yeah we're basically gonna get punished for building up a tricked out purpled toon, and running a TF/SF faster than average. we spend a lot of time building up our toon, and figuring out the most effective and efficient way to run a particular tf/sf, and the merit reward gets nerfed in the future.
[ QUOTE ]
Poster: Lemur_Lad
Q: Will villains get more villain only options for earning chunks of merits to balance out the larger number of hero trials and TFs?
A: We will be monitoring this. We want to make sure that a villain doing missions from 1 to 50 will be earning roughly the same amount of merits a hero can earn. If we find a serious imbalance between heroes and villains in the number of earnable merits, well look at ways of improving this.
[/ QUOTE ]
Would you please expand your answer to cover the disparity between the amount of Hero trials/task forces and Villain trials/strike forces? Specifically, is there something that will be done to narrow the content gap?
And welcome to the forums...enjoy your stay! 
Go Team Venture!
Wrong place for this, sorry.
...I forgot what experience means.
I too am echoing Memphis Bill's sentiments.
IMO, ANY TF that doesn't offer AT MINIMUM enough Merits for an SO drop is undervalued.
Katie seems to be the poster child for TF reform. I understand your side of it. But, I cannot get over the fact that fighting 10 CONSECUTIVE AVs nets you so few merits.
"Risk vs. Reward" has always been a mantra with the Dev team since the very beginning. If forcing us to fight the 10 AVs in Katie wasn't enough "Risk" to make the TF more challenging, fix the TF before nerfing the "Reward".
I may be in the minority, but I'd rather see Katie and Eden made unplayable until fixed than played with these nerfed rewards.
Also, doesn't "telegraphing" the fact that TF rewards will be nerfed in the future, act as incentive for people to abuse them as much as possible, as often as possible, right out of the gate to "beat the nerfbat" to them? Is this something you want to accomplish, or think is good for the game?
On a separate aspect... what makes you think people won't hoard merits indefinitely for use to equip other characters (by transferring recipes or enhancements), or to save them to adjust to future changes to powers, the rather than supplying the market with any "surplus" merits purchases?
And finally, if influence/infamy is supplanted by merits as the means for acquiring expensive pool C and D recipes, don't you think prices on everything else will increase since the same supply of inf will be "chasing" a smaller number of recipes (mainly purples and some pool As)?
"Experience is the mother of good judgement. Bad judgement is the father of experience."
I only got one thing to say for this thread. The comment about purples not being added is just a cop out seriously. The thing is I have gotten like maybe 3 purples at the most as a drop since they first went live. I know folks who play their lvl 50s every day and still havent gotten a single purple recipe on their toons. The whole point on merits to me was that the random number generator can be extremely cruel at times giving you that 200th crap of the hunter recipe, and in that same way a player can play for really long periods and never get a purple period. Personally I dont care about the costs merit wise, hell every purple could be like 1000 merits it still would not matter to me. Its the thought they are there for purchase if my luck never improves is what would keep me going. With the current system you can play for really long periods and never get them, and in some cases you cant buy them if they just arent there at the market. Lastly I want to ask is there any chance of a hero villain market merger. That was like the only question I didnt see that you answered that I had.
Bump and Grind Bane/SoA
Kenja No Ishi Earth/Empathy Controller
Legendary Sannin Ninja/Pain Mastermind
Entoxicated Ninja/PSN Mastermind
Ninja Ryukenden Kat/WP Scrapper
Hellish Thoughts Fire/PSI Dominator
Thank You Devs for Merits!!!!
I'm glad to hear that the merit system will evolve over time.
Are you looking at rewarding merits based on actual time and difficulty, rather than estimated time? That is, if you run a Katie Hannon TF by skipping over most of the content and completing the mission in 20 minutes you would get 4 merits, but if you actually did everything that the designers intended and took 2 hours you would get 24.
This would relieve you of the repetitive task of datamining and reseting merit rewards based on averages. It would also let you automatically apply rewards to future content such as arcs from the Mission Architect.
