test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

[PC] Random Task Force Operations!

1910111214

Comments

  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,612 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    protoneous wrote: »
    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.

    I've had those bad experiences and severe nit picks but for first time players who really are lost with new queues I think they should risk the odd jerk if it means they can get a quick heads up from more level headed team-mates about TFO mechanics. I have had some great experiences with public games and while there's never any certainty about which side of the distribution you're about to fall on (or in which direction it may be skewed) it's a question here learning the basics and that does come at some effort and risk (ie. failure or TRIBBLE of one kind or another).

    Personal preferences will vary, but I think newer players should be aware that team chat is a thing they can use as needed/desired.

    (Personally, I keep it closed for the most part too except for fleet/friend chat and playing relatively new or complex queues [where other folks might struggle.])
    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: 2,179 Arc User
    protoneous wrote: »
    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.

    I've had those bad experiences and severe nit picks but for first time players who really are lost with new queues I think they should risk the odd jerk if it means they can get a quick heads up from more level headed team-mates about TFO mechanics. I have had some great experiences with public games and while there's never any certainty about which side of the distribution you're about to fall on (or in which direction it may be skewed) it's a question here learning the basics and that does come at some effort and risk (ie. failure or **** of one kind or another).

    Personal preferences will vary, but I think newer players should be aware that team chat is a thing they can use as needed/desired.

    (Personally, I keep it closed for the most part too except for fleet/friend chat and playing relatively new or complex queues [where other folks might struggle.])
    Darn it that was an attempt at injecting some levity into this thread.

    You made some very good points out of it though so not a complete waste. Let's all try to show some patience and be helpful when possible. Everybody did a queue for the first time at least once. I'll be giving the rtfo's a go with the acceptance of that risk you mentioned, and my chat window will be open and channel set to "team".

    Just between you and me I've taken to sometimes closing my chat window at times to help me focus on a task at hand. This unfortunately comes at the cost of not being available to try and answer a new player's simple question which is contrary to what I myself was offered upon first playing STO - unconditional help within 30 minutes of playing the game.

    First impressions can be important whether it's a player's initial foray into a new game or a new queue.
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,627 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    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.
    You just did the same as you did in the other threads when you got proven wrong. So I agree there is no point continuing. Do not worry mods duncanidaho11 and myself are done now.

    I have proven certain queues are harder to play after the change so there is no need to continue. Lets move on and see what changes the devs make.
  • tobywitczaktobywitczak Member Posts: 207 Arc User
    One thing I would like to see add is some sort of bonus for missions that run long. I think most would agree that the expected mission’s length is about 15 minutes, however for those missions that go sideways and yet the team stills slogs it out, they get 25% bonus for every 5 minutes after the expected end time. Or even a bonus if a player drops. I think the worst play thought I had was with the breach advanced, two players dropped, and yet after about 40 minutes we did win, but it really was not the effort. With some sort of bonus if I got say 300% in that case it would made the pain and suffering of the missions worth it.
  • ucgsquawk#5883 ucgsquawk Member Posts: 265 Arc User
    > @pottsey5g said:
    > duncanidaho11 wrote: »
    >
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >
    > You just did the same as you did in the other threads when you got proven wrong. So I agree there is no point continuing. Do not worry mods duncanidaho11 and myself are done now.
    >
    > I have proven certain queues are harder to play after the change so there is no need to continue. Lets move on and see what changes the devs make.


    If I may, it's good that you are able to produce higher level papers, you are not the only one, as you said this is a game forum...and we're talking about a game, but it was yourself who began to discuss scientific method. None of which is relevant really.

    On the previous page you mentioned your key grievance is that the queues are harder to play because you can't see which one has players in it so you know which one to play. If this IS your key issue then I apologize as all discussion of repeating experiments and sample sizes is completely irrelevant.
    Simply put your concern while valid is somewhat misplaced. With the new system you don't have to see which queues have players as all queues (with some specific noted exceptions) will be filled from the random TFO, this way you join whatever TFO YOU want and the players will follow rather than you chasing the players. In this way - again - the system becomes better and stronger the more players chose to use the random queue as they will cause not only their own diversity in what TFOs are run but they will cause more players to be able to play whatever they want whether someone is already queued or not.

