Oh yeah, great idea. Some players are bad at mission, so make the mission harder. That'll make them better at it. :rolleyes:
And for the people who need it spelled out, yes that was sarcasm.
It's not necessarily making the mission harder, just making it like both KASE and CSE already are - setting up a hard limit to let groups know that maybe, just maybe, they need to use some strategy or gear up some more for Elites instead of fighting an endless losing battle. Failing the mission and getting no reward can go a long way toward waking obstinate players up to their predicament.
Here's a counter-proposal. If you're going to enter a pug STF, it's your responsibility to prepare for the occasional problems, not expect to be given an experienced team on a plate. If you ignore this responsibility and bail when it turns out everyone else did the same, you deserve your leaver penalty.
So... I should plan to be able to tank and DPS eight to ten spheres by myself every time I decide to PUG ISE? I can't reasonably expect that one other player in an ELITE mission might have an understanding of how the mission works? No, it's everyone's responsibility to either play the mission on normal once or twice, or read the strategies for it before hopping in on Elite. I maintain that Elites can be done in literally any level 40 or higher gear, but you have to have some idea of what's going on. I come equipped to do my part as part of a team, and maybe make up for one or two AFKers, not carry four other people.
Next time, bring a ship that can solo a few spheres (it's not that hard), and there won't be a problem. Telling your teammates they need to kill the spheres first, instead of ragequitting when they don't know, might also be useful.
The optional is only 15 omega marks. Anyone who quits over that deserves their penalty.
In regard to the first sentence, see my above paragraph. It sounds like ironmako has tried, numerous times, to tell people what he'd like them to be helping with in an ESTF, and found that players either close Team chat or simply ignore it. It's tough to communicate with people when it's a one-way street.
Lastly, this thread isn't about the optional. Sure, the optional was blown when he warped in, but he was willing to give it the proverbial college try to complete the core mission. This thread is about the rest of his team being too dumb to realize that they were literally never going to succeed at the mission, but just sitting there and beating their heads against the wall because the mission has no fail criteria.
All of that aside, these are supposed to be the Elite STFs. I would have absolutely no problem with them being a little bit harder than they are, since they can currently be facerolled in reasonable level 50 gear, and can be completed without too much difficulty in level 40 common quality gear. There is no real challenge in ESTFs, as long as people understand the basics of what's going on in the mission... but, on ISE at least, an idiot team could keep grinding away at it indefinitely with no indication that they're failing it. There's nothing wrong with suggesting a failure criteria here.
__________________________________________________
Joined January 2010.
Then ALL the PUG Conduit missions will fail as they are inhabited by swarms of Idiots.
The whole point of having an actual fail condition would be to weed out the idiots. They'd either stop doing it or start doing it the right way if they realized that they weren't getting any rewards for doing it the wrong way. As it stands, they're often rewarded for doing it the wrong way, so there's no incentive to learn to do it the right way... remove the reward for doing things the wrong way, and people will do what it takes to get their reward.
__________________________________________________
Joined January 2010.
Crytpic already has a solution its called join a Fleet.
A fleet that has enough active members to do only privates.
If your fleet is tiny and doesnt have enough work with a bigger fleet then.
Use a channel to communicate even.
Our fleet has a TeamSpeak server and enough actives for privates.
Im sure we are not the only fleet that does only privates.
We are not playing with people who dont have clue for a reason.
Your not going to change people, so you need to change and protect yourself.
If you want to join us we have room for more on the TeamSpeak server.
The whole point of having an actual fail condition would be to weed out the idiots. They'd either stop doing it or start doing it the right way if they realized that they weren't getting any rewards for doing it the wrong way. As it stands, they're often rewarded for doing it the wrong way, so there's no incentive to learn to do it the right way... remove the reward for doing things the wrong way, and people will do what it takes to get their reward.
If you believe that, why were you not weeded out yourself? :cool:
I have met too many pugs in KASE to believe your naive and utterly unrealistic little proposal.
