I think with all the negativity surrounding this change, it would have been a better idea to leave the old version in place as it was and add this new updated version along side it so players could have a choice between the two.
The game could really use more new content. It would be better for everyone if the designers focus more on adding new queues, rather than changing already established well liked ones.
Well, I might agree that they could've kept the 'old' version, but demoted it to 'Normal' queue. I mean, it was in no way worthy of being classified as 'Advanced' content being as preposterously easy as it was.
Yeah, setting the old version as 5-man content might have helped, but it'd have still been stupidly easy.
I think with all the negativity surrounding this change, it would have been a better idea to leave the old version in place as it was and add this new updated version along side it so players could have a choice between the two.
The game could really use more new content. It would be better for everyone if the designers focus more on adding new queues, rather than changing already established well liked ones.
Because that would split the CC population and given the pretty monumental imbalance in reward/effort ratio (see. most discussions RE. CCA . Note that feedback didn't start with these changes and that the voices here by no means represents the interests of the population as expressed variously over time [both explicitly and implicitly through statistics]) that would have disproportionately favor the old version to the point of absolutely undermining the changes which addressed (among other things) that reward imbalance (a rather easily quantifiable aspect that fails the standards we can assume Cryptic has for queue design) given standard grinding tendencies.
Ie. having both would have been a hobbled half-step that would have only favored one camp. It wouldn't have been an equitable compromise. See. previous suggestion of DPS benchmark patrols over advanced TFO's for a more consistent example of what a compromise would probably look like (ie. have something in the game that could fulfill the role that CCA had for some people but without the unbalancing impacts it had on the TFO system, specifically, and quantifiably lacking gameplay for its class of activity [see. <1 minute runs. At that level it's a fairly binary case of "it needed more."])
Sorry for the misunderstanding. To clarify, I wasn't actually asking for your personal opinions on why they did it, I was just making a statement. So I apologize if the wording of my statement caused you to misconstrue it as a question.
Also there is some flawed logic here on your part in the bolded. Having two versions doesn't cater to only one camp. It keeps both camps happy which was the point of my statement.
I think with all the negativity surrounding this change, it would have been a better idea to leave the old version in place as it was and add this new updated version along side it so players could have a choice between the two.
The game could really use more new content. It would be better for everyone if the designers focus more on adding new queues, rather than changing already established well liked ones.
Because that would split the CC population and given the pretty monumental imbalance in reward/effort ratio (see. most discussions RE. CCA . Note that feedback didn't start with these changes and that the voices here by no means represents the interests of the population as expressed variously over time [both explicitly and implicitly through statistics]) that would have disproportionately favor the old version to the point of absolutely undermining the changes which addressed (among other things) that reward imbalance (a rather easily quantifiable aspect that fails the standards we can assume Cryptic has for queue design) given standard grinding tendencies.
Ie. having both would have been a hobbled half-step that would have only favored one camp. It wouldn't have been an equitable compromise. See. previous suggestion of DPS benchmark patrols over advanced TFO's for a more consistent example of what a compromise would probably look like (ie. have something in the game that could fulfill the role that CCA had for some people but without the unbalancing impacts it had on the TFO system, specifically, and quantifiably lacking gameplay for its class of activity [see. <1 minute runs. At that level it's a fairly binary case of "it needed more."])
Sorry for the misunderstanding. To clarify, I wasn't actually asking you for your personal opinions on why they changed it, I was just making a statement. I apologize if the wording of my post caused you to misconstrue it as a question.
To the bolded, there is some flawed logic there, having both versions would have catered to both camps not one, which was the point of my statement.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Comments
My character Tsin'xing
Also there is some flawed logic here on your part in the bolded. Having two versions doesn't cater to only one camp. It keeps both camps happy which was the point of my statement.
To the bolded, there is some flawed logic there, having both versions would have catered to both camps not one, which was the point of my statement.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch