test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
Make Advanced optionals OPTIONAL again. Please.
prierin
Member Posts: 7 Arc User
Look, I understand there was plenty of callout for increased difficulty and challenge. I respect that elite STFs have a built-in auto fail system as part of the overall challenge. Advanced STFs, however, do not need this feature. In fact, its killing the queues. Not because it is too difficult adversely, it is too easy to purposefully fail, or FailTrolls as I have come to call it, where an entire team can go in and handle the STF well enough, but ONE player intentionally fails the objective, causing the entire team to fail.
Yes, I will admit that more players probably fail accidentally than those that do so purposefully, but the fact still exists that the mandatory optionals and insta-fail on Advanced have created a haven for FailTrolls. I wont bring the EULA and PerectWorld/STOs own TOS in regards to players who intentionally serve to disrupt the playability of other players. I shouldnt have to. However, I WILL point out that the mechanics which currently exist in the Advanced STFs actively create an exploit which directly violates said EULA and TOS (not all exploits are positive). For this, bad on you, Cryptic.
The easiest solution is to remove the insta-fails on Advanced STFs. If FailTrolls want to manage their way into Elites and play the fail game, let them try. Most who run Elites do so with either a fleet, a well-trusted team or on DPS channels only. Good luck to any FailTroll who wants to get into any of those
Add bonus marks/drops/rewards for successful completion of optionals, sure, but dont force players to fail instantly. I have been in several Advanced Conduit runs where we fail before the first transformer is taken offline. The nanite probes were successfully CCd and our DPS was high enough, but on more than one occasion a single player goes off and does something stupid, failing it for everyone. Whether this was intentional or not I can not say for certain, but it happens far too often. PUGs are a four-letter word now and for those players who arent in a decent fleet or dont have a large enough friend base, attaining the needed mats are impossible.
I havent even run a single STF in over a month and a half due solely to this.
I dont think my request is unreasonable, nor is it a wild, unfounded complaint. I simply believe the current issue of insta-fails on Advanced STFs is hurting the overall gameplay more than adding any real benefit.
Thanks for your time.
Yes, I will admit that more players probably fail accidentally than those that do so purposefully, but the fact still exists that the mandatory optionals and insta-fail on Advanced have created a haven for FailTrolls. I wont bring the EULA and PerectWorld/STOs own TOS in regards to players who intentionally serve to disrupt the playability of other players. I shouldnt have to. However, I WILL point out that the mechanics which currently exist in the Advanced STFs actively create an exploit which directly violates said EULA and TOS (not all exploits are positive). For this, bad on you, Cryptic.
The easiest solution is to remove the insta-fails on Advanced STFs. If FailTrolls want to manage their way into Elites and play the fail game, let them try. Most who run Elites do so with either a fleet, a well-trusted team or on DPS channels only. Good luck to any FailTroll who wants to get into any of those
Add bonus marks/drops/rewards for successful completion of optionals, sure, but dont force players to fail instantly. I have been in several Advanced Conduit runs where we fail before the first transformer is taken offline. The nanite probes were successfully CCd and our DPS was high enough, but on more than one occasion a single player goes off and does something stupid, failing it for everyone. Whether this was intentional or not I can not say for certain, but it happens far too often. PUGs are a four-letter word now and for those players who arent in a decent fleet or dont have a large enough friend base, attaining the needed mats are impossible.
I havent even run a single STF in over a month and a half due solely to this.
I dont think my request is unreasonable, nor is it a wild, unfounded complaint. I simply believe the current issue of insta-fails on Advanced STFs is hurting the overall gameplay more than adding any real benefit.
Thanks for your time.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
You will forever be missed and never forgotten.
Post edited by prierin on
0
Comments
As a compromise Cryptic could consider the following :
Advanced Optionals failed but Required goals achieved = Normal Mode mark and dilithium rewards, but the special item (Neural Processors, Ancient Power Cells etc) is still awarded also...
By making the Optionals necessary to receive the higher current Advanced Mode reward, whilst still allowing players to complete the Required Objectives and not fail outright, many of the concerns over Rep Gear etc would be addressed and I feel it makes a reasonable middle ground...
If people want the higher mark and dilithium rewards, they need to achieve the optionals, if not, they at least still get their Neural Processors or Ancient Powercells etc, at the Standard Mode mark and dilithium reward level...
I agree that Advanced shouldn't have insta-fails... the old elites didn't. But they do need to be harder then the hand-outs that are normals. It's a balancing act that I think Cryptic failed at when they designed Advanced, but being Cryptic they won't fix it becauses their egos won't admit that it was bad design.