Anybody who wants to make ISE harder would just make the situation worse.
To quote James Rolfe, "What were they thinking?"
Let us wear Swimsuits on Foundry maps or bridges please! I would pay zen for that.
I think you are granting them too much intelligence.
They will continue to operate as they do now as they are not concerned about the Optional.
This will just ruin it for the people who know what they are doing.
They will most certainly not continue as they are now if, instead of bashing on a transformer for fifteen minutes and wondering why it won't die, they get a "Mission Failed" notification and get booted back to Sector Space (or wherever they came from). That's why there are so many fewer people in KASE and CSE who don't know the strategies... you can actually fail the overall mission and get nothing but an hour cooldown for your time.
How would it ruin things for people who know what they're doing any more than a terrible team that won't help with the necessary objectives already does? Working with a team like that either takes an inordinate amount of time, or grants you no reward as it stands anyway. Adding a failure condition would just make them realize that.
I don't understand your remark about people not being concerned about the optional; of course they're not - if they can do the mission badly and still get the bulk of the reward, what difference does 15 Marks make? They're still being rewarded in the end for doing badly. That reward, for the overall mission, is what's encouraging bad play. Eliminate it, and you'll drastically reduce the bad play.
__________________________________________________
Joined January 2010.
Crytpic already has a solution its called join a Fleet.
A fleet that has enough active members to do only privates.
If your fleet is tiny and doesnt have enough work with a bigger fleet then.
Use a channel to communicate even.
IMO this isn't the solution. The solution is using one of the chat channels dedicated to people who know how to do STFs looking for a team. You can always get a team within a few minutes - it's why I haven't run a PUG in over 6 months, and if memory serves, haven't failed an optional since then either.
Frankly I think all the ESTFs need a bit of a buff, giving certain things more hull, because with all the more powerful weapons and passives we've all gotten over the past year - they've become laughably easy (for the people that have been running them for several months) The damage stuff does (now that they've reduced torp crits) seems to be about perfect, but everything is way too squishy.
If you believe that, why were you not weeded out yourself? :cool:
Maybe because I've been playing since beta and actually know how the STFs work, having been through more than one version of the system. That, and I actually read the strategies for them when I came back to the game after a hiatus, BEFORE queueing for an ESTF. In short, I know enough to be a productive member of my team and actually make progress toward the optionals and mission objectives.
I have met too many pugs in KASE to believe your naive and utterly unrealistic little proposal.
Anybody who wants to make ISE harder would just make the situation worse.
I almost exclusively PUG on my Federation characters because I haven't found a fleet that I like Fed side. Across five level 50 Fed characters, I think I've actually gotten a "Mission Failed" notification on KASE a total of two times. It takes a whole lot of terrible to let 10 probes through the portal. Same with CSE - all it takes to defend the Kang is one decent player protecting it. The only mission that I've had to quit out of due to team incompetence is ISE. No one's proposing making it significantly harder than it currently is, just bringing it up to par with the other two commonly run ESTFs. Are you saying that KASE and CSE are too hard?
__________________________________________________
Joined January 2010.
Ah, another person living in a fantasy that wants to ruin things for everybody.
Are these people totally unable to realise that this would FORCE people to play only with Fleet members?
The no fail condition is the only thing that allows people to still at least partly avert the catastrophe. Take that away, and the STF may as well be removed from the game like the Terradome stuff.
Yes, KASE and CSE are much harder. Removing the fail conditions would make me play them, but right now I got fed up with nobody giving a damn about healing the Kang or stopping those probes beside me and I just hope Cryptic is not stupid enough to consider such a proposal, for it belongs in the trash bin.
Let us wear Swimsuits on Foundry maps or bridges please! I would pay zen for that.
Are these people totally unable to realise that this would FORCE people to play only with Fleet members?
Why is that so horrible? Also there's chat chan's and other ways to get a team together to do STF's.
Take that away, and the STF may as well be removed from the game like the Terradome stuff.
