test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

[PC] Random Task Force Operations!

1910111315

Comments

  • ucgsquawk#5883 ucgsquawk Member Posts: 265 Arc User
    Though I'm on console so won't see this for a while I can't wait. I think this will be great, and it doesn't hurt anyone.
    Want better rewards, queue random, want some specific queue that you're more comfortable with, just queue for it and it'll populate faster with players from the random queue.

    The challenge of being ready for any mission space or ground seems like it will make for more interesting gameplay. I'd be surprised to see the top tier players complain about this as I would expect them to be easily able to play any mission outside of elite without needing to tweak every detail of their ship.
    And for those worried about the ''pugtards" I think someone called them (me as well really as I mostly just queue and my ship isn't tweaked...I wouldn't go beyond advanced) ruining their perfect runs and costing them extra marks etc. because they don't know what they're doing...have you considered how many more players are going to start learning what to do...how many might just end up stepping up their play as they expand on what maps they experience?

    I think this will end up being a good thing despite the doom and gloom.

    Again....still just my opinions and they're only worth what you pay for them.
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,627 Arc User
    Though I'm on console so won't see this for a while I can't wait. I think this will be great, and it doesn't hurt anyone.
    How can you say that when that has been shown to be false? It does hurt many players.

  • tobywitczaktobywitczak Member Posts: 207 Arc User
    Can we get a query for group pay for missions that require all character types (TAC, SCI, ENG) to complete all the accolades?

    Mission: Mine Enemy
    Mission: Frozen
    Mission: Coliseum
    Mission: Cutting the Cord
    Mission: Second Wave
    Mission: Of Bajor
    Mission: Operation Gamma
    Mission: Facility 4028


  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,612 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    szim wrote: »
    How can you say that when that has been shown to be false? It does hurt many players.

    Simple disagreement considering...

    1. You have no data
    2. The feature has only been released to tribble
    3. Tribble data is not comparable to holodeck (see. relative population sizes)
    4. The negatives you've mentioned are highly situational, unquantifiable
    5. The benefits are general (provided Cryptic excludes queues with a constant population [ISA, CCA, Alerts] from the system.)

    Your argument is a suggestive one, but it lacks empiricism. Ie. you can't point to and show the case (because you're not presenting an argument with a scientific approach.) By no means is that disqualifying for a forum, but it does limit your ability to confront other posters who express disagreement with your pronouncements (take a step back and try to appreciate the limits of support and rhetoric. Otherwise, you're liable to misrepresent your case and sabotage it thereby. Let it speak as it will.)
    Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Last missions:
    Evolution's Smile [SSF:3-3]
    Epoch, Part 2 [AEI]
    Transcendence, Part 4
    Memorial Tour

    For the latest Tardigrades and other creative output: @Gorgonops_SSF
    Looking for something new to play? The interactive Foundry Mission Database has you covered.
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,627 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    szim wrote: »
    How can you say that when that has been shown to be false? It does hurt many players.

    Simple disagreement considering...

    1. You have no data
    2. The feature has only been released to tribble
    3. Tribble data is not comparable to holodeck (see. relative population sizes)
    4. The negatives you've mentioned are highly situational, unquantifiable
    5. The benefits are general (provided Cryptic excludes ISA, CCA, Alerts from the system)

    Your argument is a suggestive one, but it lacks empiricism. Ie. you can't show your claim (because you're not presenting an argument with a scientific approach.) By no means is that disqualifying for a forum, but it does limit your ability to confront other posters who express disagreement with your pronouncements (take a step back and try to appreciate the limits of support and rhetoric. Otherwise, you're liable to misrepresent your case and sabotage it thereby.)
    Not only did you just lie, yet again you have edited quotes after many times being asked to stop doing that by many people. You are going to get your posts reported yet again if you keep doing that. EDIT: Just noticed not only have you been purposely swapping quote names around but you have been purposely swapping where the quote points to so that the persons name, post the quote points to and the text are from 3 different people. Not only is that wrong and misleading but when you are dishonest and misrepresent people like that is sabotages your case. EDITend:

    1, That is a flat out lie by you and you know it. Please stop lying and post constructively. I based my conclusions on testing and data gathered from that testing.
    2, Irrelevant point. My feedback is based on how it is on tribble and if no changes are made that problem transfers over to live.
    3, Wrong the data is comparable to holodeck with a bit of common sense one can scientifically infer what will happen with reasonable accuracy. What I described about the ratio of random to not really random missions looks to be correct based on the data and testing I did.
    4, it is not unquantifiable and while it is situational as it only effects some players it’s still valid and a real negative for those players.
    5, For me and others like me there is zero or little benefit and a massive negative. The negative outweigh the positive by a large amount.

