Discussion: Changes to Task/Strike Force Missions

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Before the Intro to Vanguard patch, Freedom was sending some players to Ouroboros 3.

[/ QUOTE ]
During the last day of the double xp weekend, Triumph was getting RWZ3, and I was crashing zoning to either Ouroboros or the RWZ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Which is precisely why that arc was patched. Notice: the devs didn't remove talk-to-contact mission bonuses from all Ouroboros arcs -- just the problematic arc, the same way they shouldn't make sweeping changes to all Task Forces simply because soft-spawning to Cap SFs and the STF/RSF are having debatably undesirable consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Accept if dealing with Soft Spawning, it wasnt just the Farming of the Cap TFs that used it. I have to this day not found a Respec team for villians that didnt require everyone to log out before the thorn tree mission to lower the number of vines needed to kill. And i think they even fixed that didnt they? Yet still the general consensus is "Log out and make it easier". And since have had people do the same thing on Positron, Snapse, the hero respec to make less mobs in the find key rooms etc.

Its not just a farming issue it a apain in the [censored] issue as far as im concerned. I used to play with someone that used to run 3 accounts. She would log them all in to start a TF and either log them out or keep one going on follow to farm xp and drops. Those are rewards that others should have been earning, or had better chance of earning if she wasnt running multiple toons cause she could require the soft loading of tough missions to make up for the fact we were really running 2 men short due to her extra bagage.

So im sorry, im for any change that actually gets people wanting to play the game for the fun of a team, rather then the rewards it might earn them. The rewards are nice, dont get me wrong, but if people actually have to get REAL players involved in the team again, and cant inflate there chances to 3/8 of getting the best rewards running useless toons through a TF im all for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically you wan the devs o social engineer the game to assist your prefered game play. Thy introduced a lewt system and economy and when th players atempt to live within hat stystem, it is an "exploit" This is just another nerf justified with a promise to "look into" the real problem later. A promise that most likely wont be kept. How long would it have taken them to change the tf's to lower starting numbers as a preliminary step?

Social engineering only works in limited circumstances. Too much and your customers leave for competitors that dont try to force compliance. Champions online looks like it has the potential to improve this game through competition.

---

Lots of 50's yada yada. still finding fun things to do.
Cthulhu loves you, better start running

I�! I�! Gg�gorsch�a�bha egurtsa�ar�ug d� Dalhor! Cthluhu fthagn! Cthluhu fthagn!

You are in a maze of twisty little passages

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think that tit-for-tat task force succeeded/task force failed bickering will really solve anything or convince anyone one way or another?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, you seem to think so by your actions.

On the other hand, I am 100% positive that the developers are [u]FULLY[u] aware of how many successful task/strike forces are happening. Just as I am sure they know the failure rates.

On the other hand, they might [u]not[u] know [u]why[u] the task force was failed/abandoned.

I would suggest that you might have something more productive to do with your time. On the other hand, I'm guessing that just because I am saying something that you would immediately discount it.

---

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think that tit-for-tat task force succeeded/task force failed bickering will really solve anything or convince anyone one way or another?

[/ QUOTE ]
You say tit-for-tat, I say cold hard data. If cold hard data isn't going to change your mind, then there's nothing more that needs to be said.

Anyway, the reason I'm posting it is because the burden of proof is on me to show that some percentage of pickup task forces are failing because of this change. Adding my results to yours so far, that percentage is about 20% -- 1 out of 5 (three successes, one would have failed anyway, one would have otherwise succeeded).

There may be a correlation between failure rate and "pugginess" or number of known-to-each-other players on the team, as my pugs tend to be organized over broadcast or Virtue Badges rather than whatever channel you use, while both your results appear to have been led by the same other player with fewer unknowns.

---

[ QUOTE ]
You say tit-for-tat, I say cold hard data.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh, you have access to the "cold hard data"? Wow, I didn't know the devs gave you such unfettered access to their database. Must be nice.