As long as there's the normal versions that don't have a fail option, I fail to see how this is a problem. If a group of people can't make it though ISE then there's nothing wrong with them doing the normal version.
IMO this isn't the solution. The solution is using one of the chat channels dedicated to people who know how to do STFs looking for a team. You can always get a team within a few minutes - it's why I haven't run a PUG in over 6 months, and if memory serves, haven't failed an optional since then either.
Frankly I think all the ESTFs need a bit of a buff, giving certain things more hull, because with all the more powerful weapons and passives we've all gotten over the past year - they've become laughably easy (for the people that have been running them for several months) The damage stuff does (now that they've reduced torp crits) seems to be about perfect, but everything is way too squishy.
I'll agree that the ESTF global channels are a good resource, but not everyone knows about them. Fleets, on the other hand, are easy to access and are pretty obvious to anyone who's ever played an MMO. Both are good solutions to bad groups, though.
Overall, I agree with ESTFs needing a bit of a buff in general, but I think that they need to be a bit more strategic/smart than just adding more HP. Also, I (and other people have reported this, too) have been hit by Heavy Torps in ESTF for 90k through shields - I know that getting hit by a Heavy is my own fault, but it would be nice if they were maybe just a -little- less instantly fatal.
__________________________________________________
Joined January 2010.
Why is that so horrible? Also there's chat chan's and other ways to get a team together to do STF's.
As long as there's the normal versions that don't have a fail option, I fail to see how this is a problem. If a group of people can't make it though ISE then there's nothing wrong with them doing the normal version.
I... I am speechless.
It is horrible because what if there are not enough fleet members? Did that ever reach your brain?
And non elite STFs are just not worth doing. They give almost NO reward at all.
Let us wear Swimsuits on Foundry maps or bridges please! I would pay zen for that.
I'm sure some of you will remember a previous thread of mine which was closed because of flamers (glad the Mods spotted it) Well i have another issue with STF. Same game, different issue.
So this morning, I Quick joined a Conduit Elite STF mission, and when i joined, i noticed that the match was not only already half way through, but the optional was already failed. It was an embarrassing sight, noob fed ships (they really were) flying around a Transformer with the ever continuous swarms of nanite spheres coming out. i tried to battle if out, but then i realised it was me vs all the nanite spheres. The other ships actually tried to pointlessly kill the transformer whilst i was occupied but that didn't work obviously.
I could see that i was going to be in this game for a looooong time, so i decided to quit (like the players before me obviously did) and i get a leaver penalty.
Now rather than rage, i had an idea. Initially, most of you would think this is a really bad idea, but i will explain my reasoning.
I have observed that noobs in STF elites are rife in "The Conduit Elite", but on other STF's like "The Vortex" and "The Hive", the appearance of noobs is minimal. So here is my idea:
Change the gameplay of "The Conduit Elite", so if one Nanite sphere makes its repair connection with a transformer, then the mission is FAILED. No optional, no second chance, just straight failed.
My reasoning behind my idea is this: Noobs are scared of Tac cube onslaughts, so they avoid The Hive mission, They avoid The Vortex, cos you have to have a quick and powerful ships to tackle the cubes, the probes, and Donatra. 10 probes get through, its game over.
The Elite missions on other games in STF seem to be geared towards Elite more than the Conduit is, and i think this is the issue.
So i think the "The Conduit Elite" should be altered to be orientated to get the transformers blown as quickly as possible (or with the 10% rule whichever you prefer), if not, and the nanite spheres get through, then the mission is over. The Normal version of The Conduit, can keep its format, for the Noobs to have something to do.
Some may call it elitist (which is ironic as the subject is about Elite STF's) but there is a reason why there is "normal" and "Elite". It is to allow the veterans a challenging, and equally rewarding match. It is not for noobs to try out their training wheels.
So what do you guys think?
Have you ever done ground STFs? They are also full of noobs and this is bad idea since you are filtering by events rather than being systematic about it.