    “Your argument is a suggestive one, but it lacks empiricism. Ie. you can't show anything (because you're not presenting an argument with a scientific approach.) By no means is that disqualifying for a forum, but it does limit your ability to confront other posters who express disagreement with your pronouncements (
    It’s the other way around my argument is based on a scientific approach while you counter argument is suggestive without any real evidence or any valid counter point towards the negatives I posted. I used a scientific approach and made a reasonable argument. You on the other hand decided to not be scientific and just ignored my posts for ages and voted down my posts which is none constructive for feedback and none constructive for discussions. Now instead of posting a valid counter point with a scientific approached to my real concerns you have both flat out lied and gone down the deflection path. There was zero valid counter points in your post. I see right though your attitude. Your snaps at people do not work on me.
    Post edited by pottsey5g on
  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 54,634 Community Moderator
    I believe one of duncanidaho's points is that the Tribble Population is significantly SMALLER than it is on Holodeck. With Tribble being a Test Server that most of the time is not available to the general public (either by choice of said public or closed except for Lifers by Cryptic for a period of time)... some things are harder to judge between the two. Also...
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    5, For me and others like me...

    Lines like that are rather subjective. What do you mean by "You and others like you"? Players with similar opinions or players in general?
    If its in general... respectfully... you don't speak for everyone. For all you know... Bob down the street might actually like it while you don't. If you are talking about those who have similar opinions... well... maybe you have something but it doesn't have to be so sharp.

    He's been very level headed in his counterarguments. You've been heating up and starting attacks.
    While this is a good place for a healthy debate... lets not escalate it into attacking each other because of differing views. I've already had a run in with a... rather passionate disagreement over DPS myself.

    Lets keep it CONSTRUCTIVE rather than turn it into a war. If you see something you don't like about it... maybe brainstorm ways to improve it rather than fire torpedos at people. We might actually have some good ideas to bounce around.
    66998372863950ee98cf7da9786e2ea9-db80k0m.png
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out a Delta Pack, Temporal Pack, and Gamma Pack
    The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,627 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    rattler2 wrote: »
    “I believe one of duncanidaho's points is that the Tribble Population is significantly SMALLER than it is on Holodeck”
    I already addressed that scientifically and talked about how the ratio of random to batch missions will change from tribble to live. Which is why I object to duncanidaho11 saying I was not using a scientific approach when I clearly was.

    rattler2 wrote: »
    “He's been very level headed in his counterarguments. You've been heating up and starting attacks.”
    duncanidaho11 is the one that lied and edited quotes which is not what I would call a level headed counterargument. You should never quote someone and edit the quote and then lie in your following text. It is not the first time he has been caught out doing this.

    rattler2 wrote: »
    “Lines like that are rather subjective. What do you mean by "You and others like you"? Players with similar opinions or players in general?”
    I mean people who play Elite or play missions that do not draw from random STF which is me and many other people.
    If you are playing elite or playing a mission that doesn't draw people from random STF then there is no way anymore to see when other players are playing that mission. So you can no longer make a judgment call to queue up and join them.
    Right now we can scan the list of active missions each morning pick one we enjoy doing and other players are playing and join them if I have time. After random STF this is impossible for Elite missions or missions that do not draw apron random STF. Which to me comes across a major negative.

    Try playing Elite missions or missions that are not part of random STF on tribble. If 4 people are queued on live you can join them easily. On tribble if 4 people are queued up for those styles of missions you cannot see and join them . That is not due to the population, that is a major problem introduced by the changes made with random STF.
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,460 Arc User
    This is starting to sound like this:

    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    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.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • tigerariestigeraries Member Posts: 3,477 Arc User
    Can we get a query for group pay for missions that require all character types (TAC, SCI, ENG) to complete all the accolades?

    Mission: Mine Enemy
    Mission: Frozen
    Mission: Coliseum
    Mission: Cutting the Cord
    Mission: Second Wave
    Mission: Of Bajor
    Mission: Operation Gamma
    Mission: Facility 4028


    some of those are bugged... only works for original fed & kdf races... roms and tos and guessing jhd will not see the glowing item to interact.
  • tobiashirttobiashirt Member Posts: 630 Arc User
    > @ucgsquawk#5883 said:
    > Want better rewards, queue random, want some specific queue that you're more comfortable with, just queue for it and it'll populate faster with players from the random queue.

