What about removing the failure options from all STFs? That would make for a much better game what more people can enjoy, not just a select few.
I fail to see how that makes for a better game, or how more people would enjoy it.
Protecting people from the consequences of their incompetence results in a population of incompetents. If you keep failing at something, the problem is you, which means you can either change what you're doing, or continue to fail. Why should everyone else be forced to suffer their incompetence?
Well, actually what is good for the game is what makes the Majority of the customers happy, not your grand self.
How does making the existing STF's do that? If anything it's going to make more people upset, because they'll see even more PUG's go bad, because the people who don't know what they're doing now will be trying to do the other STF's.
More failed pugs is not a good thing and will make pretty much no one happy.
Adding a fail condition to ISE means people will stop simply trying to hammer though with much the same effect as trying to hammer though a wall with their head. After they fail a couple 2 or 3 times they'll start looking for why they failed. Only the truly insane or moronic will endure that kind of pain for long.
That means more successful PUG's, which will make most everyone happy.
The problem with the game is you go from braindead episode play mode where you can't fail and don't have to be awake for most of it, to elite STFs (because everyone is so awesome they don't need to do normals.)
If they made people fail episodes (and remove the skip feature), this would make the end game a whole lot better. People would be forced to engage their brain even a little bit, design a decent ship.
I logged an STF with someone from an elite stf channel last night that had 0 healing done on their ship the entire time, I didn't think it was possible. Let failures like these not past episodes until they figure out the very basics.
While I see you're point(I've had this situation before), I don't think this is the answer. I think We need to restrict ALL elite missions to VA's or Brigadier Generals, unless a private challenge is made. That way it will restrict it to a little more experienced players, or they can make a team if they want to do it before VA or Brigadier General.
" I believe that I speak for us all sir when I say: To hell with our orders." - Lt. Cmdr. Data
That way it will restrict it to a little more expired players
Considering how long it takes to get from lvl 40 to 50 in this game, doing so would accomplish pretty much nothing. You can go from 40 to 50 by doing nothing but the Doff system if you wanted to.
If they did this the most you'd see is slightly better equipment, from rewards for the PvE content, but you wouldn't see much of an improvement in the avg player.
I think We need to restrict ALL elite missions to VA's or Brigadier Generals, unless a private challenge is made. That way it will restrict it to a little more experienced players, or they can make a team if they want to do it before VA or Brigadier General.
First, Lieutenant General is the name of the KDF level 50 rank. Second, you cannot queue for Elite STFs below level 50, and that hasn't helped the problem one bit. Normal STFs are available starting at level 44, though, which is fine.
__________________________________________________
Joined January 2010.
Adding a fail condition to ISE means people will stop simply trying to hammer though with much the same effect as trying to hammer though a wall with their head. After they fail a couple 2 or 3 times they'll start looking for why they failed. Only the truly insane or moronic will endure that kind of pain for long.
That means more successful PUG's, which will make most everyone happy.
This, right here. A fail condition in ISE would, after a couple of tries with no reward, but instead the punishment of an hour cooldown, cause people to try to figure out why they weren't getting their rewards and learn how to play the mission to succeed. It would drastically cut down on the blind flailing about that currently happens occasionally in ISE.
Basically, right now in ISE there is one behavioral condition - positive reward. Adding negative punishment (removing the reward on failure), positive punishment (inflicting the STF cooldown with no reward on failure), and positive reward (granting the reward on success) would create a much stronger behavioral incentive for players to improve. People intrinsically want to avoid punishment and earn rewards, which is why ISE is in the state that it is - there is no punishment, only reward.
__________________________________________________
Joined January 2010.
What if they put in a built in a forced tutorial for the first time they play each STF, a total walkthrough, no more than 5~10 mins. Then they can replay the tutorial if they wish to
" I believe that I speak for us all sir when I say: To hell with our orders." - Lt. Cmdr. Data
Here is why I cannot agree with leaver penalties on ISE or KASE, well, any ESTF, in the event of mission failure. Only for the first 2 leavers. After that anyone should be able to leave and go on playing.