Thanks for reviving this thread but Dstahl already mentioned a fix on the way...either something like a penalty similar to forum violation or reward-based allocation on activity would be better choices to control AFKs and noobs in STFs
Ah, another person living in a fantasy that wants to ruin things for everybody.
Are these people totally unable to realise that this would FORCE people to play only with Fleet members?
The no fail condition is the only thing that allows people to still at least partly avert the catastrophe. Take that away, and the STF may as well be removed from the game like the Terradome stuff.
Yes, KASE and CSE are much harder. Removing the fail conditions would make me play them, but right now I got fed up with nobody giving a damn about healing the Kang or stopping those probes beside me and I just hope Cryptic is not stupid enough to consider such a proposal, for it belongs in the trash bin.
KASE and CSE are completely PUG-able, and I do both of them that way multiple times a day. Seriously, they're easy. If you run into a team that doesn't have someone killing probes... do it yourself. Almost any ship and build can handle probe duty well enough to keep 10 from getting through. I can honestly say that I have almost never played a CSE (even PUGing) where the Kang took hull damage at all, much less needed to be healed to avoid failing the mission. KASE and CSE are tuned just fine, or perhaps a bit weak, for content that's branded Elite.
I could just be getting lucky with my PUGs, but my sample size is large enough at this point for me to sincerely doubt that that's the case.
Why is that so horrible? Also there's chat chan's and other ways to get a team together to do STF's.
As long as there's the normal versions that don't have a fail option, I fail to see how this is a problem. If a group of people can't make it though ISE then there's nothing wrong with them doing the normal version.
I agree with this post wholeheartedly - if a group flat-out isn't up to Elites, there's normal mode there.
__________________________________________________
Joined January 2010.
It is horrible because what if there are not enough fleet members? Did that ever reach your brain?
With an attitude like that, I can see why you have trouble finding enough people to play with.
There's all the other ways to find people who actually know what they are doing that you can team up with... But I guess that's too much effort for you to bother with right? It's pretty clear you just want to project your only method of grinding the system with no real risk.
And non elite STFs are just not worth doing. They give almost NO reward at all.
If people can't do the elite versions then they shouldn't be getting as much reward. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that, but considering how everything else has been too hard for you to comprehend, I guess this just another one of those things.
It is horrible because what if there are not enough fleet members? Did that ever reach your brain?
And non elite STFs are just not worth doing. They give almost NO reward at all.
I'm speechless that you apparently get all of your Omega marks from running ISE and Defera.
And that you missed the suggestion of using any one of the numerous global chat channels that are devoted to running ESTFs with other people who know what they're doing to find a group that can actually complete the mission, with the optional, in a reasonable amount of time.
__________________________________________________
Joined January 2010.
I just pray to Q that Cryptic knows better then to listen to this kind of mental diarrhea.
I'm sure they'll pay as much attention to your posts as they're worth... I wouldn't of gone with mental diarrhea, but considering everything else you've said I guess that the term fits.
Have you ever done ground STFs? They are also full of noobs and this is bad idea since you are filtering by events rather than being systematic about it.
Thanks for reviving this thread but Dstahl already mentioned a fix on the way...either something like a penalty similar to forum violation or reward-based allocation on activity would be better choices to control AFKs and noobs in STFs
I tend to avoid ground ESTFs (because I'm not geared enough on some of my characters, because I'm so-so about liking ground combat anyway, and/or because I'm sick of failing objectives/devoting way too much time in them), but I know what you mean in that regard.
Dstahl's fix for AFKers, which is what the questions that he's been addressing have typically asked about, would not help with terrible groups as described in the OP. The players that were described were engaging in plenty of ostensibly mission-relevant activity, they just weren't doing in a way that would eventually complete the mission. I truly doubt that there would be a reasonable way for the system to parse out productive mission-relevant activity versus non-productive, but still mission-relevant activity.