    This, more or less... when I queue for something as it is, I take my chances with 4 other random people who, often as not, don't say anything unless it's to criticize someone's performance.

    Under the new system, I go from taking the next four people who queue for a mission to taking the next 4 people who queue for random.

    That's balanced by being able to pick any queue I want, including ones that don't pop under the current system, and run it.

    tl:dr
    I give up a bit of specificity in the random people I'm joining, in exchange for being able to run a much greater variety of queues regularly
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,612 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    tigeraries wrote: »

    some of those are bugged... only works for original fed & kdf races... roms and tos and guessing jhd will not see the glowing item to interact.

    It's also unclear whether the queues can be setup for missions or whether that's something that Cryptic would ever consider. Sure, there's the chance that you could snag a few accolades but this would also have to stand up on the quality of gameplay (for a random group proceeding through an episode) and how many folks would be interested for that (as the accolades themselves are mainly for completionists.)

    I've had some great experiences with co-op campaigns, just not sure if STO is really setup for it.
    rattler2 wrote: »
    I believe one of duncanidaho's points is that the Tribble Population is significantly SMALLER than it is on Holodeck.

    There's also no pressure to complete reps, earn resources, or develop characters beyond raiding the Drozana console. Thus, the population dynamics and content focus are very different. Tribble is a useful venue for system testing, but any conclusions drawn regarding player behavior should taken with a very large grain of salt (ie. take the confounding variables into account as best one and respect the limitations inherent in the comparison.)

    pottsey5g wrote: »
    You should never quote someone and edit the quote and then lie in your following text. It is not the first time he has been caught out doing this.

    Eh?
    Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Last missions:
    Evolution's Smile [SSF:3-3]
    Epoch, Part 2 [AEI]
    Transcendence, Part 4
    Memorial Tour

    For the latest Tardigrades and other creative output: @Gorgonops_SSF
    Looking for something new to play? The interactive Foundry Mission Database has you covered.
  • ucgsquawk#5883 ucgsquawk Member Posts: 265 Arc User
    > @pottsey5g said:
    > ucgsquawk#5883 wrote: »
    >
    > Though I'm on console so won't see this for a while I can't wait. I think this will be great, and it doesn't hurt anyone.
    >
    >
    >
    > How can you say that when that has been shown to be false? It does hurt many players.

    In what way is it really hurting players?
    If you don't like random then queue for what makes you happy and you'll get players from the random queue to fill your tfo faster...where's the downside to you?

    And no claims of "pugtards ruining my run" as was made elsewhere please. That's a very bad argument as random queues will quickly introduce players to a wide range of missions so they can learn them...long run players will be more able for future missions at a POSSIBLE expense in short term...there may Infact be no short term issues with it.

    And missions will be more varied for the random group the more people who use it...that's simple logic.
    20 players queue random, 2 on cc, 3 on hive. 3 random go to cc, 2 to hive, 15 into random maps...expand from that to size of player base and you see my point...more random players will create a much richer experience all around.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    I already addressed that scientifically and talked about how the ratio of random to batch missions will change from tribble to live. Which is why I object to duncanidaho11 saying I was not using a scientific approach when I clearly was.
    You posited a hypothesis which was refuted. Also you never proved it. Actually, I think it's unprovable since proving it requires information that is uncollectable.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • captaincelestialcaptaincelestial Member Posts: 1,873 Arc User
    questerius wrote: »
    OMG, please remove PVP from the system or otherwise it will be dead on arrival.

    Misread the article. Fortunately no PVP included.
    It's a pity that the competitive queues are not there. Those deserve to be played.

    Perhaps as a separate Random button (not to close to the non-comp. queues to (hopefully) avoid rage quits when some wanted one kind and accidentally clicked on the wrong one).
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,460 Arc User
    You need to prove it with 'geometric logic'.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    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.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,627 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    Eh?
    You quoted my text, changed my name to Szim and pointed it to Szim profile and before the edit had changed the quote link so when I click it to go back to the post it instead takes me to yet another person. You have been called out on this by other people as well in other threads. You do it far too much and it makes threads confusing when you swap people’s names and quote links around. It is a very misleading thing to do and it is disruptive towards constructive discussions when you edit peoples names and edit quote links so they point to the wrong place.

    Plus instead of posting valid counter points you falsely flag my post as off topic despite the post having very much on topic points with steps to repeat from testing on tribble related to the problem with random STF.



