Discussion: Changes to Task/Strike Force Missions
By
Acid_Reign,
Posted on: 2008-02-14 15:00 in News, Events and Announcement Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Quarterfield Task Force [u]NEEDS[u] to be reduced to 4 players then. There is no reason for the required number of people needed.
While you are at that change, might I suggest removing the redundant missions?
Removal of missions 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, 23 should stongly be considered.
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT
I still haven't been able to run it because of its length and the fact getting 8 people together to run a long TF on a low pop server is nigh impossible.
[/ QUOTE ]
QF(even more)T
Friends and I tried to run the STF on Victory. We were short two players. I had to literally ask/beg every single 45+ person on the server before I could even find those two. And this was prime time.
There is no benefit to this change. It's not going to hurt farmers. It might add a whopping few minutes to any quickie TF runners' times.
This is just yet another change that has little to no effect on the people it's supposedly intended for. All they're going to do is let us rant and discuss this until we burn out and give up. It'll end up staying because they have determined it should happen, regardless of what datamining and the players will eventually say. Anything that goes against "the vision" will not be rescinded (see ED, GDF, 'troller nerfs, and on and on). And apparently people not being able to maintain the full TF team size is against "the vision".
I'm just thankful I do have good SGs to run with, so in the grand scheme of things, this won't hurt me too much. I do feel very bad for the people who don't.
"A good Defender is the battle hardened Corpsman who will kill a Nazi with a tongue depressor while putting a splint on your leg, then hand you a fresh clip of ammo." ~Jock_Thompson
Repeat Offenders, TNT Profile, My little hero
I really don't mind this change.
I do think it was targeted at the Cap SF. I've seen the farmers walk away with 64 rare recipes in just under 40 minutes. Here's how they did it:
There were 8 of them. They each had 8 characters at level 15. They'd each log on a character, team up and get the SF then log off. Rinse and repeat until all 8 characters for each of them were involved in the SF. Then each of them logs on 1 character (each in a different SF) and solo's it until the final mission. Then they cycle through the teams, log all 8 on and destroy the last mission. Each character gets a rare recipe drop. 8x8=64 rare recipes...... Odds are you're going to get at least 1-2 Miracle procs or Numina procs and a crapton of other decent ones.
So yeah, I think it was a valid change and having strikeforces/taskforces running as intended doesn't seem like a bad thing.
[ QUOTE ]
Friends and I tried to run the STF on Victory. We were short two players. I had to literally ask/beg every single 45+ person on the server before I could even find those two. And this was prime time.
[/ QUOTE ]
The States TF has always had a minimum start number of 8. If your team of 6 was going to have problems with regular mobs spawning for 8. Then I submit that you were going to have real problems agianst the AVs in there.
I have been on this TF when we were done in an 1-2 hours.
So this just proves that at that particular time not many people on Victory were interested in running the States TF.
~MR
AE Arc: 305214 Blood Diamonds (Villainous)
Unleashed/Unchained/B.O.S.S.
The STF and LRSF wont' experience too many changes because you need eight to do those anyways. In the LRSF it does make the first mission a real pain to do and probably the fourth somewhat since a lot of people softload it for expedience; but then again its so simple to do now that you could litterally just run that straight with no problems; at least if you have a good team. The STF won't change at all since I've never done any real softloading on that one...maybe the tree mission but even that isn't too bad. Its the other, longer, more annoying TFs that are going to be hit and of course the Cap SF is now more annoying because it takes longer then 40 minutes to do...oh well. The change itself needs work, the way it was released needs work; they had good intentions but we all know the way to hell is paved with those.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm all for the change. Anything that slows down farmers is fine in my book.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is no evidence that this hurts farmers (RMT idiots or otherwise), and a lot of good reasons why this may help them.