I still say that there's absolutely nothing wrong with making ISE match KASE and CSE in terms of actually having a possibility of failure.
__________________________________________________
Joined January 2010.
Cryptic won't do it, because it would make another rage thread like the Fleet mark removal from Investigate officers.
If it's good for the goose (KASE and CSE), it should be good for the gander (ISE).
The rage about the FM/Foundry issue was just a misguided reading comprehension failure, since Cryptic said that they were rebalancing FM rewards to favor group content and people either missed that point, or didn't believe that Cryptic was going to follow through on it. That was a change that, despite generating a lot of silly forum rage, was a good change for the game and moved it in a positive direction.
My point being - just because something causes tears on the forum doesn't mean that it's a bad change for the game. People don't like change in general, and MMO forums are notorious for always finding something to complain about.
__________________________________________________
Joined January 2010.
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.
ESTFs, even KASE and CSE, are currently accessible to anyone at level 50, can be completed successfully in level 40 gear, and are easy enough to PUG with a (in my experience) >99% chance of success.
Making Elite content easier is not the right path here.
__________________________________________________
Joined January 2010.
Simplest fix that would resolve 99% of these problems is make team chat beep like a /tell, and/or have it fly over like the dumb lockbox opening messages. That way new players could be easily coached into doing what needs to be done. I've helped many players figure out, and held out past the failed optional to finish, so that new people can learn how to play. Only ever had to quit a pug ISE once, but that was after it was down to three of us and the tac cube, and it regenerated 2x to 100%, and I wasn't getting any responses to team chat.
Simplest fix that would resolve 99% of these problems is make team chat beep like a /tell, and/or have it fly over like the dumb lockbox opening messages. That way new players could be easily coached into doing what needs to be done. I've helped many players figure out, and held out past the failed optional to finish, so that new people can learn how to play. Only ever had to quit a pug ISE once, but that was after it was down to three of us and the tac cube, and it regenerated 2x to 100%, and I wasn't getting any responses to team chat.
Now that is a good idea. Or either make team chat un-closable, as someone already mentioned. Or both.
Let us wear Swimsuits on Foundry maps or bridges please! I would pay zen for that.
I'm sure some of you will remember a previous thread of mine which was closed because of flamers (glad the Mods spotted it) Well i have another issue with STF. Same game, different issue.
So this morning, I Quick joined a Conduit Elite STF mission, and when i joined, i noticed that the match was not only already half way through, but the optional was already failed. It was an embarrassing sight, noob fed ships (they really were) flying around a Transformer with the ever continuous swarms of nanite spheres coming out. i tried to battle if out, but then i realised it was me vs all the nanite spheres. The other ships actually tried to pointlessly kill the transformer whilst i was occupied but that didn't work obviously.
I could see that i was going to be in this game for a looooong time, so i decided to quit (like the players before me obviously did) and i get a leaver penalty.
Now rather than rage, i had an idea. Initially, most of you would think this is a really bad idea, but i will explain my reasoning.
I have observed that noobs in STF elites are rife in "The Conduit Elite", but on other STF's like "The Vortex" and "The Hive", the appearance of noobs is minimal. So here is my idea:
Change the gameplay of "The Conduit Elite", so if one Nanite sphere makes its repair connection with a transformer, then the mission is FAILED. No optional, no second chance, just straight failed.
My reasoning behind my idea is this: Noobs are scared of Tac cube onslaughts, so they avoid The Hive mission, They avoid The Vortex, cos you have to have a quick and powerful ships to tackle the cubes, the probes, and Donatra. 10 probes get through, its game over.
The Elite missions on other games in STF seem to be geared towards Elite more than the Conduit is, and i think this is the issue.
So i think the "The Conduit Elite" should be altered to be orientated to get the transformers blown as quickly as possible (or with the 10% rule whichever you prefer), if not, and the nanite spheres get through, then the mission is over. The Normal version of The Conduit, can keep its format, for the Noobs to have something to do.
Some may call it elitist (which is ironic as the subject is about Elite STF's) but there is a reason why there is "normal" and "Elite". It is to allow the veterans a challenging, and equally rewarding match. It is not for noobs to try out their training wheels.
So what do you guys think?
An hour penalty or an hour with some noobs teaching them and 60 marks is a no brainer for me!!
Comments
It's not necessarily making the mission harder, just making it like both KASE and CSE already are - setting up a hard limit to let groups know that maybe, just maybe, they need to use some strategy or gear up some more for Elites instead of fighting an endless losing battle. Failing the mission and getting no reward can go a long way toward waking obstinate players up to their predicament.
So... I should plan to be able to tank and DPS eight to ten spheres by myself every time I decide to PUG ISE? I can't reasonably expect that one other player in an ELITE mission might have an understanding of how the mission works? No, it's everyone's responsibility to either play the mission on normal once or twice, or read the strategies for it before hopping in on Elite. I maintain that Elites can be done in literally any level 40 or higher gear, but you have to have some idea of what's going on. I come equipped to do my part as part of a team, and maybe make up for one or two AFKers, not carry four other people.
In regard to the first sentence, see my above paragraph. It sounds like ironmako has tried, numerous times, to tell people what he'd like them to be helping with in an ESTF, and found that players either close Team chat or simply ignore it. It's tough to communicate with people when it's a one-way street.
Lastly, this thread isn't about the optional. Sure, the optional was blown when he warped in, but he was willing to give it the proverbial college try to complete the core mission. This thread is about the rest of his team being too dumb to realize that they were literally never going to succeed at the mission, but just sitting there and beating their heads against the wall because the mission has no fail criteria.
All of that aside, these are supposed to be the Elite STFs. I would have absolutely no problem with them being a little bit harder than they are, since they can currently be facerolled in reasonable level 50 gear, and can be completed without too much difficulty in level 40 common quality gear. There is no real challenge in ESTFs, as long as people understand the basics of what's going on in the mission... but, on ISE at least, an idiot team could keep grinding away at it indefinitely with no indication that they're failing it. There's nothing wrong with suggesting a failure criteria here.
Joined January 2010.
In regard to hating Star Trek 2009:
Then ALL the PUG Conduit missions will fail as they are inhabited by swarms of aggressively untrainable people.
Why let them continuously ruin it for everyone else.
The Ops suggestion would actually make the current situation worse not better.
Simply make passing the "Optional" in a Normal version of the STF mandatory to join an Elite one.
This should be no biggy as I have to pass the Optional for ALL the STFs for a few uniform bits in the Tailor. (Talk about Elitist)
The whole point of having an actual fail condition would be to weed out the idiots. They'd either stop doing it or start doing it the right way if they realized that they weren't getting any rewards for doing it the wrong way. As it stands, they're often rewarded for doing it the wrong way, so there's no incentive to learn to do it the right way... remove the reward for doing things the wrong way, and people will do what it takes to get their reward.
Joined January 2010.
In regard to hating Star Trek 2009:
They will continue to operate as they do now as they are not concerned about the Optional.
This will just ruin it for the people who know what they are doing.
A fleet that has enough active members to do only privates.
If your fleet is tiny and doesnt have enough work with a bigger fleet then.
Use a channel to communicate even.
Our fleet has a TeamSpeak server and enough actives for privates.
Im sure we are not the only fleet that does only privates.
We are not playing with people who dont have clue for a reason.
Your not going to change people, so you need to change and protect yourself.
If you want to join us we have room for more on the TeamSpeak server.
If you believe that, why were you not weeded out yourself? :cool:
I have met too many pugs in KASE to believe your naive and utterly unrealistic little proposal.
Anybody who wants to make ISE harder would just make the situation worse.
To quote James Rolfe, "What were they thinking?"