Also, are you considering checking that team members actually contribute to the mission to qualify for merits? For example, in the Katie Hannon TF there are two missions in which a few team members can do everything while the rest of the team sits at the entry point.
If you could implement the second check, you could also use that same logic to eliminate the scourge of PLing by awarding no experience for non-contributing team members (of course, the logic would have to count buffing and healing team members as activity, in addition to attacks and debuffs on enemies).
[ QUOTE ]
Also, doesn't "telegraphing" the fact that TF rewards will be nerfed in the future, act as incentive for people to abuse them as much as possible, as often as possible, right out of the gate to "beat the nerfbat" to them?
[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty much.
This is about the only game where one gets penalized for playing well.
As I've (probably) said before, the rewards will be quite freely decreased, but getting an increase is going to be like pulling a chicken's tooth out.
[ QUOTE ]
I only got one thing to say for this thread. The comment about purples not being added is just a cop out seriously.
[/ QUOTE ]
How is it a cop out? Yeah, he said that it would be too expencive at this time, but he also said, "we decided to omit them from the items on the list at this time. That isnt to say we wont ever add them to it in the future." So that means they might get added later on.
[ QUOTE ]
The thing is I have gotten like maybe 3 purples at the most as a drop since they first went live. I know folks who play their lvl 50s every day and still havent gotten a single purple recipe on their toons.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well... they are called ULTRA-rares...
[ QUOTE ]
Lastly I want to ask is there any chance of a hero villain market merger. That was like the only question I didnt see that you answered that I had.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I had to guess, this wasn't answered because it doesn't have to do with the merits being released in I13, and has been something asked about long before I13 was a tinkle in Positron's eye. Not saying it shouldn't, or that I wouldn't support the merge, but just the possible reason for why it wasn't answered.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, doesn't "telegraphing" the fact that TF rewards will be nerfed in the future, act as incentive for people to abuse them as much as possible, as often as possible, right out of the gate to "beat the nerfbat" to them?
[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty much.
This is about the only game where one gets penalized for playing well.
As I've (probably) said before, the rewards will be quite freely decreased, but getting an increase is going to be like pulling a chicken's tooth out.
[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty much, and with villians having so few TF's its going to be especially punnishing for them.
Boycott Ncsoft if they close down Coh.
[ QUOTE ]
A: The intention of the system was to also give players who dont tend to run Task Forces and Strike Forces the chance at earning the same high end rewards as players normally running Task Forces, however at a diminished rate. This gives player an opportunity to earn rewards they normally would not have had access to outside of the Black Market/Wentworths.
[/ QUOTE ]
The main part about the Merit system that had me excited,
was increased parity between TF hounds, and players like
myself, who prefer to solo/duo most of the time.
I really, *really* don't like TF/SF/Trials. I've run the
majority of them at least once, and once is usually
enough for me to decide I don't want to do them again.
I haven't done one yet, that has been entertaining enough
to me, to overcome the monotony(what *I* find to be
monotony, yes) of med-large teams.
I accepted that this placed me at a disadvantage in terms
of rewards, as TF/SF/Trials were the sole distributer of
many desirable recipes, and relegated myself to having to
work hard to gain the neccesary INF to purchase them on
market.
Now that this is no longer true, though, and TFs are not
the sole venue of distribution, is there a reason for
this concept of "diminished rate," when many story arcs,
particularly high level ones, are almost indistinguishable
from a Task Force, save for the mandatory team size that
must be met to begin the latter?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) Giant Monsters: Its very annoying to get a group of people to take out certain GM's (Lusca i.e.). Are there any plans for doling out a MINIMUM amount of merits for defeating a GM, something pleasant, yet small enough to not encourage farming (I am not including the general Monster Isle DE monsters in this suggestion,). My suggestion would be 5ish, maybe 7 for Lusca.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not a redname, but maybe I can take a shot at this one for you.
The merit system already has a reward for fighting GMs (note that this is only Giant Monsters, not the Monster DE) of 2 merits for anyone that would qualify for the badge.
