Quote:
Agreed. The Shard Tfs sound like even more grim torture than the current/old Posi.
|
Originally Posted by Lemur Lad
Bad Content is better than no content at all? Nah I don't think so. The zones weren't ready for prime time when they came out, and they're most definitely not up to snuff compared to what we've gotten since. I love the Shards. But no way do I want to see them expanded without a significant revamp.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zwillinger
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
 |
Quote:
The problem is, why would Villainous characters WANT to run those TFs? They will be open in Going Rogue to the Villains on their way to being Heroes, but the Villains who stay Villainous complain about TFs where we save THIS world, why would they care about some other one that's already smashed to hell?|
Originally Posted by zachary_EU
My humble opinion is that they should open Shadow Shard dimension to villains and give them own contacts so villains can do those TF's (SF's). That would be fastest way to give 4 new and really long SF's to villains.
|
EDIT: This kind of ties in to what I said earlier. Vilalins have gotten plenty of Heroic missions to run, but very scant on content that actually fits the theme. The entire VEAT 'story' could be stitched together and be about as long as one 35+ arc for the Kheldians. Apart from that, what have they had? Well, there was the Ouroboros TF where you helped Recluse gain control of the islands, and one in which you...essentially have a dream sequence, because the events of that TF NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED. After that, there was the one arc for Mercedes Sheldon - the same time Heroes got three arcs from the same person. What else was there?
The Abrams is one of the most effective war machines on the planet. - R. Lee Ermy.
Q: How do you wreck an Abrams?
A: You crash into another one.
Quote:
Doc Q most certainly is like like that|
Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha
Agreed. The Shard Tfs sound like even more grim torture than the current/old Posi.
|
Sara Mooore is long but engaging
Justin Augustine is predominantly outdoor hunts
Faathim is another excessively long one, that throws AVs into missions seemingly at random
@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617
Quote:
So you're argument is that because optimized teams can run the blueside TFs substantially faster than the median time that the redside TFs need to be given an arbitrary bonus? You might make more ground by arguing for the reward to factor in failure rate rather than simply claiming that just because some can do it faster that the reward should be lower.|
Originally Posted by Sharker_Quint
I know several people who can run the hero side tf's in a short amount of time and the merits you can get range from almost even to almost triple what any of the villian sf's give. it is pretty sad that a stf can be run faster then an lrsf, but there is a merit descrepency of 12. and what's worse is you need to reset the lrsf if the tech is not in the last tower and that can take several minuets to accomplish which makes the sf in actuallity, longer.
|
Quote:
| forget about the min/maxers for a minuet and think about the "normal" or "casual" player. if the lrsf takes longer then an stf for them, what do you think they are going to come screaming about, and have come screaming about. the merits. |
Quote:
| go take a look at paragon wiki for the tf/sf's and compare merits for the level ranges. in fact i'll do it for you and give the min/maxers scale: |
Quote:
| i think at this point you get where i'm going with this. i won't even get into the trials. that is a whole other can of worms. i would like to see the shard opened to villians to give them some sort of long trial but i kind of have the feeling that somehow there would be a difference in merits there also unless they made it co-op. there is your anecdotal evidence of the descrepencies in the merits. if you don't like that, then i don't know what to tell you at this point. |
I've seen Positron TFs completed in less than an hour. I've also seen Docter Quaterfield TFs completed in 12 hours. Do either of those individual data points get to be the decider with how the developers have assigned merit awards? Good thing they're not because then Posi would get a mere 20 merits for its median completion time of 3 hours and 18 minutes and Doc Q would receive a whopping 240 merits for its median completion time of 6 hours and 10 minutes. A single data point means nothing on its own.
The developers don't use a single data point to assign merit awards. They datamine for a huge quantity of completion times and then use the median value of that collection (which is substantially more accurate than mean as a measure of average for reasons you will learn if you ever take any Statistics class ever). If a TF is run almost exclusively as a speed run, then merit awards go down to reflect that. There are actually a number of blueside TFs that were run all the time that almost no one ever touches because they were run insanely quickly and incredibly often before merits were added, which caused their merit awards to be assigned an incredibly low value because of it. The exact same thing happened to the Virgil Tarikoss SF.