In more than 2000 ESTFs, ground and space (I like ground) I have not seen a failed ISE and only a handful of failed ISE optionals. Yesterday was the exception. Two really good players, three obvious new players. One of them a total git railing at how impossibly unfair Cryptic was in designing such "impossible" missions. The optional was blown in the right side, there was obviously not enough DPS or survival skills. Train wreck. We tried to coordinate things and were promptly told "its not me". As the noobs leave and get their well deserved leaver penalties the semi experienced captain and I try to finish things.
There is no way the last 2 in this situation deserve a leaver penalty or 0 reward for the time we put in. His tank and my TorKaht died repeatedly and often. This was supposed to be a quick ESTF to get my last 5 OM for my Adapted set. It went on 35 minutes.
Player and forumite formerly known as FEELTHETHUNDER
Comments
Protecting people from the consequences of their incompetence results in a population of incompetents. If you keep failing at something, the problem is you, which means you can either change what you're doing, or continue to fail. Why should everyone else be forced to suffer their incompetence?
How does making the existing STF's do that? If anything it's going to make more people upset, because they'll see even more PUG's go bad, because the people who don't know what they're doing now will be trying to do the other STF's.
More failed pugs is not a good thing and will make pretty much no one happy.
Adding a fail condition to ISE means people will stop simply trying to hammer though with much the same effect as trying to hammer though a wall with their head. After they fail a couple 2 or 3 times they'll start looking for why they failed. Only the truly insane or moronic will endure that kind of pain for long.
That means more successful PUG's, which will make most everyone happy.
If they made people fail episodes (and remove the skip feature), this would make the end game a whole lot better. People would be forced to engage their brain even a little bit, design a decent ship.
I logged an STF with someone from an elite stf channel last night that had 0 healing done on their ship the entire time, I didn't think it was possible. Let failures like these not past episodes until they figure out the very basics.
Completed Starbase, Embassy, Mine, Spire and No Win Scenario
Nothing to do anymore.
http://dtfleet.com/
Visit our Youtube channel
Considering how long it takes to get from lvl 40 to 50 in this game, doing so would accomplish pretty much nothing. You can go from 40 to 50 by doing nothing but the Doff system if you wanted to.
If they did this the most you'd see is slightly better equipment, from rewards for the PvE content, but you wouldn't see much of an improvement in the avg player.
First, Lieutenant General is the name of the KDF level 50 rank. Second, you cannot queue for Elite STFs below level 50, and that hasn't helped the problem one bit. Normal STFs are available starting at level 44, though, which is fine.
Joined January 2010.
In regard to hating Star Trek 2009:
This, right here. A fail condition in ISE would, after a couple of tries with no reward, but instead the punishment of an hour cooldown, cause people to try to figure out why they weren't getting their rewards and learn how to play the mission to succeed. It would drastically cut down on the blind flailing about that currently happens occasionally in ISE.
Basically, right now in ISE there is one behavioral condition - positive reward. Adding negative punishment (removing the reward on failure), positive punishment (inflicting the STF cooldown with no reward on failure), and positive reward (granting the reward on success) would create a much stronger behavioral incentive for players to improve. People intrinsically want to avoid punishment and earn rewards, which is why ISE is in the state that it is - there is no punishment, only reward.
Joined January 2010.
In regard to hating Star Trek 2009:
In more than 2000 ESTFs, ground and space (I like ground) I have not seen a failed ISE and only a handful of failed ISE optionals. Yesterday was the exception. Two really good players, three obvious new players. One of them a total git railing at how impossibly unfair Cryptic was in designing such "impossible" missions. The optional was blown in the right side, there was obviously not enough DPS or survival skills. Train wreck. We tried to coordinate things and were promptly told "its not me". As the noobs leave and get their well deserved leaver penalties the semi experienced captain and I try to finish things.
There is no way the last 2 in this situation deserve a leaver penalty or 0 reward for the time we put in. His tank and my TorKaht died repeatedly and often. This was supposed to be a quick ESTF to get my last 5 OM for my Adapted set. It went on 35 minutes.
Player and forumite formerly known as FEELTHETHUNDER
Expatriot Might Characters in EXILE