This is posted in the Meritorious Measurement thread.
[/ QUOTE ]
I want to know what is going to be the deal with winterlods..
very interested in this one.
Boycott Ncsoft if they close down Coh.
[ QUOTE ]
Wrong place for this, sorry.
[/ QUOTE ]
The original question related to a gap between hero content to generate merits and villain content to generate merits. The question even mentions taskforces. The answer focused on running missions from level 1-50 and did not answer the question that was asked.
EDIT: no need for me to be snarky here - sorry!
Go Team Venture!
[ QUOTE ]
Poster: Paradox1
Q: The Story Arc merit system seems to encourage us to solo non-TF missions, as running other people's story arcs earns 0 merits (unless we happen to have the same arc open). Is this really the way you want to encourage us to play the game?
A: While only offering Merits upon story arc completion to the owner of the story arc is consistent with our original reward system (only the mission owner earns the bonus story arc XP and gets to choose the SO enhancement) we understand that there is certainly room for improvement upon this. We will evaluate our options on how we can improve the rewards for party members along for the ride on a story arc.
Poster: macskull
Q: What is the intent and purpose of the merit system? Originally it seemed intended to be an alternate, additional, avenue for those who did not wish to use the market, or for a deterministic way to get a recipe you wanted. Now it seems like it's replacing the current system instead of adding onto it.
A: The basic intent for the Merit Reward system is to more accurately reward players for their time invested doing missions. Ultimately, what it came down to is that not all Task Forces and Strike Forces were created equal. Some take 30 minutes, some can take upwards of 10 hours. The fact that all of these Task Forces had been granting the same reward made us realize we needed to incorporate time into the reward equation. Thats essentially where Merits came in.
Poster: Tempest_56
Q: How much a reduction are we going to see in future changes to merit awards, given that it's been shown that speed-runs of all the rewarding content can be (and will be) run? See: the 25 minute ITF. What failsafes are in place should the rewards for all available content drop to ridiculously low levels, thereby effectively locking out those of us who don't do TF speed runs four-plus times a day?
A: Were aware that there are Task Forces out there that can be completed far faster than they were intended. There will always be groups of players who will maximize their rewards for the amount of time they invest. Any increases or reductions to merits granted will only be done along with ample data supporting this decision. Let me give an example: Currently we show an average completion time of the Positrons taskforce of 235 minutes. If we saw this average completion time, not the fastest times mind you, drop to say 120 or 90 minutes, then wed look into how this is being done. What we could do mission side to fix this, and consider toning down merit rewards if necessary. On the up side, if we see a task that simply isnt giving enough rewards for the time required, well bump that up.
Poster: OfficerZap
Q: Are there any major, easy, exploits that would mean awarding merits to all team members upon completion would not be possible? If not, could you please explain the reasoning for the limitation, and also the impact you think this may/may not have on group vs solo play?
A: The reasoning behind not initially having group members, that are not the mission owner, receiving Merit Rewards is that the original reward system didnt give mission helpers rewards either. However, we understand how some players might perceive this as a penalty for not being the mission owner and we will consider our options on how to best address this issue.
Poster: Zombie_Man
Q: Why were Merits not put in Pool A or B drops so that the rule of 1 Merit for every 5 minutes could be normalized to actual play rather than racing toward the end of a multi-part task bypassing content?
A: The 1 merit for every 5 minute rule is for Task Forces and Strike Forces, not for Story Arcs. Story Arcs award players with roughly 4-6 merits per hour (of average completion time) instead of the 12 merits per hour (of average completion time) that Task Forces give. We will be evaluating options of putting merits through alternate means for the future.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for your answers, Synapse and Dev crew!
We all know that if players are looking for a certain reward, they'll put in work to get that reward. And if need be, do the same task over and over again, i.e., they'll grind/Farm for it. And, if the reward is very great or the work is very tedious and laborious, then players will find the most efficient way to farm.