They will most certainly not continue as they are now if, instead of bashing on a transformer for fifteen minutes and wondering why it won't die, they get a "Mission Failed" notification and get booted back to Sector Space (or wherever they came from). That's why there are so many fewer people in KASE and CSE who don't know the strategies... you can actually fail the overall mission and get nothing but an hour cooldown for your time.
How would it ruin things for people who know what they're doing any more than a terrible team that won't help with the necessary objectives already does? Working with a team like that either takes an inordinate amount of time, or grants you no reward as it stands anyway. Adding a failure condition would just make them realize that.
I don't understand your remark about people not being concerned about the optional; of course they're not - if they can do the mission badly and still get the bulk of the reward, what difference does 15 Marks make? They're still being rewarded in the end for doing badly. That reward, for the overall mission, is what's encouraging bad play. Eliminate it, and you'll drastically reduce the bad play.
Joined January 2010.
In regard to hating Star Trek 2009:
IMO this isn't the solution. The solution is using one of the chat channels dedicated to people who know how to do STFs looking for a team. You can always get a team within a few minutes - it's why I haven't run a PUG in over 6 months, and if memory serves, haven't failed an optional since then either.
Frankly I think all the ESTFs need a bit of a buff, giving certain things more hull, because with all the more powerful weapons and passives we've all gotten over the past year - they've become laughably easy (for the people that have been running them for several months) The damage stuff does (now that they've reduced torp crits) seems to be about perfect, but everything is way too squishy.
Kirk's Protege.
How in the world would making the Elite ISE harder make things worse? Other then perhaps pushing the bad PUGs out into other elite STF's.
Maybe because I've been playing since beta and actually know how the STFs work, having been through more than one version of the system. That, and I actually read the strategies for them when I came back to the game after a hiatus, BEFORE queueing for an ESTF. In short, I know enough to be a productive member of my team and actually make progress toward the optionals and mission objectives.
I almost exclusively PUG on my Federation characters because I haven't found a fleet that I like Fed side. Across five level 50 Fed characters, I think I've actually gotten a "Mission Failed" notification on KASE a total of two times. It takes a whole lot of terrible to let 10 probes through the portal. Same with CSE - all it takes to defend the Kang is one decent player protecting it. The only mission that I've had to quit out of due to team incompetence is ISE. No one's proposing making it significantly harder than it currently is, just bringing it up to par with the other two commonly run ESTFs. Are you saying that KASE and CSE are too hard?
Joined January 2010.
In regard to hating Star Trek 2009:
Are these people totally unable to realise that this would FORCE people to play only with Fleet members?
The no fail condition is the only thing that allows people to still at least partly avert the catastrophe. Take that away, and the STF may as well be removed from the game like the Terradome stuff.
Yes, KASE and CSE are much harder. Removing the fail conditions would make me play them, but right now I got fed up with nobody giving a damn about healing the Kang or stopping those probes beside me and I just hope Cryptic is not stupid enough to consider such a proposal, for it belongs in the trash bin.
Why is that so horrible? Also there's chat chan's and other ways to get a team together to do STF's.
As long as there's the normal versions that don't have a fail option, I fail to see how this is a problem. If a group of people can't make it though ISE then there's nothing wrong with them doing the normal version.
I'll agree that the ESTF global channels are a good resource, but not everyone knows about them. Fleets, on the other hand, are easy to access and are pretty obvious to anyone who's ever played an MMO. Both are good solutions to bad groups, though.
Overall, I agree with ESTFs needing a bit of a buff in general, but I think that they need to be a bit more strategic/smart than just adding more HP. Also, I (and other people have reported this, too) have been hit by Heavy Torps in ESTF for 90k through shields - I know that getting hit by a Heavy is my own fault, but it would be nice if they were maybe just a -little- less instantly fatal.
Joined January 2010.
In regard to hating Star Trek 2009:
I... I am speechless.
It is horrible because what if there are not enough fleet members? Did that ever reach your brain?
And non elite STFs are just not worth doing. They give almost NO reward at all.
