test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Failed STF instances: should they be locked or not?
risian4
Member Posts: 3,711 Arc User
To give an example: I just entered an already failed ISA. Spheres all over the place, one optional gone, too little time remaining to get the other optional. Luckily a very powerful player entered soon after I joined, allowing us to still complete the mission. This isn't guaranteed of course; if he hadn't been there we would have kept blowing up while trying to dig through all the spheres that had been gathered around the transformer while the gate kept sending new ones.
One might argue that by keeping the STF 'open', meaning that players who queue can get in a failed instance, the remaining players who didn't leave when it failed, still get a chance to get a reward and improve, thus helping them to perform better next time and reducing the chance of it happening again.
On the other hand, why force people to clean up other player's mess? For a much lower reward even, if you manage to complete it at all?
What do you think? Should failed instances be locked to prevent other players who queue the same mission from getting stuck in a failed instance? Should they keep it as it is? Or, as an in-between solution, should they allow players who entered after a mission that had already been failed to immediately leave without risking a penalty?
One might argue that by keeping the STF 'open', meaning that players who queue can get in a failed instance, the remaining players who didn't leave when it failed, still get a chance to get a reward and improve, thus helping them to perform better next time and reducing the chance of it happening again.
On the other hand, why force people to clean up other player's mess? For a much lower reward even, if you manage to complete it at all?
What do you think? Should failed instances be locked to prevent other players who queue the same mission from getting stuck in a failed instance? Should they keep it as it is? Or, as an in-between solution, should they allow players who entered after a mission that had already been failed to immediately leave without risking a penalty?
Failed STF instances: should they be locked or not? 88 votes
Failed STF's should be locked, preventing people from entering a failed instance
44%
39 votes
Failed STF's should remain 'open', as they currently are
11%
10 votes
Failed STF's should remain 'open', but allow players to leave without getting a leaver penalty
44%
39 votes
0
Comments
Optionally they should create a "vote to abort" option that the team can talk to each other and decide it's not worth it. If all players vote to abort the mission no leaver penalty should be bestowed upon the team and they can try again.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Third option looks like good idea on paper, but unfortunately wouldn't work very well in reality. Let's say I join a queue and find it in a really sad state, then decide to leave and won't get a leaver penalty. However, I want to do that particular mission, so i queue up again and unless someone queued up and joined it before... I still end up in that failed STF I just left.
E: I like the vote to abort suggestion as well.
U.S.S. Buteo Regalis - Brigid Multi-Mission Surveillance Explorer build
R.R.W. Ri Maajon - Khopesh Tactical Dreadnought Warbird build
My Youtube channel containing STO videos.
You're either left with the choice to either waste time cleaning up or accept the hour leavers penalty. It's bullcrap!
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
Yeah what the OP is describing is not a "failed" instance, it's simply one where the team didn't get all the optionals. That mission can still be completed via the primary objectives for a reward so should remain open for any later joiners to come and help out should a gap open up.
A failed instance would be one where the end timer is up after the objectives have been failed or the mission is complete. Those should be locked as they are impossible for any new joiner to complete.
Seriously people need to stop throwing a hissy fit any time an optional fails. You're not going to get everything all the time, just learn from the failure and move on, leaving early just harms the whole team as there could be new players in there who won't fully understand what's going on or who still want the marks even if it's a lower amount.
Well, it may still be completable. But whenever I feel the need to facepalm, like with the mess in that ISA I described, I'd say it's a fail.
I'm not always capable of carrying others. Today, I was playing on an alt that's just good enough to contribute to the team, not contribute AND compensate for newer/less well geared players. We were lucky that one player who was able to compensate for some of the less performing team member joined, otherwise we would've been stuck there.
That's why I created this poll: because it seems unfair, imo, to force people to stay in a mission that's largely failed, especially when it was failed before you even joined the team.
Besides, newer players shouldn't be doing advanced missions. If they still decide to do them, and fail, is it fair that others are lured in, have to stick around, having to do twice or three times the effort for half the rewards?
indeed. this afternoon, I was able to help 3 other players to have their hard earned rewards. that was fun.
This is actually quite fun in itself. It an be a decent challenge warping in to an ISA run swarming with spheres and fighting them off to save the mission.
More people just need to accept that sometimes you'll not get all the optionals but that's not a reason for quitting or abandoning all the others players (many of whom will probably have tried their best).
People need to fail every so often to know where they went wrong, to be able to improve their build and tactics.
The system itself is flawed. People with no interest in success of the mission, people with underpowered gear or limited to no knowledge about what is necessary for a success, are able to join and thus make it harder for the rest of the team (and then there are the griefers... but thats another topic entirely)
At least for advanced modes and upwards, there should be more requirements for the players in order to be able to even join such a session in the first place. Either that, or remove the leaver penalties altogether because it is massively contradictory.
I'd say don't let anyone in an advanced version of that instance unless they have successfully completed the normal version 10 consecutive times with all optionals completed. That'll at least weed out the people who don't know the objectives of the map.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
An instance that is actually failed and can'T be completed more should of course be locked out, and leaving it should not cause a leaver penalty.
It sounds like a nice idea, but what happens when someone doesn't agree to abort, and really wants to finish? Do you really expect everyone to be happy, or will you get berated for not aborting and get insulted as griefer or something?
People throw a tantrum about anything. Honestly? I don't care anymore to try to cater to anyone who would whine because *whatever reason* - you cannot please everybody, but the more people you try to please the less enjoyable it gets for the others. So I'd say if one don't want to abort it's his choice, the others can choose to help or get out and take the penalty, it's also their free choice.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
This is exactly what should be happening.
Hell most marks are so easy to come by these days you really don't miss much from the odd failed optional here or there.
Plus the whole point of the game is fun, if you just stream-rolled through it all the time and never stood a risk or failure it'd get real boring soon i'd imagine. You should be playing those PVE queues to enjoy your time and to hell with how many marks you get out of it.
No it wouldn't. Normals are too easy and the clueless players would just get carried by their betters as usual. There should be single-player qualifying missions to unlock harder queues, so players have to learn for themselves instead of piggybacking on others.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
The mid dps (30K) would be mildly annoyed
Low dps (10K) would be enraged
casual player (2-5K) would just give up on the STF (or the game lol)
best and easiest way would be the "abort vote" so you can get out of this mess and you don't give a "new player" the work of cleaning up a bad run.
So my thinking is, if you're just a casual player enjoying getting involved with a team mission,just do the normals. That's your fun way to play the game. But I and others have fun trying to beat the hardest missions in the game successfully. So let us have our way of playing too and we can all enjoy the game. I agree there should be a way to "graduate" up the difficulty ladder or at least the abort without a leaver penalty.
Another interesting fact: when trying to leave the prompt often says there will penalty even when there actually isn't.