When the Devs put big time rewards for the *completion* of a TF or the *completion* of an arc, then there is now that incentive to farm *completions* of TFs and Arcs. This is why players "Speed Run" TFs.
And that is why I'm suggesting to reduce the reward of the completion of the TF and add Merits to Pool A and B drops. You can still make the percentage of the roll table for Pool A and B so that players get less than 5 Merits/min, and when you add in the guaranteed Pool C/D drop, it comes to 5 Merits/min. This rewards the teams that plays through content rather than race to completion (they're also rewarded with the other drops they bypass when they bypass fighting). This will also lower the penalty for the casual or non-optimized team that's behind the average completion time or doesn't know the TF 'shortcuts.'
With the addition of Pool A/B drops for everyone on the team, then you can lower Arc completion reward. Your responses above seem to indicate that the Devs are realizing that there's a problem with Arc-completion rewards being just for the mission holder (and I realize how it can be exploited if you give a big reward to everyone who was present at the last mission of an arc). When the reward was an SO, it was no big deal. With all the influence in the game, SO costs are trivial for most players. But Merits are a big reward and giving it only to the mission holder is a bad reward system since it penalizes teammates who were present for the whole arc. If Arcs gave out just one Merit for each of the players and there were Pool A and B Merit rewards, then teammates are rewarded and not just the mission holder.
If you want to reward time investment, Pool A and B is where you should put the rewards in addition to back ending the rewards. While I realize you may not be able to change this before I13 goes Live, I hope you keep it in mind (especially when you see all the TFs' average times collapsing in on themselves. 
).
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides
NEW QUESTION:
Play test has indicated that the Diminishing Returns of Merit rewards is 50% for attempting the same Trial twice in a row.
Is that right?
Would a third attempt also be at 50% or does the DR get more diminishing? And if yes, what are the stats?
Is the DR rate the same for TFs, Trials, and Arc-Completions?
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides
[ QUOTE ]
A good example of this is the Lord Recluse Strike Force. It normally would grant 18 merits due to its relatively short average completion time, however because of its difficulty it gets a +7 bonus granting a total of 25 merits!
[/ QUOTE ]
Have you considered simply adding 1 Merit per AV?
This fits Risk-v-Reward, and makes that LRSF "buff" more obvious. (Not to mention a partial profit if you beat 3 or 4 missions and fail the huge challenge at the end.) Merits for AVs may also help balance KHTF, and maybe even bringing Eden up to something not laughable.
Is there any chance that the Challenge System options be included to allow players to gain more merits by imposing limits on themselves? It's a system with a lot of potential that's only really utilized for ouro mishes and, even then, a majority of the badges can only be attained on specific tasks (Gold Medal on 95% of the story arcs and TFs out there?).
[ QUOTE ]
wow. quite an attempt there to answer every question. Normally these Q+As hit a handful (especially a safe handfull) and call it a day. I'm impressed with the level of communication - keep it up!
[/ QUOTE ]
Agree 100%
I am liking the new communications strategy
Crime of Fashion Level 50 Rad/Rad Corrupter
My Toons
My Rad/Rad Corrupters Guide
Mindscape - Reworking
Hi:
I truly appreciate your taking the time to explain the merit system as devised by the developer team; and as a consequence all the second and third order ramifications thereoff.
I have an issue with the merit award being a time in TF metric to begin with my reasons are stated below:
1) Punishes good team leadership
2) Punishes good team work
3) Punishes good team composition planning
4) Gives the game a "tedium" feel effect, despite of the you only gain merits once a day, oh my this is so discouraging...
5) Hammy is the most challenging team organizing event in the game, is organizing something taking close to hundred players to work in unison that unimportant?
Now some observations and questions:
I felt the solo ability of some classes and builds were noticeably changed to become more team oriented, main reason why the non-melee have status effect resistances, so they are encouraged to be support players. It seems to me the developers decided to emphasize team play.
Now if we going to emphasize team play, should we not be consistent?