    “You posited a hypothesis which was refuted. Also you never proved it. Actually, I think it's unprovable since proving it requires information that is uncollectable.”
    Refuted with zero evidence to back up the refute and I did prove it. I gave a simple test anyone can repeat to run into the same problem I experienced. It is not unprovable as the information is perfectly collectible if you did the steps I explained. So far I have found 30 queues which are harder to play after the change and there could be more.


    In what way is it really hurting players?
    If you don't like random then queue for what makes you happy and you'll get players from the random queue to fill your tfo faster...where's the downside to you?
    It only fills faster for a selection of missions not all of them. For the other 30+ missions it doesn’t fill and takes away the tools to see players are playing those. As you can no longer see other people are playing them you cannot work out when to join in.

    So far I have found around about 30 queues which after the change will be harder to play. I have not listed them all but have mentioned a few in my older posts. As an example after the change it is impossible to work out when I can play advanced or Elite Dranuur Beach Assault. While now on live I can see when other people are playing and join in.

    Also it’s proven to not be truly random so missions will not be as varied as some people are expecting. For example at times it can keep dropping you in the same 10 odd missions while skipping the others. You can simulate how this works with a bunch of friends on tribble. Before pressing random you can work out which of 3 queues it will drop you in on tribble with reasonable accuracy. So you do not get a truly varied experience. I made a suggestion to fix this in an older post.
    Post edited by pottsey5g on
  • rimmarierimmarie Member Posts: 414 Arc User
    @pottsey5g
    its seems like you are just mad because not everyone shares your view on the new system.

    to be direct.. it's coming whether you like it or not.
    what they are asking for is input on how to improve it (within the scope they set)
    and input on the TFOs we have issues with.
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    So far I have found around about 30 queues which after the change will be harder to play. I have not listed them all but have mentioned a few in my older posts. As an example after the change it is impossible to work out when I can play advanced or Elite Dranuur Beach Assault. While now on live I can see when other people are playing and join in.

    Also it’s proven to not be truly random so missions will not be as varied as some people are expecting. For example at times it can keep dropping you in the same 10 odd missions while skipping the others. You can simulate how this works with a bunch of friends on tribble. Before pressing random you can work out which of 3 queues it will drop you in on tribble with reasonable accuracy. So you do not get a truly varied experience. I made a suggestion to fix this in an older post.

    Testing with a 'bunch' of your friends on Tribble STILL won't give an accurate gauge of how well the system is filling the queues because you and your friends and the VERY low population of Tribble (assuming they were ALL queued) are NO WHERE NEAR the population of Holodeck. So the system would fill the ones the few people that were on were queued for first.

    On Holodeck..in theory.. The TFOs you mention would be filled and the system would start placing people in the other TFOs that were empty randomly. Those first queues would most likely be the ones people queued for normally (the current method).

    your input on 'Players Queued' and 'Estimated Wait' would actually be along the lines of the type of input they are looking for
    but most of your argument seems to be speculation on what you believe will happen when it is released and not suggestions on how to improve the system.

    But as for it being accurate...me and a fleetmate of mine tested that yesterday.
    0 players queued for 'The Breach (Event)' Est. Wait: N/A

    Joined the queue...it started instantly

    maybe we got luck and so we tried again with 'Miner Instabilities Elite'
    1 player queued Est. Wait 2mins+ (don't remember the exact time)

    Joined the queue...roughly 6 mins later...it started

    So by the time that was done and a coffee break, The Breach was off cooldown (damn those Romulans and their grenades)

    0 players queued Est. Wait N/A

    Joined the queue..its started instantly again

    dude..it isn't accurate. Personally, I just queue for what I want to play and do admiralty and DOffs while I wait. I know what I want to play, so I select it anyways. If people join, it starts.

    But if you feel it helps you, suggest that it be kept in.



