"Forced" Group Missions
By
Alistaire_Caine,
Posted on: 2004-09-10 09:13 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
That was Positron [censored] and he said it wasn't their intention to gate content.
Notice how much he left unsaid. Therby this was something not planned out throughly. Therby they didn't test it properly or code it properly.
[ QUOTE ]
That was Positron [censored] and he said it wasn't their intention to gate content.
Notice how much he left unsaid. Therby this was something not planned out throughly. Therby they didn't test it properly or code it properly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay so I made a mistake in the name. Doesn't change the fact of what was said.
It was not coding. It was intent. Trying to pretend it isn't intent is stupid. They wanted to "Spice up the story arcs" they didn't "Realize it would have the effect of gating content". There was no coding error. Stop trying to make it sound like their was. A coding error is miss-writing the code, an error of intent is when you intend for one thing to happen and another happens.
Honestly I challenge you to show me one post where it said "We never intended fort there to be simultaneous missions in story arcs." You can't there isn't one. Yet there is a post that says very clearly, "We wanted to spice things up in the middle of your story arc."
Honestly I am not sure if you are being deliberately daft, or you are suffering from tunnel vision.
It is very clear. They meant to put multi-person missions in story arcs. It had a negative unforeseen complication. They admitted that this complication was negative to game play, they removed it.
It was not a coding error. It was not a programming error. It was not a accident. It was a mistake in execution.
Honestly where did you even get the idea that it was a coding error? And what is to be gained by the persistent belief that it was? Especially given there is no supporting evidence to the concept.
Notice what was being unsaid. Positron is not in charge of overall game design.
Just like the timed in story arcs which were not supposed to happen the person in charge didn't hear about the coding of timed into the story arcs. Therby it was not intended.
As for spicing things up that can be taken so many ways. Even [censored] up code can be called spicing things up.
I always figured it was unintentional and the group missions would be removed from story arcs. If you didn't have your head about your *** you would have realized the same.
[ QUOTE ]
Notice what was being unsaid. Positron is not in charge of overall game design.
[/ QUOTE ]
How the heck can you argue what is unsaid? They didn't say they don't plan to burn their logo on the moon, so can we now say they are currently building a laser to do that?
[ QUOTE ]
Just like the timed in story arcs which were not supposed to happen the person in charge didn't hear about the coding of timed into the story arcs. Therby it was not intended.
[/ QUOTE ]
Time missions happen all the time in story arcs. It was the timed missions that happen in the middle of multistage missions that are up for contention. Also there should be no multi-person mission in these as well. I am going to infer what was said by Positron that they are not in these missions either.
[ QUOTE ]
As for spicing things up that can be taken so many ways. Even [censored] up code can be called spicing things up.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay so you wish to imply that they will "Spice up the game" by introducing coding bugs? I hope you never get into a industry where you make products for the masses. I imagine you would spice up SUVs more by putting break away bolts on the tires. One never deliberately introduces an "Error" to spice things up. Now then if you wish to say that they are trying to cover up their mistake by saying they wanted to "Spice things up" this is a different story. But I am going to infer that the development team is smarter then that.
[ QUOTE ]
I always figured it was unintentional and the group missions would be removed from story arcs. If you didn't have your head about your *** you would have realized the same.
[/ QUOTE ]
Figuring that something was unintentional and telling others that it has been stated numerous times that it was unintentional are two very different things. Also it is quite possible if people hadn't come up and pointed out that this was both happening and not desirable there would be no reason to figure that they would be removed. I had no reason to figure they where going to be removed and your insurance that it was a coding error when it very clearly was not, where not going to sway me.
This really isn't an issue of where my head is. This is an issue that until this message came down the pipe that this was being changed we had no reason to figure (Heck lets just say it assume) that this would be changed.
There was no reason to assume that this was a mistake and that this was going to be changed, yet based on your assumption, you went around telling people not to worry this was a coding error. Then after it was pointed out that this was not a coding error by the very people who do the coding you still persisted in you assumption that it was a coding error.
The point stands. The developers thought it looked like a good idea, the players felt it wasn't, they changed it. I am pleased. This fills me with no desire to pretend it was a coding error or to assume if we hadn't voiced our opinion it would not have been changed.
Front loaded missions where removed because people have voiced their distaste for them. Does this now make Front-Loaded missions a codnig error?
[ QUOTE ]
One thing that I would like to see addressed at some point is the inclusion of mission types designed to highlight the strengths of these "support" classes. Where are the "rescue civilians from a burning building" (Defender) missions, the "detain without damaging" (Controller) missions, the "destroy the runaway reactor core, up close and personal" (Tanker) situations?