1) My end of mission thread rewards me, not the rest of you. Do you all want to help me get a merit while you all don't? I don't feel this restriction leads to harmonious team building.
2) I need to do Katie TF for my badge, anyone want to help me? No way looser, its a waste of time to do, no merits... So much for urging teaming opportunities.
3) Lets do a Positron, lots of merits! Well I really don't have 6 or more hours to blow on that. I can actually farm a mission and get better drops that I can sell at the market. So much for experienced players being available to help form strong Positron teams. On the brighter side, Positron teams and other TF teams are going to be so hodge podge players with weaker skills and experience that they will take much longer to complete the TF, but in time they will be rewarded with more Merits for finding a way to spend 10 hours doing Positron instead...
I really wish you all would get off the time spent metric, and use challenge as the central metric; kinda reverse the way you are doing it now as a doctrine to decide how to reward TF success. I much rather see you all reward good tactics, good teaming, good leadership, good strategy, good planning rather than punish them as you going to do, perhaps unintentionally.
Hugs
Stormy
To keep with the Q&A theme of the thread:
[ QUOTE ]
Have you considered simply adding 1 Merit per AV?
This fits Risk-v-Reward, and makes that LRSF "buff" more obvious.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you've not considered that, is it because risk vs. reward is no longer the primary concern, but only a secondary balancing factor behind time vs. reward, to be considered when datamining indicates that the teams running a particular piece of content most frequently and thus skewing the distribution are optimized to the point that they create a system that's truly unrepresentative for anyone else, such as 7 corruptors plus a stone brute on the RSF?
[ QUOTE ]
(Not to mention a partial profit if you beat 3 or 4 missions and fail the huge challenge at the end.) Merits for AVs may also help balance KHTF, and maybe even bringing Eden up to something not laughable.
[/ QUOTE ]
Would the reason to explicitly not consider a merit per AV be the fact that people would farm the first 9 Mary Macombers in 12 minutes or less, then exit, quit, and re-form the TF? If so, would it be more workable to award any and all AV awards only on TF completion?
My postings to this forum are not to be used as data in any research study without my express written consent.
[ QUOTE ]
Poster: Healing_Phoenix
Q: Why is it that the Villain side SF payout is way less than Hero side TF payout? I feel that as a villain I'm being punished.
A: On average Villain Strike Forces take significantly less time to complete when compared to Hero Task Forces. Since time is the major factor when determining the number of Merits a task gives upon completion Villains on average receive less Merits per task, but roughly the same Merits per hour.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, that can be correct... if the team was not skilled with doing said taskforce. I can see your point being applied, BUT since my supergroup and myself are skilled in doing taskforces it doesn't take us long. Not only myself and my sg, but others... More so on the hero side, who can do taskforces quickly then what you believe they could be run in.
I've done the Synapse TF in an hour, I've also ran the Sharkhead SF in an hour. My hero is going to get MORE merits than my villain who ran a TF equally in level in the same amount of time. - Again how is this fair? Villains are being punished.
I don't believe heroes and villains are going to get the same amount of merits/hour considering TFs are based on skill. Reward me for skill, not time.
Synapse, hi. First of all, welcome to the nuthouse. Secondly, thank you very much for taking the time to go through and provide answers to our questions. A lot of the follow up posts have focused on the TF rewards, but if I may I'd like to focus on the non-TF rewards. Here was my original question and your response:
[ QUOTE ]
Poster: TheWeaver
Q: What impact are you expecting the merit system to have on those of us who (for one reason or another) tend not to run TF/SF's?
A: The intention of the system was to also give players who dont tend to run Task Forces and Strike Forces the chance at earning the same high end rewards as players normally running Task Forces, however at a diminished rate. This gives player an opportunity to earn rewards they normally would not have had access to outside of the Black Market/Wentworths.
[/ QUOTE ]
The goal you outline sounds great, but I remain somewhat concerned and here's why. As it stands today, I, as a non-TF runner, am already able to obtain pretty much all of the recipes and IOs that I desire. Sure, I never get the really big ones (never seen a LOTG +Rech or Numinas Unique), but that's OK. I can however get pretty much any other Pool C or Pool D recipe via WW/BM because for those there is a fairly liquid market (at least if you have some patience).