  • ucgsquawk#5883 ucgsquawk Member Posts: 265 Arc User
    > @pottsey5g said:
    > duncanidaho11 wrote: »
    >
    > Eh?
    >
    >
    >
    > You quoted my text, changed my name to Szim and pointed it to Szim profile and before the edit had changed the quote link so when I click it to go back to the post it instead takes me to yet another person. You have been called out on this by other people as well in other threads. You do it far too much and it makes threads confusing when you swap people’s names and quote links around. It is a very misleading thing to do and it is disruptive towards constructive discussions when you edit peoples names and edit quote links so they point to the wrong place.
    >
    > Plus instead of posting valid counter points you falsely flag my post as off topic despite the post having very much on topic points with steps to repeat from testing on tribble related to the problem with random STF.
    >
    >
    >
    > markhawkman wrote: »
    >
    > “You posited a hypothesis which was refuted. Also you never proved it. Actually, I think it's unprovable since proving it requires information that is uncollectable.”
    >
    >
    >
    > Refuted with zero evidence to back up the refute and I did prove it. I gave a simple test anyone can repeat to run into the same problem I experienced. It is not unprovable as the information is perfectly collectible if you did the steps I explained. So far I have found 30 queues which are harder to play after the change and there could be more.
    >
    >
    > ucgsquawk#5883 wrote: »
    >
    >
    >
    > It only fills faster for a selection of missions not all of them. For the other 30+ missions it doesn’t fill and takes away the tools to see players are playing those. As you can no longer see other people are playing them you cannot work out when to join in.
    >
    > So far I have found around about 30 queues which after the change will be harder to play. I have not listed them all but have mentioned a few in my older posts. As an example after the change it is impossible to work out when I can play advanced or Elite Dranuur Beach Assault. While now on live I can see when other people are playing and join in.
    >
    > Also it’s proven to not be truly random so missions will not be as varied as some people are expecting. For example at times it can keep dropping you in the same 10 odd missions while skipping the others. You can simulate how this works with a bunch of friends on tribble. Before pressing random you can work out which of 3 queues it will drop you in on tribble with reasonable accuracy. So you do not get a truly varied experience. I made a suggestion to fix this in an older post.


    Sorry, I tried to trim quotes but think I messed them up.

    Again you are claiming something using a small selection size which will cause selection bias.
    Nothing will be ruined, in what way are thy actually harder for you to play?

    Queue for what you want...outside of elite it will either be with players already queued or it will drop some players from the random queue.
    Saying that you need to see if others are there before you will join in is self defeating since it would only take 4 other players who felt the same and suddenly you aren't playing, right?

    The elegance of the system (outside of the innevitable early bugs it will develop) is that it doesn't matter if someone else is there already, who cares? If you join it will give you some players from the random queue.

    Also, as I pointed out, your tests aren't going to give good results as it's too small of a population to test.
    If you have ten players, of them 8 always queue random and 1 always cc and 1 always hive (for example) the system will of course put those 8 random players repeatedly into the two queues to fill them.
    Expand this to 20 players with 18 in random, of those 8 players will go to fill cc and hive (a random selection of those players say), but now the other 10 are going into 2 random TFOs.
    Again expand it and you can see that with increased population using the random queues you will get a much broader variation of TFOs assigned once the ones with a few players in queue for them are filled.
    This is a feature that will get better simply by more people using it.

    I do inderstund your claims on scientific testing etc. but I can safely say that you should trust me that it was flawed since you were testing on far to small a sample size. Small sample sizes in such a test would naturally bring a false result which when extrapolated to a larger sample size would give wrong conclusions...so it's completely understandable how you got there, but in this case extrapolation from a small sample size doesn't work properly since your experience with the new system changes dramatically with number of players using it.

    If there are any bugs with the system's random generation then of course that's a simple bug that they're testing to find now, but otherwise it's likely to just be sample bias at this point.
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,612 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    Refuted with zero evidence to back up the refute and I did prove it. I gave a simple test anyone can repeat to run into the same problem I experienced. It is not unprovable as the information is perfectly collectible if you did the steps I explained. So far I have found 30 queues which are harder to play after the change and there could be more.

    Except that you've failed to argue for the applicability of tribble test data to holodeck. Instead you've chosen to ignore the core points of incongruity (also when explained) and shouted at others who've challenged your presumptions. This is what we call an unscientific approach to testing, eschewing pier review in favor of a pet hypothesis supported by convenience sampling.
    Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Last missions:
    Evolution's Smile [SSF:3-3]
    Epoch, Part 2 [AEI]
    Transcendence, Part 4
    Memorial Tour

    For the latest Tardigrades and other creative output: @Gorgonops_SSF
    Looking for something new to play? The interactive Foundry Mission Database has you covered.
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,627 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    Except that you've failed to argue for the applicability of tribble test data to holodeck. Instead you've chosen to ignore the core points of incongruity (also when explained) and shouted at others who've challenged your presumptions. This is what we call an unscientific approach to testing, eschewing pier review in favor of a pet hypothesis supported by convenience sampling.
    That is funny coming from you, someone who pretends to be scientific and logical but is one of the most unscientific people I have ever talked to. You have lied and been caught out, made up false facts, mislead people and edited quotes all highly unscientific. Just like last time you got proven wrong and made mistakes and just like last time you refused to acknowledge any of that which is also highly unscientific.