The way the developers have assigned merit awards ensures that, if you go faster than average, you're going to get more for your time. If you go slower than average, you're going to get less. If everyone starts going faster than average, the reward goes down because it's obviously too easy to do better than average.
I'd like to see the devs hire someone and tell them to add content to redside, including new SFs. If they're good, they'll have some decent stuff up within 6 months.
One SF I'd like to see, as a parallel to Posi, is a Veluta Lunata SF, for ranges 10-15. Her arc is virtually inaccessible for players at level 12, so why not convert the contact and the arc (with some modification) into a SF?
There's so much that could be done. I just wish it WOULD be done.
Quote:
If you went there with a smallish team, you could get the badge easily at 12 and run the arc(s) as a Strike Force. I personally always felt that it IS a Strike Force, they just did it the way they did so that people who didn't want to get a team together could still get it rolling.|
Originally Posted by konshu
I'd like to see the devs hire someone and tell them to add content to redside, including new SFs. If they're good, they'll have some decent stuff up within 6 months.
One SF I'd like to see, as a parallel to Posi, is a Veluta Lunata SF, for ranges 10-15. Her arc is virtually inaccessible for players at level 12, so why not convert the contact and the arc (with some modification) into a SF? There's so much that could be done. I just wish it WOULD be done. |
Considering I've soloed those badges at least twice at level (before and after they were heavily reduced), and duoed even more, I don't find the arc inaccessible at all. Just remember to move to a new trap before it blows, and it's fine.
"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill
Quote:
i gave you what you asked for which was evidence of descrepency. it doesn't matter how fast or slow a tf/sf can be done. the only part of it that matters is there is a descrepency. the only things that don't have a descrepency are the itf and lady grey tf's. im sure a rikti ship raid and hami raid fall in the same category. as for blue side tf's that no one touches, that is laughable. even though the katie hannon only gives 9 merits, it is needed for an accolade. the eden trial also gives low merits but i never really saw anyone running it anyways. |
Originally Posted by Umbral
So you're argument is that because optimized teams can run the blueside TFs substantially faster than the median time that the redside TFs need to be given an arbitrary bonus? You might make more ground by arguing for the reward to factor in failure rate rather than simply claiming that just because some can do it faster that the reward should be lower.
Considering that the devs actually arrived at those numbers by datamining the completion times, I'm going to have to agree with the devs rather than you. Those numbers are a wholesale comparison of all completion times. So, you just make the argument that I should ignore optimized runs in favor of normal and casual players and then immediately attempt to support this claim by bringing up optimized runs? Really? I asked you for evidence that was "anything but anecdotal or based upon abstract correlation". I wasn't asking for anecdotal evidence. I was asking for you to provide actual substantive and enough data points to ensure rigor that would actually be able to legitimately prove that there is a substantive discrepancy between the villain and hero merit awards that demonstrates a deliberate bias against villains or for heroes. All that you have ever thrown out is outlier data points and anecdotal evidence. I've seen Positron TFs completed in less than an hour. I've also seen Docter Quaterfield TFs completed in 12 hours. Do either of those individual data points get to be the decider with how the developers have assigned merit awards? Good thing they're not because then Posi would get a mere 20 merits for its median completion time of 3 hours and 18 minutes and Doc Q would receive a whopping 240 merits for its median completion time of 6 hours and 10 minutes. A single data point means nothing on its own. The developers don't use a single data point to assign merit awards. They datamine for a huge quantity of completion times and then use the median value of that collection (which is substantially more accurate than mean as a measure of average for reasons you will learn if you ever take any Statistics class ever). If a TF is run almost exclusively as a speed run, then merit awards go down to reflect that. There are actually a number of blueside TFs that were run all the time that almost no one ever touches because they were run insanely quickly and incredibly often before merits were added, which caused their merit awards to be assigned an incredibly low value because of it. The exact same thing happened to the Virgil Tarikoss SF. The way the developers have assigned merit awards ensures that, if you go faster than average, you're going to get more for your time. If you go slower than average, you're going to get less. If everyone starts going faster than average, the reward goes down because it's obviously too easy to do better than average. |
if i'm not mistaken, the flier in the stf gives merits even though it is not suppossed to which can raise the merits you get from that to over 40 if you kill it twice. that gives 2 random rolls versus only getting 25 merits for the lrsf which is 1 random roll.
anyways, you seem to be set on your idea that everything is fine and nothing needs to be done so i have no further interest in arguing with a brick wall. it really is sad that by lv 20, you can have 124 merits blue side and by lv 20 red side you get a whopping 13 just from running tf/sf's. gee, i don't see any descrepency there at all. but i'm sure you'll just chalk that up to "CoV came out 6 issues after CoH" like you've been doing. pretty lame argument if you ask me.