[/ QUOTE ]
Good ideas, hope the devs are taking notes 
I came accross one of these missionm for the first time yesterday (Flux in the hollows). I must say i enjoyed it. Sure i had to put it on hold until i found a brave partner in crime but that really isnt hard to do.
I guess it shouldn't be forced upon you but finding 1 other person to help really wasnt that hard to do.
I ejoyed the style of the mission and i hope they have more multi=people missions but like they said, maybe not in the story arcs.
Anyway the new content is alot more good then bad so keep up the good work Devs!
Hello--
I just took a mission that requires two chests to be opened simultaneously. As a soloer, this mission is impossible to complete as designed. I'd like to be able to cancel or concede the mission to free up my 3rd mission slot.
Is it currently possible to concede a mission? If not, why not?
Thanks in advance.
It's not possible, although there have been several threads requesting it.
If the mission is group-required and was not marked as such in your contact's text before you accepted it, please /bug it so they know to fix it.
My wife and I just came across that Flux mission last night too. Flux had given me a mission in a building and hers was to go into the tunnels. I didn't read her mission description but when we got to it I saw the "Two bombs to disarm simultaneously" message.
Since I hadn't read her mission description I thought, "Cool! It must have set the number of simul glowing clickies to the number of people in the party. Brilliant!"
After completing both our Flux missions we went back to him, and this time he gave her the building mission and me the bomb mission in the tunnels. When I read it I saw that it said to 'Bring a friend along." So, my assumption was sadly wrong. I still thought it was cool that only 2 were needed though - as primarily a duo player I really wish there were more things that required only 2 people and not 4 or higher. I mean, in the comics, how many duos are there compared to large teams?
Anyway, I thought I'd suggest my original assumption as a possible change - Set the number of simul clickies to the number of people in the party.
(One of the few times I didn't read the entire thread before posting - I apologize if this was already brought up).
Hello--
<<If the mission is group-required and was not marked as such in your contact's text before you accepted it, please /bug it so they know to fix it. >>
Thanks for your timely responses. I do appreciate them.
I suppose the mission was described as needing a partner to complete when I accepted it from the contact. I've done so many missions that I barely read the descriptions any longer. Please tell me this is not a case of "buyer beware" and "you should have read the fine print". That is no consolation for losing the serviceability of my third mission slot.
Why is it that we cannot concede a mission? What is the rationale?
Thanks.
As always, the devs rock.
This leads me to make another suggestion (I know, give me an inch, I'll take a mile ), which is to increase the number of missions available from contacts if it's possible.
Right now, the most that can be offered by a contact is two. As more mission types become available (timed, multi person, part of a story arc, etc. etc.) it would be nice to have these options available.
[ QUOTE ]
We have read and realize the concerns many of you are having with some of the new missions in Expansion 2. In our effort to diversify the play-style of the game, we began crafting multi-tasking missions, missions that require multiple players to do things near-simultaneously in order to complete the mission. These missions are clearly marked with the number of players required to complete them. You can still choose them if you dont have the required players, but you will need to assemble a group before you can tackle the mission.
Many of you have stated that you do not like the forced grouping that these missions involve. After going back and looking at all of the missions that require multiple players, we noticed that some occurred in the middle of Story-Arcs or in the middle of multi-stage missions. Obviously encountering one of these while you are casually soloing will gate your progress in said Story-Arc or mission, which was not really our intention
we just wanted to spice things up for you in the middle of your Arc.
We have gone back and removed the multi-tasking missions from Story Arcs and multi-stage missions. They still remain as one-off missions with some of your Contacts however. If you encounter one of these and you do not wish to do it, simply take and complete the other mission choice your contact has. When you return, you will be presented with two more (random) missions to choose from. Our goal is not to prevent you from completing Story Arcs or Multi-stage missions you started as a solo character, and we feel that this best accomplishes that with the system we have in place right now.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've been leveling my thread necromancer and while exploring the graveyard I came upon this post. I have a question.
Is it a bug if the contact will offer you ONLY the forced group mission? I have often been in the position where the only choice available is the forced group one. Since these are usually timed I just take the mission and let it expire. Should I be /bug ing these?
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Reading Pos's quote, sounds like a bug to me EvilGeko. You should be getting more than one option. The "forced team" mission shouldn't be the only option there.
One problem I see constantly is: [Pos's Quote]
[ QUOTE ]
These missions are clearly marked with the number of players required to complete them.
[/ QUOTE ]
MANY missions are not clearly marked with the number of players required. I recently got one that said "bring friends"...um, ok. How many!? Mind you, I already had a team together so I took the mission, lo and behold I was one person short for the simulataneous bomb mission. They really need a copy editor who's sole purpose is to sweep through all in-game text and correct errors.