Have you ever done ground STFs? They are also full of noobs and this is bad idea since you are filtering by events rather than being systematic about it.
Thanks for reviving this thread but Dstahl already mentioned a fix on the way...either something like a penalty similar to forum violation or reward-based allocation on activity would be better choices to control AFKs and noobs in STFs
KASE and CSE are completely PUG-able, and I do both of them that way multiple times a day. Seriously, they're easy. If you run into a team that doesn't have someone killing probes... do it yourself. Almost any ship and build can handle probe duty well enough to keep 10 from getting through. I can honestly say that I have almost never played a CSE (even PUGing) where the Kang took hull damage at all, much less needed to be healed to avoid failing the mission. KASE and CSE are tuned just fine, or perhaps a bit weak, for content that's branded Elite.
I could just be getting lucky with my PUGs, but my sample size is large enough at this point for me to sincerely doubt that that's the case.
I agree with this post wholeheartedly - if a group flat-out isn't up to Elites, there's normal mode there.
Joined January 2010.
In regard to hating Star Trek 2009:
With an attitude like that, I can see why you have trouble finding enough people to play with.
There's all the other ways to find people who actually know what they are doing that you can team up with... But I guess that's too much effort for you to bother with right? It's pretty clear you just want to project your only method of grinding the system with no real risk.
If people can't do the elite versions then they shouldn't be getting as much reward. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that, but considering how everything else has been too hard for you to comprehend, I guess this just another one of those things.
I'm speechless that you apparently get all of your Omega marks from running ISE and Defera.
And that you missed the suggestion of using any one of the numerous global chat channels that are devoted to running ESTFs with other people who know what they're doing to find a group that can actually complete the mission, with the optional, in a reasonable amount of time.
Joined January 2010.
In regard to hating Star Trek 2009:
I'm sure they'll pay as much attention to your posts as they're worth... I wouldn't of gone with mental diarrhea, but considering everything else you've said I guess that the term fits.
Cryptic won't do it, because it would make another rage thread like the Fleet mark removal from Investigate officers.
I tend to avoid ground ESTFs (because I'm not geared enough on some of my characters, because I'm so-so about liking ground combat anyway, and/or because I'm sick of failing objectives/devoting way too much time in them), but I know what you mean in that regard.
Dstahl's fix for AFKers, which is what the questions that he's been addressing have typically asked about, would not help with terrible groups as described in the OP. The players that were described were engaging in plenty of ostensibly mission-relevant activity, they just weren't doing in a way that would eventually complete the mission. I truly doubt that there would be a reasonable way for the system to parse out productive mission-relevant activity versus non-productive, but still mission-relevant activity.
I still say that there's absolutely nothing wrong with making ISE match KASE and CSE in terms of actually having a possibility of failure.
Joined January 2010.
In regard to hating Star Trek 2009:
If it's good for the goose (KASE and CSE), it should be good for the gander (ISE).
The rage about the FM/Foundry issue was just a misguided reading comprehension failure, since Cryptic said that they were rebalancing FM rewards to favor group content and people either missed that point, or didn't believe that Cryptic was going to follow through on it. That was a change that, despite generating a lot of silly forum rage, was a good change for the game and moved it in a positive direction.
My point being - just because something causes tears on the forum doesn't mean that it's a bad change for the game. People don't like change in general, and MMO forums are notorious for always finding something to complain about.
Joined January 2010.
In regard to hating Star Trek 2009:
ESTFs, even KASE and CSE, are currently accessible to anyone at level 50, can be completed successfully in level 40 gear, and are easy enough to PUG with a (in my experience) >99% chance of success.
Making Elite content easier is not the right path here.
Joined January 2010.
In regard to hating Star Trek 2009:
And the rage was because the other Fleet Mark sources were not added at the same time as the Investigations were changed.
Now that is a good idea. Or either make team chat un-closable, as someone already mentioned. Or both.
An hour penalty or an hour with some noobs teaching them and 60 marks is a no brainer for me!!