    Bottom line, with new system you don't need to see who's already there, play what you want and ransoms will fill it.
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,460 Arc User
    I've created specific Tabs in the Chat Window. One for Team and one for Fleet. They are specifically filtered for their use. When entering a Queue I switch to the Team Tab. Very simple.
    '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
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,612 Arc User
    edited September 2018

    Bottom line, with new system you don't need to see who's already there, play what you want and ransoms will fill it.

    Indeed and it avoids the problems in autocorrelation in queuing behavior. Ie. folks playing what's already available, thus making what's already available more available to the exclusion of all else. It reinforces popularity bias which is something that the random queuing system is intended to mitigate for.

    We'll see how it plays out, though I'm pretty darn certain we won't have worry about any doom-level pronouncements (as always.)
    If this IS your key issue then I apologize as all discussion of repeating experiments and sample sizes is completely irrelevant.

    On this point, if someone is going to claim that they've proved something on any medium then they need to show how it was done. For some things in gaming the steps are easy (see. repro-ing a bug) for Pottsey's desired proof he literally would have needed to engage in full experimental design given the question, available data, and severe complications of the comparison. Ergo, the call to stick with conjecture in light of the lack of meaningful experimentation.

    What happened is as you know, but don't feel that one person's aversions is sufficient to close down an area of (typically) productive discourse. Sometimes you can run good tests of player behavior and mechanical interactions in video games for the sake of community discussion provided you are aware of what you can realistically test from the outset and can work with your fellow community members in improving the project's design and potentially aid in data collection (see. efforts to discern box/pack probabilities.)
    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.
  • emt27emt27 Member Posts: 167 Arc User
    Been away from game for well over 3 yrs.. lots have changed and I feel lost at times, qued up for PVE a couple of times, but nothing popped. Blamed it on perhaps not as many players as there used to be. It's like a new game to me... currently...
    Say something relavant or hold your tongue
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,612 Arc User
    emt27 wrote: »
    Been away from game for well over 3 yrs.. lots have changed and I feel lost at times, qued up for PVE a couple of times, but nothing popped. Blamed it on perhaps not as many players as there used to be. It's like a new game to me... currently...

    Well in 3 years you'll also be dealing with a large expansion to the number of queues. The population from what we've been told is pretty good (STO's going through a lot of rapid development, see. Age of Discovery [think of it as a season+] coming so soon after the last expansion.)

    But all told people have drifted into a few favorite PVE's and that's cemented some as absolutely dominant. Random queuing should help even part of the population and place them where needed (ie. folks queuing for infrequently played queues.) No release date yet but with systems in testing on tribble "within two months" is a okay guess.
    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
    > @pottsey5g said:
    > duncanidaho11 wrote: »
    >
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >
    > You just did the same as you did in the other threads when you got proven wrong. So I agree there is no point continuing. Do not worry mods duncanidaho11 and myself are done now.
    >
    > I have proven certain queues are harder to play after the change so there is no need to continue. Lets move on and see what changes the devs make.


    If I may, it's good that you are able to produce higher level papers, you are not the only one, as you said this is a game forum...and we're talking about a game, but it was yourself who began to discuss scientific method. None of which is relevant really.

    On the previous page you mentioned your key grievance is that the queues are harder to play because you can't see which one has players in it so you know which one to play. If this IS your key issue then I apologize as all discussion of repeating experiments and sample sizes is completely irrelevant.
    Simply put your concern while valid is somewhat misplaced. With the new system you don't have to see which queues have players as all queues (with some specific noted exceptions) will be filled from the random TFO, this way you join whatever TFO YOU want and the players will follow rather than you chasing the players. In this way - again - the system becomes better and stronger the more players chose to use the random queue as they will cause not only their own diversity in what TFOs are run but they will cause more players to be able to play whatever they want whether someone is already queued or not.

    Bottom line, with new system you don't need to see who's already there, play what you want and ransoms will fill it.
    That is correct about my key grievance. I was talking about the 30+ queues which are in the exceptions list and are harder to play with the changes from random STF. But I am glad someone understands me and understands how full experiments are irrelevant and repeating experiments and sample sizes are irrelevant and not needed to demonstrate and prove this problem. All you need to do is follow the simple steps I posted and the problem shows up as clear as day. So thank you.

    For playing Elite or the other exceptions the new system is much weaker and harder to play. I found I am not longer able to play what I want to when I want to in the new system. (I do not play normal and have Elite set as default)


  • ussvaliant#6064 ussvaliant Member Posts: 1,006 Arc User
    Final thoughts on this random queue thing.