"Mastermind Pets operate...differently, and aren't as easily fixed. Especially the Bruiser. I want to take him out behind the woodshed and pull an "old yeller" on him at times." - Castle
[ QUOTE ]
And those prices have nothing to do with the inflation of double experience weekend where people were pulling in tens of millions of inf every few hours?
[/ QUOTE ]
They were "only" 75 mill over the weekend. Just FYI.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm all for the change. Anything that slows down farmers is fine in my book.
[/ QUOTE ]
Haha. Well you shouldn't be for it, it helped a bunch of farmers too. Probably more than it hurt since gold sellers are included in the "helped" column.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Friends and I tried to run the STF on Victory. We were short two players. I had to literally ask/beg every single 45+ person on the server before I could even find those two. And this was prime time.
[/ QUOTE ]
The States TF has always had a minimum start number of 8. If your team of 6 was going to have problems with regular mobs spawning for 8. Then I submit that you were going to have real problems agianst the AVs in there.
I have been on this TF when we were done in an 1-2 hours.
So this just proves that at that particular time not many people on Victory were interested in running the States TF.
~MR
[/ QUOTE ]
*watches the point of that part of my post fly over your head*
That's not what that was regarding. I've had similar problems with other TFs on small pop servers. It's very hard to find people. The fact that you can no longer get people to fill in those last few slots on Manticore or Shard TFs and then just drop doesn't help at all.
As said multiple times in this thread... there should have been some fundamental changes to TFs before this was put in place.
"A good Defender is the battle hardened Corpsman who will kill a Nazi with a tongue depressor while putting a splint on your leg, then hand you a fresh clip of ammo." ~Jock_Thompson
Repeat Offenders, TNT Profile, My little hero
I just did the Firebase zulu Dr quarterfield tf, it was 8 hours long, it starts with a team of 8, halfway through we were down to 3 players, as the tf was so boring and time consuming that they quit, cause they could not commit to a different time to finish it. there were many deaths trying to keep going with 2 scrappers and a tank, all 8 toons have since said that never again will they do these useless tf's as the rewards and frustration are not worth it.
the devs have ruined yet another portion of the game.
There is no such thing as an exploit unless you have hacked the game, If you are playing the game within it's programmed design, then you are playing the game as it is intended.
If the devs do not like the way they have designed the game, then the onus is up to them to change the design not punish us for their mistakes.
The only fun I've had on TF's have been on superteams (fire/rad 'trollers, yay) and even that died out once we got the regular Phalanx TF's done.
So if they've made these longer, harder to beat, and requiring more people to get through, then they may as well just take the TF contacts out of the game, cos frankly, I don't see the point of trying them anymore.
ASSERT: GAME == FUN
Current task force design (esp. higher level ones) = !FUN
Assertion Fails
"City of Heroes. April 27, 2004 - August 31, 2012. Obliterated not with a weapon of mass destruction, not by an all-powerful supervillain... but by a cold-hearted and cowardly corporate suck-up."
Happy Birthday, Soultrain!!!! 
/e threadjack over 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm all for the change. Anything that slows down farmers is fine in my book.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have never seen anybody remotly "RMT"ish farming Caps. Its just not very good money.
What I *do* see is players who want to help out the market, and help out their IO' builds farming Caps.
The Devs failed pretty hard at stopping RMT farmers.
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.
[ QUOTE ]
I really don't mind this change.
I do think it was targeted at the Cap SF. I've seen the farmers walk away with 64 rare recipes in just under 40 minutes. Here's how they did it:
There were 8 of them. They each had 8 characters at level 15. They'd each log on a character, team up and get the SF then log off. Rinse and repeat until all 8 characters for each of them were involved in the SF. Then each of them logs on 1 character (each in a different SF) and solo's it until the final mission. Then they cycle through the teams, log all 8 on and destroy the last mission. Each character gets a rare recipe drop. 8x8=64 rare recipes...... Odds are you're going to get at least 1-2 Miracle procs or Numina procs and a crapton of other decent ones.