My personal idea would be keep failure as an option, but only on the "main" goal. Optionals that were optional on normal should still be optional on advanced, but as you say you succeed at them you get better scaled rewards.
Elites actually I think need to be a bit harder, but that's just me.
Fleet leader Nova Elite
Fleet Leader House of Nova elite
@ren_larreck
Advanced content should have some way to fail. Maybe the fail triggers should be looked at but on a whole making advanced have no fail state risk people jumping into elite without really learning the game.
Ok. Getting rid of the CD is understandable and I agree that maybe there should be more wiggle room before a mission goes pear shape.
There aboslutely should be a fail option. Without risk there is no real reward. Fail the main objectiive, fail the mission. I am speaking specifically about insta-failing on advanced optionals alone.
Heck, set a timer on the STF is you like - complete it in X minutes or fail...
But the autofail Optionals made mandatory is too much of a lure for trolls wanting to TRIBBLE with honest players IMO. It does add a level of difficulty, but when someone can purposefully kill it for the group and force a 1 hr cooldown... its kinda painful for the honest players.
The old elites already had decent fail conditions like 10 probes through the gate in Khitomer Space Elite or IKS Kang being destroyed in Cure Space Elite. It is the timers and the strict requirements that cause the problems. Failing an Advanced STF due to letting in a single probe due to server problems is a serious problem.
Not all elites had those.
How well should players be rewarded for just keep slamming their heads against the mobs and really learning how to handle Advanced or Elite?
20 less marks than the team that planned out what they was doing, played normal first in order to try to make sure they would not dead weight to their team, read on the mission and on their ship to find out their role in the mission, and more?
So 20 marks? You and your team push yourself to rise up to meet the challenge and the difference between your team and the five pak'leds is 20 marks.
I don't think there is an easy or straightforward solution to this. Either you punish all or reward all is how it seems to play out.
Unless you add bonus marks for the top 3 DPSers. I know - it's not exactly fair for those who don't really focus on DPS (like myself) and seems to push the 'DPS to WIN' model, but it's the only way I can think of to reward some without punishing anyone.
Let's say top three DPSers receive an additional 10, 8, 5 marks respectively.
And then we get into a really ugly world. Unless you push your ship into that magical "vape anything that moves" spot being a "pure" DPS is really a downside for a team. I would take a subpar science ship that knew when to a toss out a gravity well over a subpar escort that needs a healer because it is "pure dps".
Edited: You are also "punishing" players for not playing pure dps. It is just 10/8/5 marks but it is still punishing players for looking out for others and not only focusing on themselves and whatever they are shooting at.
Yeah... I never suggested it was an ideal fix.... just a thought.
Although I can't see how one is being punished for choosing not to engage in something (increasing their DPS build) for optional bonuses. Even if everyone goes DPS to the max there can only be three at the top...
But no, I don't want to push a DPS-heavy agenda either. I just can't really think of any real alternatives.
What I'm saying is if only the top DPSer gets the "full" reward what is the point of helping anyone and what happens when someone tries to force their way into becoming the top DPSer? Pushing ships out of the range of other players, rushing headlong into combat in order to pad out their numbers, and more.
While right now is bad I would rather see teamwork/lack of teamwork rewarded/punished than to see five players fight each while trying to fight the borg/undine/etc.
That'd be a great middle road but.... how? What mechanics cold be put in place to actively monitor and ascertain a team's ability to cooperate and THEN to determine which members of that team pulled their weight, etc. for the bonuses?
It sounds like a proigramming nightmare, to be honest... in the end, it boils back to the 'everyone or everybody" mentality... either everyone wins or everybody loses...
Ok. Going back to your first post. The way I read it was elite don't have to worry about "failtrolls" because most of them are not done through queues. Why don't this "tactic" drip down to advanced content?
Now to reply to this post above me. You are right. What you said would be a programming nightmare. There is a simpler ways. Better tuning the fail triggers so one "failtroll" can't ruin everyone's day. Get rid of the cooldowns for a failed mission. I'm sure people can think of more.
"Why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves up."
First Rule of the Fight Club is 'We don't talk about the Fight Club"
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
To be honest I don't know why it doesn't. Elites seem, to me, to be risky enough that players are far more cautious about who they group with. I can't even remember the last elite pug I've seen. Advanced, however, still seem to pull in the pugs and along with them, FailTrolls.
However, this brings us to a somewhat parallel topic: are the advanced STFs threatning to make the PUG an endangered animal?