Quote:
So, you simply call something a discrepancy (this is how the word is actually spelled, if you're curious), and it becomes one? The entire point behind merit awards is that the speed of the TF is the determining factor in the reward. You can't simply dismiss that.|
Originally Posted by Sharker_Quint
i gave you what you asked for which was evidence of descrepency. it doesn't matter how fast or slow a tf/sf can be done. the only part of it that matters is there is a descrepency.
|
Similarly, keep in mind that just saying that you gave me evidence doesn't make it true. I asked for evidence that was actually appropriate and capable of drawing conclusions from. You gave a single set of data points that provide pretty much no information from which a decent conclusion can be drawn concerning the entire state of merit awards. That doesn't even remotely fulfill the conditions I asked for.
Quote:
| the only things that don't have a descrepency are the itf and lady grey tf's. im sure a rikti ship raid and hami raid fall in the same category. |
Quote:
| as for blue side tf's that no one touches, that is laughable. even though the katie hannon only gives 9 merits, it is needed for an accolade. the eden trial also gives low merits but i never really saw anyone running it anyways. |
Quote:
| anyways, you seem to be set on your idea that everything is fine and nothing needs to be done so i have no further interest in arguing with a brick wall. |
Quote:
| it really is sad that by lv 20, you can have 124 merits blue side and by lv 20 red side you get a whopping 13 just from running tf/sf's. gee, i don't see any descrepency there at all. |
Quote:
| but i'm sure you'll just chalk that up to "CoV came out 6 issues after CoH" like you've been doing. pretty lame argument if you ask me. |
The difference in content levels is due to CoV being out for a substantially smaller period of time. The difference in task/strike force length (and thereby magnitude of individual merit awards) is directly due to player complaints. There isn't, however, a difference in average merits/minute, so there isn't a discrepancy in task force rewards because if an average team from both sides puts forth the same amount of time on a task they receive the same reward.
i know merits are based of time. don't try to play me like that. the dev's also know how long a tf/sf should take and should have based merits from that. they also should have done the DR thing when merits were introduced instead of after. now, seeing as how you want to go with time, most of the sf's can be run in the same amount of time as the level equivalent tf's but give less rewards. and maybe if people were compalining about the length of the tf's, the dev's should have looked at shortening them at the same time as making the sf's.
we can keep going round and round about this but it is just going to go nowhere.
ps: i know that i spelled discrepancy wrong. i just don't really care when i have been up for 2 days with a sick child on my hands. in fact there is probably alot i spelled wrong over the last 2 days but this isn't a spelling test. i know it doesn't help my point, but then again it doens't matter really when it comes down to it as you understand what i mean. 
Quote:
Question 1: How are they supposed to know how long a TF should take? As far as I have ever known, the devs can only make educated guesses that are largely inaccurate. This is why the new TFs they've released has had to have some pretty significant merit reward tweaking even after the beta testing.|
Originally Posted by Sharker_Quint
i know merits are based of time. don't try to play me like that. the dev's also know how long a tf/sf should take and should have based merits from that.
|
Question 2: You do realize that there is a difference between what should happen and what does happen? Players should have used AE as a way to create new and interesting stories as a way to generate new content for themselves and others to enjoy, however, as we all know, instead players used it largely for farming and exploits.