That leads to my primary concern. If it turns out that what players do with their merits is save them so that they can buy exactly what they want, what will happen to the market for Pool C and Pool D recipes? There is no other way to get them, so my intuition says that the market would dry up. The net result being that unless I earn merits I'll no longer be able to obtain the level of reward that I currently do.
Is this intended? Is the feeling that if you don't run TF/SF's that it should not be possible to fully equip a toon with "mid-level" Pool C and Pool D recipes? Here for example is a Mids-data chunk for my lvl 37 Night Widow. Nothing too fancy here and the build cost me around 10-15M to outfit. Should I be able to achieve this type of build using only merits obtained from running Story Arcs?
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>| Copy & Paste this data into Mids' Hero Designer to view the build |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|MxDz;1198;665;1330;HEX;|
|78DAA553596F1251143E0343A785612B142850CA66A231F2E CF2601A04A9D2DAA66|
|8DDE264A49332910ECD30DD7CF207F80FB46ADDD0076334B1 6E3FCC684CF09C7347|
|A20F3E39C97CDFBD67F9EE3967EE2CEC9E5301EE9D05295EE DEAFDBE3667EBED8ED|
|5EB6BABE65A6F4759D49D2D5BEF4E36F5B663F7D68CB6B3D5 CF2FD9E686A1004089|
|83B496AD9B9669AD5716CDF58EA3FD6D4CB60C7D63A767DFA 9B876771B9DB73A866|
|D584EE5F7425DEAF5BA95A6A16F629A9F372B9B86B116E065 BD4BE2515ECF5BDB66|
|DFBC6D764D672F53DB34DB952BB5B996D634B64DDDE9E896B 6A0F71DC3DE4B618DC|
|7F07D8C3D8A67E881032A1C3C03A422949EF0AEEA47923840 02191729F028484938|
|505D070CBD520DC823D7813CF205A4348C37D8584305AF50F 07A49A10463A430036|
|3DFD1380DE33F39EE29EAF9849EE4FBC0A6D0210B3D438F22 3C3E65E0018883FFA5|
|8702FCAF98D4E74CA12A6745AE21E5A08EE74EB8954F94F94 0F508521E122816703|
|D01993D39AA280D0FF0A4A0DB53F0238A6621F299B5739F90 66A174C8BB222A84DD|
|5AC3C7795E65410F51212A3C72544C65F23CB7394953C942B CC1BB4281C31B58644|
|C94E28B8966E2D44C0212A2C3D40BA6D26BA6F280691EB3A6 DC914EF9B8F284F836|
|85A4A0041B9B7EFA1CA298E40FA40CA4BEF148D3510EC8452 4EAAA4C5F2006FB2A5|
|52664A7B7813CE91DA6EC2E579BBD0B34AC8B289B11C743E6 049B16FC84C2342326|
|F148A54CA136FB06A900F9F77CA7F2EF04BD452A4352A1689 15A3CCAA9C37F3D597|
|9745D81A3A0F9A7A5C0F35E92471713240EBA248F2EF17F3D 5F467FCBC432FD172B|
|0497095609AE125C27B8417093E016814630FC3ACA0E9FA48 24E119C263843709F8|
|294004280402508128408C2041182184182204DB04F30FC05 AF810040|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|</pre><hr />
If the new design goal is that a build like that would require me to run SF's it would be good to know now (I may not like it, but at least I won't be surprised by it). If that's not the new design goal then I'll trust that you will monitor the in-game results and adjust things so that the reward level for non-TF runners remains at or above where it is today.
Thanks again for your time.
Hmmm, could it be that villains are more likely to ghost missions? An entire AT eminently suited to the "stealth to the end" playstyle, combined with enemies that players often find difficult or annoying to defeat, is encouraging more players to quickly complete missions, and skews the datamined times?