    Go back a few posts. I gave a simple set of instructions which you can use to repeat the problem I am running into. A problem that is the same no matter the sample size, a problem that doesn’t change if transferred over to live with more players.

    This is scientific and repeatable and affects 30+ queues. Your response was to label it off topic without any valid counter point even though it’s directly on topic related to the changes with random STF. The post before that your counter point was to lie about me having no data and you tried to counter my argument with invalid points which I pointed out to you and you ignored.

    So before you start calling me unscientific. Why don’t you try a scientific approach yourself.


    “eschewing pier review in favor of a pet hypothesis supported by convenience sampling.”
    You are not my peer and you are not suitable for peer review. Clearly you do not understand what is being written as the problem I described moved well past the point of a hypothesis. The problem is proven with a repeatable test that has repeatable results. That fact you think what I am writing about is a presumption shows you do not understand or follow the scientific method and you didn’t run any tests. Which isn't a surprised as you incorrectly labelled them off topic. I gave a simple set of instructions that show the problem.


    “Again you are claiming something using a small selection size which will cause selection bias.
    Nothing will be ruined, in what way are thy actually harder for you to play?”
    For example out of those 30+ queues which do not draw from random STF every morning I can scan the list see which are active that day and join in if I choose. After the changes from random STF it is impossible for me to see which are active and make a judgement call to join in with them.

    For example out of the 30+ queues let’s say 10 are active and 20 are empty at that moment. Right now on live I can scan the list make a judgement call and join. The active and inactive change as the day goes on. Right now that is not a problem. After the changes from random STF there is no way to track which one are active or inactive and so no way to judge which ones to join or to avoid.

    After the changes how would I know that one of those 30+ queues is empty with zero players interested in it or active? If I am unable to see which of those 30+ queues is attracting players at that moment in time how am I meant to join in with them?
    That is why the changes are making it harder to play.
  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 54,634 Community Moderator
    The number of people queued is sometimes off.

    And you seem to be rather focused on picking specific STFs.

    Don't forget that they're taking feedback on the Tribble Testing and making adjustments too. The current build on Tribble may not be the one that comes over to Holodeck.

    And as everyone has been saying... unless you have a larger test group, getting any kind of solid results from the random STF option is going to be skewed due to the fact its such a small number of people.

    Honestly... I think its time to step away from the keyboard in this thread for a bit. While we understand your concerns... you are starting to get rather aggressive about it.
    66998372863950ee98cf7da9786e2ea9-db80k0m.png
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out a Delta Pack, Temporal Pack, and Gamma Pack
    The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,627 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    rattler2 wrote: »
    The number of people queued is sometimes off.

    And you seem to be rather focused on picking specific STFs.

    Don't forget that they're taking feedback on the Tribble Testing and making adjustments too. The current build on Tribble may not be the one that comes over to Holodeck.

    And as everyone has been saying... unless you have a larger test group, getting any kind of solid results from the random STF option is going to be skewed due to the fact its such a small number of people.

    Honestly... I think its time to step away from the keyboard in this thread for a bit. While we understand your concerns... you are starting to get rather aggressive about it.
    Well I believe you mostly understand although for the 30 queues I am talking about at the moment the size of the test group doesn't matter to demonstrate the problem. Even if you increase the numbers you still run into the same problem. Increasing the numbers doesn't make the problem any better.

    I am not convinced duncanidaho11or azrael605 understand. Yes I did get a little aggressive but to be fair duncanidaho11 did mislead people and lie about me and azrael605 unfairly call me blitheringly dumb. But you are right I will do my best to be more neutral and will step away for a few hours.

    Post edited by pottsey5g on
  • baddmoonrizinbaddmoonrizin Member Posts: 7,036 Community Moderator
    Stop sniping each other, please. Thank you.
    GrWzQke.png
    Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator
    Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of PWE/Cryptic
    Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of PWE/Cryptic
    Contact Customer Support --> https://support.arcgames.com
    Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
    Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
    Want the latest information on Star Trek Online? Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,612 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    Go back a few posts. I gave a simple set of instructions which you can use to repeat the problem I am running into. A problem that is the same no matter the sample size, a problem that doesn’t change if transferred over to live with more players.
    So before you start calling me unscientific. Why don’t you try a scientific approach yourself.