Quote:
| they also should have done the DR thing when merits were introduced instead of after. now, seeing as how you want to go with time, most of the sf's can be run in the same amount of time as the level equivalent tf's but give less rewards. and maybe if people were compalining about the length of the tf's, the dev's should have looked at shortening them at the same time as making the sf's. |
You're also, once again, assuming that any individual run is a good example of what the reward should be. The number they use to determine merit awards is a composite value: it's not based off of any single specific time you can think of. It's based off of all of the times that they have access to. If 90% of the groups that run a TF take 20 minutes to complete it, even if the other 10% take 5 hours, the TF is going to reward 7 merits because an overwhelming majority take 20 minutes. If 70% of the groups that run a TF take 6 hours to complete a TF and the other 30% can somehow complete it in half the time, it's going to reward 120 merits.
Please try to comprehend this because I'm not entirely sure you do. You can't bring up any single instance and try to use it to refute a value that is based upon looking at every instance that occurs. There are people that have survived cancer but that doesn't mean we assume that any specific person will survive cancer for any specific period of time. However, because some people have survived cancer, we can roughly gauge the length of time that they will survive. Merit awards are the equivalent of finding the average period of time that anyone will survive any specific type of cancer.
again, i know exactly how the merits were figured out, but trying to tell me that, and i don't believe you are going here, the dev's don't have a general idea how long any given tf/sf should take with the in-house tests before even going to closed beta with it and after all the tweaks and most of the bugs are fixed. they could have based the initial merits off of this info they already have and adjusted before going live with it.
of course in my last post you seem to think i am bringing up 1 specific tf/sf comparrison when i clearly state several. again, i am now done with this for tonight. there are a lot of things i see eye to eye with you on, but this just isn't one of them.
So, doing the math (by going with the average time of SFs), redside has 13.3 hours of SFs to do (this does include the co-op TFs).
So, what you're saying you want, is for redside to get the old Positron TF, that is being replaced with new ones?
We'll keep the same enemies, jsut rewrite a new story around it. That will give over 18 hours of SFs!
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
Ultimately, you have to look at the big picture of it all.
You get 1 merit per 3 minutes (20 per hour) based on the median time for a given task force or story-arc run.
If you run 13 hours of hero task forces at the median speed you'll get 260 merits.
If you run 13 hours of villain strike forces at the median speed you'll get 260 merits.
It's the question of a pound of Feathers to a pound of Bricks. Which is heavier? Ultimately they way the same but one seems more weighted.
The average/casual gamer -isn't- going to run up against the merit diminished returns wall. Why? Because your average player doesn't run multiple TFs in a day, much less speed runs. And if you absolutely positively need to earn more merits than you can running all the SFs there are, run Oroboros missions! There are a some you can intentionally fail missions on to kill your time and get decent rewards off of.
Asking the Devs to completely alter the reward scheduling based on perception of time to reward ratio which goes counter to the information -datamined- by the Devs just seems ludicrous. Especially since removing the DR limits on SFs would require them to rework the system entirely, which could cause lots of interesting issues in and of itself.
And yes. I also think devoting a single issue to "Villains Only" with no hero content would be a -bad- idea, at this point. Just as bad an idea as reversing the maxim to doing an "Only Heroes" issue or "Only PvP" or "Only Bug Fixes" issues. No matter how much the given target might need it you'll damage the rest of the game via the perception of the playerbase.
-Rachel-
ok, i guess i desreved this since i was up for 2 days and my brain wasn't functioning to full capacity. what this is is an idea to give red side more choices. no, they don't have to do just villian content as both M_I_A and i said earlier. they could tweak some of the hero content while giving the vill's 1 new sf or trial. more choices is always a good thing, no? and that idea is a lot better then T_C_S's "remove DR from villian sf's".
Quote:
This I could get behind. Revisit a zone heroside (Perhaps Perez?) And -add- a new zone villainside.|
Originally Posted by Sharker_Quint
ok, i guess i desreved this since i was up for 2 days and my brain wasn't functioning to full capacity. what this is is an idea to give red side more choices. no, they don't have to do just villian content as both M_I_A and i said earlier. they could tweak some of the hero content while giving the vill's 1 new sf or trial. more choices is always a good thing, no? and that idea is a lot better then T_C_S's "remove DR from villian sf's".
|
Alter a TF, heroside (New enemy designs, different map-tiles) Create a new SF villainside.
So long as -something- is going on that is comparable, though not the same, I'm fine with it. Though this is a whole other suggestion that needs to get made.