The villain TF rewards are fairly appropriate to the time required for completion (except for the LRSF), but some of the story arc rewards seem rather small, based on the 12 min/merit formula given.
Eva Destruction AR/Fire/Munitions Blaster
Darkfire Avenger DM/SD/Body Scrapper
Arc ID#161629 Freaks, Geeks, and Men in Black
Arc ID#431270 Until the End of the World
A couple of "I'm just a player but I think I can answer that" answers:
1.
[ QUOTE ]
Q: Are there any major, easy, exploits that would mean awarding merits to all team members upon completion would not be possible? If not, could you please explain the reasoning for the limitation, and also the impact you think this may/may not have on group vs solo play?
[/ QUOTE ]
SYNAPSE'S ANSWER:
[ QUOTE ]
A: The reasoning behind not initially having group members, that are not the mission owner, receiving Merit Rewards is that the original reward system didnt give mission helpers rewards either. However, we understand how some players might perceive this as a penalty for not being the mission owner and we will consider our options on how to best address this issue.
[/ QUOTE ]
MY ANSWER:
Everyone chooses the "complete same mission" answer for everything except the last mission in the arc. The last time through, NOBODY autocompletes. Let's say there are 6 missions in the arc. So you do the first 5 once each. Then your team of 8 does the last mission eight times. 13 missions, 8 "complete arc" bonuses. Prrrrrrobably not the intended result.
2. A lot of people are concerned that "normal play " gets ripped off because, for instance, doing Eden "normally" takes an hour and a half instead of 10 minutes. But the Devs have to look at the total picture. There are two relevant things that any solution has to handle:
1. Everything ends up on Wentworths.
2. One goal is for a normal-size TF to be a reasonable choice for ALL the people who would do a TF.
Taken together, that means that they can't judge Eden by how long it takes the people who are doing it for the first time. Because if I do Eden once every six months, and Squez does Eden eight times a week [with a matinee show on Sunday!] ... Squez is normal. Squez's time is normal. And if I would get an entire recipe for a two-hour Eden, Squez would get two hundred recipes in the same six months, for ten-minute edens. It's like we're voting on how much Eden should be worth, and Squez votes two hundred times for "ten minutes".
#1 means that Squez is dumping Speeden recipes onto Wents at a huge rate.
#2 means that if I want to do a Speeden, I can do it with Squez and a lot of Squezzites. If I want to do ANYTHING ELSE I'm gonna be looking through a much, much smaller pool of jurors. Squez, while I'm slandering him, and his buddies are gonna have a word for people who do Sister Psyche: Suckers.
And that's exactly what we've got now.
Katie Hannon isn't going to disappear. You can do Katie in half an hour; it's a nice snack. If you happen to be under level 34 you get a nice round of "Grats" out of it. It's quick, it's handy, it's fun, it gets you a hat and an Amy and it is, in general, a Good Task Force. It's just going from being "just as good as Manticore and SIX TIMES FASTER" to "one sixth as good as Manticore and SIX TIMES FASTER." Maybe 1/8 as good, I don't know the exact numbers.
For all the people who say "But what if you screw up and the Katie takes two hours?" I'm just gonna say that, back in issue 3, I did Manticore in SEVEN AND A HALF HOURS. Bad things happen all over.
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
Thanks for the responses
Communication is always a good thing .
I will echo the common concern. While no specifics of how the data mining was done were given, you repeatedly made reference to the average of all the runs.
Given the large number of character available to any given account the existing timer does little to prevent speed runs and about the same for the merit.
Anyone serious about farming will just use alts and speed farm the TFS for merits. Given that from all appearances the (avg time)/account was not averaged over the number of accounts running the tf what is to prevent the speeders from just wrecking the new system. As things have been done it is apparent that a few players are able to break the system.
Just from a personal point of view. The last time I ran an eden it took more than half an hour to just put the team together and about 45 minutes to do the run. 2 Merits is a real slap in the face for that kind of effort.