    *Shrugs*

    You didn't provide methods or results documentation. Your experiment with "about 30 queues" is not an objectively repeatable one. Another user can look at whether or not some queues are being played at some specified time (in response to a single considered independent variable: presence or lack of random queuing between holodeck and tribble) but the confounding variables are many and various. You also don't haven't evaluated your control group with the exact same methodology. For example: sampling interval, relative population, activity level, queuing behavior, external factors such as time since last tribble update, and good ol' random variation (requiring repeated measurements over a long period of time and a comparison with variation on holodeck for the sake of meaningful analysis.) A more appropriate experiment may have been to examine queue behavior on tribble before and after random queuing was introduced (more factors are kept more consistent). But the call to testing would have overshadowed the baseline response to random queuing (the population is aware of your experimental manipulation and being guided to it.)

    Your testing method is, quite simply stated, unsound for the intended argument. That doesn't matter for the validity of opinion, but it limits how far you can take the results of your test (conjecture is a more reasonable ground to handle this kind of information. Science will have to wait on Cryptic's internal analyses of long-term usage data.)
    Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Last missions:
    Evolution's Smile [SSF:3-3]
    Epoch, Part 2 [AEI]
    Transcendence, Part 4
    Memorial Tour

    For the latest Tardigrades and other creative output: @Gorgonops_SSF
    Looking for something new to play? The interactive Foundry Mission Database has you covered.
  • sistericsisteric Member Posts: 768 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    MY Feelings on this subject...

    The rewards are nice, but their random nature makes them feel less than desirable. I prefer that my rewards structure be less based on luck and more based on actions that I can control..be that activity, dps throughput or some other measurable quotient that I can directly affect. The dilithium is most important to me as I am always lacking them for myself and my fleet.

    The fact that ground and space are lumped together I can see as bothersome in general, but to me is not a thing that concerns me or my setups. I work towards a specific setup for that character and then take them through all content using that setup. Some setups tend to be more challenging than others, but I have seen that I can be successful in all the content I do play no matter if it's ground or space.

    As for people's discussion on samples sizes for this in Tribble...
    Unless you can test this with what is considered a significant number of people (which needs to be over 50, I think) the sample sized he is presenting is not capable of creating a reliable statistical model for his conjecture. His concerns do seem to be a reasonable thing to bring up to test and verify, but a much larger pool that what he has presented needs to be applied to create a truer picture of the effects of the random queue. That being said, I do believe that this will effect all players, because they will either directly join the random queue, or have random queuers join their preselected queues, unless you only play with prebuilt crew. So even if you opt out of joining the random queue, you will be part of the process if you select a queue without a full group. That experience could then be hampered by players leaving because they do not want to run that content, or just not capable of playing the content due to gear, inexperience, skill selection, or lack of skill for the task. Allowing for a period of time to reconfigure themselves from one setup to another would be a nice quality of life to increase people's positive experiences in that content. But I do not think it will eliminate all negative experiences from this. I hope that the positives will outweigh the negatives for this.


    Post edited by sisteric on
    Federation: Fleet Admiral Zombee (Alien Tactical)::Fleet Admiral Danic (Vulcan Science)::Fleet Admiral Daniel Kochheiser (Human Engineer)
    KDF: Dahar Master Kan (Borg Klingon Tactical)::Dahar Master Torc (Alien Science)::Dahar Master Sisteric (Gorn Engineer)
    RR-Fed: Citizen Sirroc (Romulan Science)::Fleet Admiral Grell (Alien Engineer)
    RR-KDF: Fleet Admiral Zemo (Reman Tactical)::Fleet Admiral Xinatek (Reman Science)::Fleet Admiral Bel (Alien Engineer)
    TOS-Fed: Fleet Admiral Katem (Andorian Tactical)::Lieutenant Commander Straad (Vulcan Engineer)
    Dom-Fed: Dan'Tar (Jem'Hadar Science)
    Dom-KDF: Kamtana'Solan (Jem'Hadar Science)

    CoHost of Tribbles in Ecstasy (Zombee)
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,627 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    This is not a research paper or academic paper. I do not need to reference all my sources, post full result documentation and methods and then get it pear reviewed. While I can write Distinction level papers and I have had work published before this is not the place for that style of language. This is a gaming forum with less formal language and just saying I have done my own testing and posting my conclusion and then explaining a simple test that anyone else can repeat to demonstrate the problem is perfectly acceptable.

    “Your experiment with "about 30 queues" is not an objectively repeatable one.”
    Please explain how is it not objectively repeatable? Because everyone who has ran the test has found it to be repeatable with clear results that are the same over 99% of the time. Granted I didn’t list all the queues but I listed enough with simple steps on how to do the test and anyone can repeat the problem I ran into.