I remember when friends could be found via pugs. I've added quite a few to my buddy list after a few decent pug runs but now... an Advanced STF pug just seems like an exercise in frustration.
I don't know about all of them, but the ones I have done do.
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
It's funny in a sense, because prior to DR I'd almost always run any new toon or new ship on a toon through an ISN or two - not really concerned about any DPS things, but rather just to check how the ship handled for any pathing I'd be doing. Ships don't always handle the way their stats suggest they will, so it would be a case of trying to get that quick feel about any adjustments that would need to be made with when to accelerate, when to turn, and all the rest - basically trying to minimize my ending up out in BFE (any more than I normally do cause I'm such a TRIBBLE pilot, lol). ISN failed far more than ISE ever did, imho. Most of those failures tended to be those insta-fails...many of them being DOFF'd GWs that bounced the Nanite Probes right next to the Trans. Intentional? Unintentional? The failure was the same in the end.
So it starts to get into a lot of the other discussions out there, some which have gotten or started off pretty nasty. Even if everybody had the same knowledge/ability and was massively overgeared for the content, folks hitting up the public queues would still be subject to the whims of folks trolling the queues.
DR may have accelerated the queues appearing dead, but all the various channels and folks running privates instead of public didn't just happen overnight - folks have been doing it for years because the issue of trolls has been an issue for years.
Now, I have a tendency to poo-poo ideas because they're not solutions. The OP's suggestion isn't a solution, imho. If the issue is trolls, it does not resolve that issue. Instead of having trolls cause failures, there will be trolls that cause reduced rewards. They're trolls, they're not going to stop being trolls. However, of late I've been trying to be more open to things that might reduce the overall effect of an issue even if it is not a solution...not trying to be so literal/adamant/etc. It might not solve the matter of trolls, but it could help with the failures that come about because of trolls...somewhat, yeah? So it would be a good thing, eh?
Thing is, again, the example given wasn't something that was ever optional. So it wouldn't be a case of going through to make Advanced Optionals again, it would be a case of going through and removing all the automatic fail conditions that could be brought about by a single player.
With that, perhaps the community could be realistic in offering Cryptic their suggestions on that matter by pointing out all the failures that could be caused in such a fashion by trolls. Course, the problem there would be if Cryptic takes no action - the community has simply educated trolls and potential trolls on how to ruin things for more folks, yeah?
So perhaps a case of Cryptic at some point asking folks for feedback on that, perhaps via PM, some sort of third party survey site, or the like?
Oh well, sometimes all we can do is try to make Cryptic aware of our concerns...and if we do not feel they're being addressed, we have to decide what we're going to do at that point, yeah?
I respect your opinion, VD. Thanks for the post. One one note especially...
I think this is a superb idea. It owuld be rgeat if ppl took videos, highlighted examples, etc. without 'naming&shaming'. Granted, we can't do the work for Cryptic and in the end, as you have suggested, it is they that would have to actually do something about it.
An argument is just an argument, a complaint a complaint. Both are, in essence, worthless. Back either of these up with actual data and facts, then you have some solid ground to stand on.
You came across fine to me. I saw nothing inflamatory in any of your post.
+158 Diplomacy Exp...
Actually I've been in some pugs that were better then some of my pre-mades at times... but those are few and far between, but no it's not always so bad.
But when it's bad... it's BAD. I've also noticed that I tend to get a lot more bad PUGs during the weekend, which make senses because of a higher population.
I know a lot of the solution is simply don't PUG, and if you do you kind of have to expect to take the good with the bad. You may have a run of great pugs... then have days of failing every single one of them.
One of the other issues I've noticed is that good experienced players tend to be able to fix their mistakes. I accidently pull something closer to transformers... I have the tools to CC it and DPS my own mistake.
A lot of the people just don't have the experience or equipment designed around making a mistake and being able to fix it, because they're just not at that level.
Cryptic should encourage players of different skill and position to play with one another and not discourage them the way they did.
I experience no challenge at all through the fail criteria. Thats the worst part. They just generate negative pressure on my team but no challenge.
Cryptic could have easily made it the other way around. Generate a positive feeling of challenge and competition within a team. Optionals with superb optional rewards would have accomplished that and everybody would be eager and happy to queue up and contribute. Free all hostages in IGA? -> one more salvage; keep at least 1 member in team alive? -> 50 more marks; complete a map within a certain timeframe? -> 200 more dil!
In such a surrounding queue lists would be full and peeps would happily throw their ingame earnings and gladly more at each and every of cryptics releases and the upgrade system.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.