So yeah, I think it was a valid change and having strikeforces/taskforces running as intended doesn't seem like a bad thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is NO WAY they did it in 40 minutes, quit lieing. The best time I've ever seen ghosting from start to entering "bind BZ" is 20 minutes. From there, there's 5 glowies to click, an ambush (or two) to ditch, and two AVs to kill PER GROUP. If you're telling me you can do that in 2 minutes, either you're god or an idiot.
[ 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'.
[/ QUOTE ]
I picked on it in my wall of text reply to Lighthouse. 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. As soon as there was a reward window, and especially with how hard the TFs are, there is no excuse in not offering a choice of which you want.
Totally agreed though. The devs have gone for the "quick and easy" fix rather than the right fix -- fixing their original bad design.
I'm confused. Do people actually farm TFs? I've only ever seen players doing it in other missions that are much faster to restart and thus are better suited for maintaining the required padders, anchors, and bridges.
Anyway half the TFs I've done have had all but myself and maybe one or two other die hards quit in the middle because they simply ran out of time to play. Seems like a serious burden to put on the casual player, especially hero side.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT and
<3 Sadako
Thanks, NC Soft, for closing my favorite game ever without warning and with plenty of life still left in it, and thus relieving me of the burden of EVER wanting to buy, try or even hear about another game from your company. Will my decision make a dent, or persuade them in anyway, shape or form? Nope, obviously not. Don't care. NC Soft is dead to me. ~ PsyFox
they did it when they wanted to and at the time they wanted to, there no great mystry here, its typical of them and you guys sit here and praise them all the timeon the forumns for a great job, and they stuck it to you again
[ 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.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT and
<3 Sadako
[/ QUOTE ]
/gignore @username is the best feature of this game. It's also probably the least used feature.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nights_Dawn
Hazy is right
|
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
First you state that the following is the result of this change & its negative:
[ QUOTE ]
You cannot do this unless you have a group of at least size X.
[/ QUOTE ]
Um Huh?
Thats not at all what this change says or does!!! 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. It simply does not state that nor is it implied. Will the TF be more challenging, absolutely. But has the TF become uncompleteable. Nope, it sure hasnt. Now granted if the numbers of the team drop to 4 on a TF designed for 8, then yes it may become too much of a challenge. However, as Lighthouse tried to point out, this is why its a TEAM ACTIVITY. You shouldnt approach a TF which requires 8 members (as noted by the NPC who gives the TF) lightly. Attempting to complete that TF with a PUG of ppl you dont know is already asking for trouble. Luckily, the # of TFs which require an 8 man team to start is rather small and I suspect that it is already being addressed internally.
Secondly, you state that they should have worded it in a positive manor such as
[ QUOTE ]
'If you have a group of at least size X, the rewards are better
[/ QUOTE ]
This is simply NOT true. The TF completion bonuses are not greater if a smaller team completes the task. Now if you are talking about larger spawns = more infl.... um isnt that what ppl Padding mishs was already doing?!? This changes nothing.
Then you state this option:
[ QUOTE ]
This challenge is so hard that you ought to bring a group of at least size X to deal with it.'
[/ QUOTE ]
Change that 'OUGHT TO' to 'MUST' & you have essentially what the NPCS already tell you when you agree to form a TF. I repeat, this changes nothing.
[ 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 ]
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 ]
Quite the opposite... I get exactly what you are saying.... and what you are saying should be a thread in the SUGGESTIONS FORUM. Because this change has no impact on the teaming aspect of Task Forces. The NPCs who state "you need X to form a task force" are the same NPCs who stated that before & after this patch.
Heck check the thread... I've said several times that I'd be surprised if the Devs werent already addressing some of the TF inconsistencies & nuances internally. I'd be surprised in fact if I12 doesnt address numerous TF problems (such as the absurdity of the Shard TFs).
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 ]
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.
I'm all for the change. Anything that slows down farmers is fine in my book.