Oh wait, you're just recounting your own subjective experience? Well, that's all fine and good, except that mine happens to be considerably different from yours. I'm inclined to believe my own two eyes over you. I keep inviting everyone to go in the game and make up their own minds, believing neither you nor me, but you keep seeming to be vehemently opposed to that and posting these comments. Weird.

---

We've been saving Paragon City for eight and a half years. It's time to do it one more time.
(If you love this game as much as I do, please read that post.)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You say tit-for-tat, I say cold hard data.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh, you have access to the "cold hard data"? Wow, I didn't know the devs gave you such unfettered access to their database. Must be nice.

Oh wait, you're just recounting your own subjective experience? Well, that's all fine and good, except that mine happens to be considerably different from yours. I'm inclined to believe my own two eyes over you. I keep inviting everyone to go in the game and make up their own minds, believing neither you nor me, but you keep seeming to be vehemently opposed to that and posting these comments. Weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

To Tony..... I am happy Taxibot Belle likes to taxi you around.What you fail to recognize is that not EVERYONE in game has access to a Taxi. Yea, they are an organization not utilized by all players.You sir don't have a leg to stand on with your arguement about casual players and tf//sf's

I have been silent in the thread for a few days. Feeling the water and seeing what I might come up with on live. To the gentleman// madame that stated in a previous post about dev's and data? I hope they ARE looking. If they are they will see what they need to see.

To Monkey.. I am with you baby. Just sold Miracle number 2 for a hefty 170 million.

I know I am not the only player to object to this change. In fact? Before you all decide to flame out the wazoo I personally dont object to the softloading change. Doesnt effect me just like it doesn't effect several poster's so far in the thread.





Anyway? I will happily feed my pool C uniques into the BM in small increments and make a killing.


edited... not opening that can of worms

---

[ QUOTE ]
Heh, you have access to the "cold hard data"? Wow, I didn't know the devs gave you such unfettered access to their database. Must be nice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Flagrant straw man. I have nothing more to say to you, since I can no longer tell whether your posts are responsive or are trolling. Nothing personal, but it's for the good of this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]
As for everyone else, please do share your experiences. The more data we have, the better our feedback to the devs will be.

---

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing personal, but it's for the good of this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, is anyone under the impression that this thread is in any way good?

All this thread is is a bunch of people expressing opinions based on their own agendas backed by the opposite of "cold hard data", people complaining about a change that personally inconveniences them, and people expressing some misguided sense of entitlement to experience every single thing in the game by playing only on a casual basis.

Threads like these rarely end well. The main reason I've stayed in it so long is mainly because it the posts in threads like these rarely actually reflect what's going on in the game, and this one is no exception. What you have here is a self-selected group of people who have come here primarily to complain. The people who are happy and the people who don't care typically don't bother posting in a thread like this. Why would they? That's one of the nice things about being happy or not really caring. If nothing happens, you're free to keep right on being happy and/or not caring.

But again, for the benefit of people who normally don't run task forces and/or new players, the views here most emphatically do not represent the majority of the player base. Please don't let it stop you from going and having a ton of fun on the task force(s) of your choice. Run two or three, and decide for yourself whether all of the ZOMG DOOOOOM!!! talk is warranted.

---

We've been saving Paragon City for eight and a half years. It's time to do it one more time.
(If you love this game as much as I do, please read that post.)

Unless you are dev you haven't access to " cold hard data". Last time I checked there wasnt a Tony_V signature character.

---

The best we can do is compile our own experiences, and take them with a grain of salt. Some of us run more puggy TF, some of us run them less puggy. Some of us are running Katies, some of us are running Citadels, some of us are running LGTFs. So, sure, there are a lot of variables, but I think there's still some good quality data waiting to be collected.

I'm as shocked as you are that I've had to defend something so elementary as player feedback based on actual testing. This is information about casual pickup TFs among strangers -- that's something the devs cannot possibly already have data for from in-house testing. That, simply put, is why it's so valuable.