-Rachel-
Personally, I like the idea of 90-120 minute task forces / strike forces, with that time being based on what a relatively experienced pug team would expect, not necessarily a team built for speed.
I suppose there can be some shorter TFs/SFs, like Katie and the Ouro ones, but while they are technically task forces they don't really FEEL like task forces to me.
I've not done all the villain SFs, despite having villains since CoV beta, and my first 50 was a villain. To me the SFs don't feel all that task forcey. They're more like Katie.
I'd prefer something a little longer, with a deeper story, and more merits.
All "modern" (I5 and beyond) are designed around roughly the same standard, and that's a standard they came up with after researching what a player's average playtime is.
After the first rounds of long TFs, it became clear that people really didn't plan or even like making extensive use of the fact that you can stop a TF and pick it up later.
Longer TFs wouldn't be an issue, if they came up with a quicker way to form teams. As it stands, a big chunk of time comes just getting people together. Unless you have good timing and a busy global channel, the process usually takes 30minutes if not longer.
"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill
Quote:
Yeah - I've been on some ITFs where the recruiting took longer than the actual TF |
Originally Posted by Lemur Lad
Longer TFs wouldn't be an issue, if they came up with a quicker way to form teams. As it stands, a big chunk of time comes just getting people together. Unless you have good timing and a busy global channel, the process usually takes 30minutes if not longer.
|
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Coming_Storm
...but not EVERYONE would be doing the most effecient thing. This would also be the simplest way to diminish the merit disparity.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Coming_Storm
Not everyone does speed runs.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Coming_Storm
But you CAN by far run all the SFs in a day, which is where the merit imbalance comes from as the 1 merit / 5 minutes rule holds to both sides.
|
Besides, you can still run Ouro for merits. I think most people would prefer more content as an answer. Not something that opens up exploits.
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
Maybe all the unlockable contacts in CoV should simply be converted to SFs. That would probably help a lot.
Quote:
I've long supported this mentality. Blueside has a whole lot of mediocre content that's just sitting there waiting to get a facelift. Redside has less content but it's of a substantially higher caliber and playability.|
Originally Posted by Steampunkette
This I could get behind. Revisit a zone heroside (Perhaps Perez?) And -add- a new zone villainside.
Alter a TF, heroside (New enemy designs, different map-tiles) Create a new SF villainside. So long as -something- is going on that is comparable, though not the same, I'm fine with it. Though this is a whole other suggestion that needs to get made. -Rachel- |
Personally, just because if the only things happening blueside are revamps and no new actual content is being added, I'd want to alternate between new zones and revamped zones: every blueside alternates between revamped (like the new Positron) and new content (like the ReichsTF) while villains just keep getting new content (like the ReichsTF). Development resources are still being divided equally, both sides are improving on a roughly equal basis, and it addresses the major concerns of content on each side individually rather than attempting to address their separate concerns with the same band-aid.
Quote:
You know, I think this is something we can all agree on. Now we just need to convince the devs.
|
Originally Posted by Umbral
I've long supported this mentality. Blueside has a whole lot of mediocre content that's just sitting there waiting to get a facelift. Redside has less content but it's of a substantially higher caliber and playability.
Personally, just because if the only things happening blueside are revamps and no new actual content is being added, I'd want to alternate between new zones and revamped zones: every blueside alternates between revamped (like the new Positron) and new content (like the ReichsTF) while villains just keep getting new content (like the ReichsTF). Development resources are still being divided equally, both sides are improving on a roughly equal basis, and it addresses the major concerns of content on each side individually rather than attempting to address their separate concerns with the same band-aid. |
The Abrams is one of the most effective war machines on the planet. - R. Lee Ermy.
Q: How do you wreck an Abrams?
A: You crash into another one.
Quote:
everyone get their mind control devices and start going at it. hopefully the dev's aren't wearing tin foil hats.
|
Originally Posted by M_I_Abrahms
You know, I think this is something we can all agree on. Now we just need to convince the devs.
|
Quote:
Heck just slap a few merits on the longer unlockable story lines...
|
Originally Posted by Eiko-chan
Maybe all the unlockable contacts in CoV should simply be converted to SFs. That would probably help a lot.
|
"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill