm not so sure it's doing that. Define "drop". Because I don't think it's reducing spawn size if people log out, it seem to only do it if they're off the TF. Which is problematic if people get disconnected - you can't remove them from the team if they're not online yet they still increase your spawn size. I will test a bit more.


oh, and IMHO, at some point a few TFs should have their starting requirements re-examined. Manticore is too high. The Shard ones are too high. Katie is too low.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought this dead horse had long since rotted away

[/ QUOTE ]

ahhh.... irony. this is why I put it in a new thread.
just can't win. this idea goes nowhere, I guess.
which is sad. because I really thought that if something as un-broken as XP could get all sorts of fixes to help players achieve certain goals better it does sound like there'd be a parallel. I'm not looking to rehash the arguments, I was thinking I'd found a new "in" to get Positron to at least listen to the arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
Once a person has attended the wedding they will get a token, not a physical token but event token which will not allow them entrance a second time. Hopefully this helps to quell some concerns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Person = Character?
or
Person = Account/Global?

Interesting idea selling an expansion pack.
$10 is way too expensive for a few costume pieces and emotes.
If it was $2 I'd consider it. or even $1.



Why didn't you just put the Event access in with the pack? If you're limiting it to so few people, why not just sell tickets?

[ QUOTE ]
Are End Mod sets fixed on test? Are they even really broken or is it just a display issue? They feel broken, but I hate to waste a respec pulling them out if a fix is coming.

[/ QUOTE ]

On live, there are 3 problems.
1) Any IO that includes EndMod *and* another buff is not providing any EndMod buffing. (The plain EndMod ones in the sets do work just fine, as do the commons. The non-EndMod buffing and Set Bonuses also work just fine.)
2) There's a display bug showing Endurance multiple times, sometimes unpredictably so. This is not related to IOs per-se, it's existed for a few issues for any type of enhancer.
3) The Stun Proc has design issues.

On Test,
1) They fixed the EndMod/Whatever IO buffing.
2) They did not fix the buff display bug.
3) They have made the Stun proc useless in PVP. Draw your own conclusions about whether this stil has design issues or not.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, this would completely suck.

One solution (not a great one) you'd need to get on the super-hero channel (all globals, broadcast, etc.) and put out a request for someone who has the Fusion Generator plans open to allow you to join their SG, go to their base and craft one with your own salvage.

[/ QUOTE ] Yep that would be the workaround for those with a coalition. Those groups in the hinterland..........no good.



Hey.........can I borrow your worktable???.........they broke my toilet!

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't work. if you leave the other SG with the plans your inventory disappears. this is why you can't just get an auto-doc on a whim.

hmmm... interesting....


I had a suggestion way back when about reworking the item destruction to be more fair, and more interractive. Went something like...
Change the Flames/RoboFab into a 0-power 0-control device like the Auto Doc.
Have them sell Repair temp powers, crafted with base salvage. (Naturally, you could craft these in an allie's base if you had to.)
There are tiers of repair powers, improving how large an item they can repair (eg, you need the Tier 2 to repair a Turbine Generator, but the Tier 1 is good enough to repair the basic) and how much percent of the item's life they restore.
The powers are interruptable, long cast time, but CAN be used during a raid. So you can bring a generator back online, letting the batteries really act as temporary bridges.

There. No worries. Nothing is lost, nothing costs Prestige, it just takes some finite amount of salvage to repair everything. PLUS it has strategy during a raid.

Is is too late to ask that this analysis not clog up the official bug thread?
Besides, it's probably worth it's own sticky since it keeps coming up.
but again, not that it should matter, the current setup should be scrapped ASAP, the productive discussion would be what the system *should* do.

[ QUOTE ]
* This appears to be one spot where a Red Name could comment and tell us exactly what is the trigger for promotion.

[/ QUOTE ]
regardless of what it is, or what they say it is, the current setup is pretty useless to everyone involved.

if there's really an insistance on proving this out, you don't need weeks of testing. We know that auto-demote works just fine. The variable is how *promoting* works when the SG has no top-rank present. You can test that by removing the top rank thru quitting instead of waiting for a demotion.

[ QUOTE ]
Like i said, what happened to my groups might be outdated as you said. I'm not lying when i say how the promotions worked but that was over a year ago. Something in the system may have changed since then. /bug it is the best thing i would say to do right now seeing, as at least for 3 groups ive been in, its worked the way I said, so it at least WAS working properly, something might have messed up, not even tying in with the SG vault stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

The promotions NEVER worked the way you decribed. They have NEVER prioritized higher ranking. It has always been the next person to log on who gets promoted.