---

We'd have more "hard cold data" if in fact this change had been: 1: announced on the test server patch notes; and 2: we had been able to test it. Asking us about it now AFTER it has gone live with a stealth nerf (because I do not buy the bs it slipped through the cracks) would be insulting. The only fair way to test this change is to roll it back and let us test it on the test server.

But that would mean that someone high up would have to admit they were wrong....and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

---

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

[ QUOTE ]
The only fair way to test this change is to roll it back and let us test it on the test server.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has already been on the live server long enough for the playerbase to spot any important bugs.

Apparently the change is working as intended, which is what testing is meant to determine. We can always complain about how the change affects our play style, but the devs are not obligated to respond to such complaints. Different people have different issues, and you can't please everybody.

Personally, this change doesn't affect me at all, so I'm not complaining.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only fair way to test this change is to roll it back and let us test it on the test server.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has already been on the live server long enough for the playerbase to spot any important bugs.

Apparently the change is working as intended, which is what testing is meant to determine. We can always complain about how the change affects our play style, but the devs are not obligated to respond to such complaints. Different people have different issues, and you can't please everybody.

Personally, this change doesn't affect me at all, so I'm not complaining.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the testing is going oh so well, seeing some of these posts in this thread. TFs being abandoned, casual players opting to just not do them anymore, people with special need cases, feeling like they can't start up or participate due to their possible afkness. Oh yeah I can see how this testing is going so well.

Well at least Tony's are

---

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

[ QUOTE ]
And the testing is going oh so well, seeing some of these posts in this thread. TFs being abandoned, casual players opting to just not do them anymore, people with special need cases, feeling like they can't start up or participate due to their possible afkness. Oh yeah I can see how this testing is going so well.

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't mentioned any bugs.

---

I don't think the issue is about bugs in this case. This is more of a QoL change then a bug change...so the questions should reflect how it changes the Quality of Life instead of if there are any bugs in it.

---

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the issue is about bugs in this case. This is more of a QoL change then a bug change...so the questions should reflect how it changes the Quality of Life instead of if there are any bugs in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if MonkeyB wants to roll back the change for more testing, then it's a bug issue. If it's a quality of life issue, then the change can be tried out much more thoroughly on the live servers, and any adjustments can be applied later.

---

[ QUOTE ]
You haven't mentioned any bugs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps no bugs, but we've mentioned some potential new exploits. Remember, this change doesn't remove softloading. It only changes the way softloading works in specific situations, with the intended goal of more forced teaming in those situations.

Also, bugs are not the only reason changes get reverted on test server. See the last Assassin Strike change.

---

[ QUOTE ]
Also, bugs are not the only reason changes get reverted on test server. See the last Assassin Strike change.

[/ QUOTE ]

We weren't talking about reverting something on the test server. We were talking about reverting something on the live server and leaving it on the test server for more testing (and there's no need to do that).

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, bugs are not the only reason changes get reverted on test server. See the last Assassin Strike change.

[/ QUOTE ]

We weren't talking about reverting something on the test server. We were talking about reverting something on the live server and leaving it on the test server for more testing (and there's no need to do that).

[/ QUOTE ]
And the only reason you both are having the discussion is that if the changes were announced on the test server, then people could have spoken then. They were denied that chance.

---

[ QUOTE ]
We'd have more "hard cold data" if in fact this change had been: 1: announced on the test server patch notes; and 2: we had been able to test it. Asking us about it now AFTER it has gone live with a stealth nerf (because I do not buy the bs it slipped through the cracks) would be insulting. The only fair way to test this change is to roll it back and let us test it on the test server.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't follow at all. Assuming that they want data about how this affects the general game population, and especially casual players, the live servers is exactly where it needs to be, definitely not the test server. The test server is going to give you an extremely biased sample. The people who go on test is already very unrepresentative; and then add to that the fact that the only people who would go to test TF's for this would be people who have a strong interest in this particular change, and it gets even worse. That would be an extremely bad way to gather data.

As far as whether it should have been in the test patch notes: in an ideal world, yes it should. But I can understand perfectly well why they don't do that. It can take some time between a patch to test and that patch going live. In the meantime, they'd be publicizing the very behavior they want to stop. Wouldn't make any sense.

Yes, it should have been in the live notes. They screwed up there, and they've admitted it.

One more thing: the feedback in this thread isn't "cold hard data." These are anecdotes. There's nothing wrong with anecdotes as feedback, and that can be very valuable. But there's no way you can draw any conclusions here about the percentage of TF's affected, or anything like that. You need to gather a few thousand more data points before you could do that.

---

Maybe there should be a form for why people quit the task force to leave feedback.

---

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think that tit-for-tat task force succeeded/task force failed bickering will really solve anything or convince anyone one way or another?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really thing tit-for-tat is needed. If someone has a good experience they are going to keep playing the game. If someone has a bad experience they may not.

100 good experiences don't matter if 1 bad experience causes someone to give up on the game.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, bugs are not the only reason changes get reverted on test server. See the last Assassin Strike change.

[/ QUOTE ]

We weren't talking about reverting something on the test server. We were talking about reverting something on the live server and leaving it on the test server for more testing (and there's no need to do that).

[/ QUOTE ]
And the only reason you both are having the discussion is that if the changes were announced on the test server, then people could have spoken then. They were denied that chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Odds are, if the change was announced on the test server, the shear volume of negativity toward the change would have caused them to not implement it as-is, and instead they would have gotten to the biggest hurdles immediately (like re-examining and changing the minimum number required to start) rather than some day in the future, before it went live.

---

You hit the nail on the head with your post ,Crimson.

Something occurred to me today in addition to the other thoughts I have posted in the thread. One reason more people are now capable of running the RSF and STf respectively is because of the countless hours players contributed testing the RSF and solid strategies.I know I myself spent 6 days in Rsf to figure the thing out. No.. I wasnt alone. The team agreed we'de not quit until we finished. When we hit a stumbling block we'de break for the night and a few of us would agree to meet at a later time and figure the mission out before the whole team reassembled at the designated time the next day. With the current change thats not something players can do anymore.

Might be funny to watch them implement something new that actually requires solid testing to compile strategies now.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, bugs are not the only reason changes get reverted on test server. See the last Assassin Strike change.

[/ QUOTE ]

We weren't talking about reverting something on the test server. We were talking about reverting something on the live server and leaving it on the test server for more testing (and there's no need to do that).

[/ QUOTE ]
And the only reason you both are having the discussion is that if the changes were announced on the test server, then people could have spoken then. They were denied that chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Odds are, if the change was announced on the test server, the shear volume of negativity toward the change would have caused them to not implement it as-is, and instead they would have gotten to the biggest hurdles immediately (like re-examining and changing the minimum number required to start) rather than some day in the future, before it went live.

[/ QUOTE ]

BINGO. And who would suffer if they had to do that? The devs...it would (and is going to most likely) take a longgggggg time to redo all the tfs that need work (Positron...the shards....etc.), fixing the "start up" requirement for tfs, etc. All that could have been, and imo should have been addressed, long before this change went live. If it had been on test, and it had been on the test patch notes (hey why wasn't it there either....hmm...) then people probably wouldn't have thrown a fit, sort of like we are doing now.

Roll it back, fix the tfs, give the customer what they want.

---

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

Gonna have to agree. The nonresponse on behalf of the rednames to this issue and the concerns raised by the playerbase has been by far the most aggravating aspect of CoX for me lately. And that's above and beyond the toggle bug and incoming-attack-stacking bug. At least those have been acknowledged. The discussion here seems to have fallen on deaf ears, and there's nothing more frustrating than that feeling for a large number of paying customers.

---