    Be honest did you even try the steps I posted? Why did you lie saying I have no data? Why did you lie and say my steps are not repeatable when they are easily repeatable. While I am asking questions why do you edit quotes and swap people’s names and links around? I find it hard to believe that last one to be a mistake as you have to manually edit the name and manually edit the link.


    “You also don't haven't evaluated your control group with the exact same methodology.”
    How would you know? Were you part of the test? Did you see and watch what I did? Have you somehow examined my full work and notes? My control group got 100% the same results by the way. But since you say I am wrong please explain how I haven’t evaluated my control group with the exact same methodology. If I can make improvements or have made a mistake I will correct it.

    “sampling interval, relative population, activity level, queuing behavior, external factors such as time since last tribble update, and good ol' random variation”
    With the exception of queuing behaviour the rest have zero impact on the results.


    “Your testing method is, quite simply stated, unsound for the intended argument.”
    Again how would you know? You have not even seen or been involved in my full testing method. If you were taking part under a different name please tell me so I can see if you are telling the truth. While I did not post my full testing method as this is not a suitable place for that. I did give you a simple easy to post single test out of the many I ran. Did you try it? Did you get different results?



    “A more appropriate experiment may have been to examine queue behavior on tribble before and after random queuing was introduced (more factors are kept more consistent). But the call to testing would have overshadowed the baseline response to random queuing (the population is aware of your experimental manipulation and being guided to it.)”
    That would not change the outcome of the single step by step test I posted.
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,612 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    While I can write Distinction level papers and I have had work published before this is not the place for that style of language.

    It's dissertation (if you're referring to doctoral level publications) and you don't seem to be reading my posts for anything other than reflexive attempts at simple contradiction. So, I'll let this argument stand and encourage readers draw their own conclusions. I don't need to elaborate on the self evident and this thread could dearly use a more productive discussion.
    Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Last missions:
    Evolution's Smile [SSF:3-3]
    Epoch, Part 2 [AEI]
    Transcendence, Part 4
    Memorial Tour

    For the latest Tardigrades and other creative output: @Gorgonops_SSF
    Looking for something new to play? The interactive Foundry Mission Database has you covered.
  • njodeath#7166 njodeath Member Posts: 28 Arc User
    For all those in favor of this new system please do me a favor. Find a how to you tube video of all the maps and learn them please, that way the randoms won't ruin the runs of those of us that pick manual. Please don't say that it's all random anyway so there will be no difference. Usually those who pick a map manually know the map that's why we are willing to wait 10 min for the thing to fill. All I'm asking is just don't go in to it blind there is plenty of info out there to know how not to ruin a run. At a minimum learn UAA that's my main map. I would very much appreciate it.
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,612 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    For all those in favor of this new system please do me a favor. Find a how to you tube video of all the maps and learn them please, that way the randoms won't ruin the runs of those of us that pick manual. Please don't say that it's all random anyway so there will be no difference. Usually those who pick a map manually know the map that's why we are willing to wait 10 min for the thing to fill. All I'm asking is just don't go in to it blind there is plenty of info out there to know how not to ruin a run. At a minimum learn UAA that's my main map. I would very much appreciate it.

    And I'll add for the sake of a earnest PSA "read the briefing and start on normal if you're not quick on the uptake" (it helps build a bigger buffer.) Be mindful of objectives and think critically about whether what you're doing is helping the team. If you're stuck in a loop with no evidence progress, chances are you're probably missing something. Keep your chat window open too and ask polite questions if you're really not sure what you're doing.
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Last missions:
    Evolution's Smile [SSF:3-3]
    Epoch, Part 2 [AEI]
    Transcendence, Part 4
    Memorial Tour

    For the latest Tardigrades and other creative output: @Gorgonops_SSF
    Looking for something new to play? The interactive Foundry Mission Database has you covered.
  • protoneousprotoneous Member Posts: 2,191 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    And I'll add for the sake of a earnest PSA "read the briefing and start on normal if you're not quick on the uptake" (it helps build a bigger buffer.) Be mindful of objectives and think critically about whether what you're doing is helping the team. If you're stuck in a loop with no evidence progress, chances are you're probably missing something. Keep your chat window open too and ask polite questions if you're really not sure what you're doing.
    I really think that asking people to leave their chat window open is asking too much. I closed mine years ago after somebody started cussing at me... something about not going right first in ISA. Seems players can be nit picky at times so leaving the chat window closed helps me focus on the game.

Sign In or Register to comment.