One of your level 25 contacts will always only offer a timed DE missions as the first option. The mission is to save some scientist and disarm bombs in a cave. It's not specific to one certain contact, but to the mission set the contact offers (The contact I usually get for this mission set is the one in Talos nearest to DA. Can't recall her name offhand). I always grab it and let it fail as my silent protest, but I've reported this multiple times and it has yet to be changed.
Virtue Server
Avatar art by Daggerpoint
Don't you have anything better to do? Just take them and let the timer run out. Or you can clear it out then go ask a few people to help you defuse the bombs or whatever (This has never made a mission take more then 10 extra minutes for me).
What do you mean "don't you have anything better to do?"? What, I'm not supposed to report bugs? Especially when we were asked specifically to report cases such as this one?
Virtue Server
Avatar art by Daggerpoint
[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean "don't you have anything better to do?"? What, I'm not supposed to report bugs? Especially when we were asked specifically to report cases such as this one?
[/ QUOTE ]
Forum's about discussion, not bug reports. No offense or anything, but that's so.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean "don't you have anything better to do?"? What, I'm not supposed to report bugs? Especially when we were asked specifically to report cases such as this one?
[/ QUOTE ]
Forum's about discussion, not bug reports. No offense or anything, but that's so.
[/ QUOTE ]
Umm... Okay. but I was discussing. Just happened to be bringing up a bug in the course of the discussion.
Tell me you're joking or something? Otherwise, I fear you've somehow left your brain at the door this morning.
Virtue Server
Avatar art by Daggerpoint
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean "don't you have anything better to do?"? What, I'm not supposed to report bugs? Especially when we were asked specifically to report cases such as this one?
[/ QUOTE ]
Forum's about discussion, not bug reports. No offense or anything, but that's so.
[/ QUOTE ]
Umm... Okay. but I was discussing. Just happened to be bringing up a bug in the course of the discussion.
Tell me you're joking or something? Otherwise, I fear you've somehow left your brain at the door this morning.
[/ QUOTE ]
It IS Monday, but...
As much as "It is always better to post in an existing thread than start a new one" is true, I think this is old enough to warrant a new thread with quotes to the relevant points involved.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean "don't you have anything better to do?"? What, I'm not supposed to report bugs? Especially when we were asked specifically to report cases such as this one?
[/ QUOTE ]
Forum's about discussion, not bug reports. No offense or anything, but that's so.
[/ QUOTE ]
Umm... Okay. but I was discussing. Just happened to be bringing up a bug in the course of the discussion.
Tell me you're joking or something? Otherwise, I fear you've somehow left your brain at the door this morning.
[/ QUOTE ]
It IS Monday, but...
As much as "It is always better to post in an existing thread than start a new one" is true, I think this is old enough to warrant a new thread with quotes to the relevant points involved.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. If I had started a new post, we would have had to start the discussion off with whether Positron meant that this was a bug or not, what was my motivations, blah blah. I just wanted to get to the point. I actually would have posted this in the bugs forum, but it was Positron who posted it here, so if anyone's off-topic its him. 
I'm just wondering whether I should report this. I've seen this happen multiple times and it should get fixed I'd think.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
:
ance dance dance::
Do the dance of the dead
To raise the thread..
Wait... I have already done this joke...
::Carelessly chucks her voodoo mask over her shoulder::
[ QUOTE ]
::Carelessly chucks her voodoo mask over her shoulder::
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey!
::Takes voodoo mask::
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
::Carelessly chucks her voodoo mask over her shoulder::
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey!
::Takes voodoo mask::
[/ QUOTE ]
Good catch.
total kick to the gut
This is like having Ra's Al Ghul show up at your birthday party.
[ QUOTE ]
) Both are fun... & while I understand the concern of "support" players, I also don't want my soloer to be, well, forced to group to make the support classes' game experience better; that just flips the "bad" experience from one group (that can't solo) to another (that doesn't want to group). Far better in my opinion to leave the soloing experience as it is for the classes for whom it is working, & dedicate time & resources to (a) offering incentives to entice soloers to group, & (b)offering soloing options, & improving the soloability, of the classes for whom it is not.
One thing that I would like to see addressed at some point is the inclusion of mission types designed to highlight the strengths of these "support" classes. Where are the "rescue civilians from a burning building" (Defender) missions, the "detain without damaging" (Controller) missions, the "destroy the runaway reactor core, up close and personal" (Tanker) situations? When there are missions that put every AT in the spotlight on occasion, not just the damage dealers, I believe some of the building acrimony re: solo v. group might go away.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that was kicked around in beta, & is being considered "for the future." (I also remember something about using "detective skills" to complete missions rather than "defeating" all the villains.)
For now, I took the path of designing my "support" character for my permanent group, & my scrapper for soloing. (And picked two "gimp" powersets - Dark Miasma & Super Reflexes - in the process.