    Currently if you PUG you will run into a number of players who just have no idea how the queue works or have any idea of what team work is.

    This randomly queuing system is not going to breath life back into dead queues in fact after a few horror runs with Pugs it will get abandoned very quickly

    I mean look at how the queues work at the moment it requires 5/10/20 people to select the same mission and many of them that enter them haven't taken the time to read/educate/learn and know the mission they have entered, they just want mindless pew pew.

    If Cryptic were serious about getting old content played then each mission should have unique rewards where the idea of Pugging the mission is not optimal and thus players coming together to form pre-mades like in the old days before the dark time before the Reputation, when special gear dropped from the Borg missions. I know people didn't like this and yes it is forcing people to play x match they don't want, but so is this random queue idea.

    Basically what I trying to say here is if you want the queues to thrive and be played you need to give us a reason to come together as a playerbase and co-operate and communicate with each other looking to play with one another.
    maR4zDV.jpg

    Hello rubber banding my old friend, time to bounce around the battlezone again, where are all my bug reports going?, out of love with this game I am falling, As Cryptic fail to acknowledge a problem exists, Shakes an angry fist, And from Support all I'm hearing are the sounds of silence.
  • sistericsisteric Member Posts: 768 Arc User
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    That is correct about my key grievance. I was talking about the 30+ queues which are in the exceptions list and are harder to play with the changes from random STF. But I am glad someone understands me and understands how full experiments are irrelevant and repeating experiments and sample sizes are irrelevant and not needed to demonstrate and prove this problem. All you need to do is follow the simple steps I posted and the problem shows up as clear as day. So thank you.

    For playing Elite or the other exceptions the new system is much weaker and harder to play. I found I am not longer able to play what I want to when I want to in the new system. (I do not play normal and have Elite set as default)


    I find your logic that sample size is irrelevant is flawed.

    My basis for that is simple. If you take your 30 queues and have 10 people select what they want to run, it's highly unlikely that you will get 4 others making the exact same choice as you. But if you have 50 people making that choice. your odds get better. And if we move to 500 people making that choice, it would become unlikely that you wouldn't get 4 others making the same choice as you. The sample size is very important in these multiple-choice options. And the larger the sample size, the larger the data set will be t work with. But the more accurate that data set will be able to predict the live environment.

    My personal experience with queues and their triggering speeds varies from day to day. But I have seen trends, and noted them. And the trends that I have found for my playtimes, does not get accurately reflected from Tribble to Holodeck. But It does give me the feel I need to conjecture will likely happen for me. I have been doing this for years, and quit recording the data years ago because I was able to correlate what I saw in test to what happens on live based on my previous experience.

    It's not empirical. It's not repeatable, because you would have to mimic my interactions with STO at my schedule. But it is quantifiable. I also know it will not be a true reflection of everyone else's experiences. SO you can take my thoughts as merely my opinion based on my own biased experience with game from years of playing it. It's conjecture based on my own data I have collected.
    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)
  • anodynesanodynes Member Posts: 1,971 Arc User
    tigeraries wrote: »
    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.

    The only one that I know of that was bugged for Romulans no longer is, the Facility 4028 class-based optionals. Those worked just fine for my Romulan Delta Recruit during the rerun of that event a few months ago. Never had a problem with it on my Temporal Agent, and you can see here (30:26 if the time link didn't work) that they worked just fine during the Temporal Recruit event, even if she didn't bother to do it.
    This is an MMO, not a Star Trek episode simulator. That would make for a terrible game.
  • ucgsquawk#5883 ucgsquawk Member Posts: 265 Arc User
    > @pottsey5g said:
    > ucgsquawk#5883 wrote: »
    >
    > > @pottsey5g said:
    > > duncanidaho11 wrote: »
    > >
    > > 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.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > You just did the same as you did in the other threads when you got proven wrong. So I agree there is no point continuing. Do not worry mods duncanidaho11 and myself are done now.
    > >
    > > I have proven certain queues are harder to play after the change so there is no need to continue. Lets move on and see what changes the devs make.
    >
    >
    > If I may, it's good that you are able to produce higher level papers, you are not the only one, as you said this is a game forum...and we're talking about a game, but it was yourself who began to discuss scientific method. None of which is relevant really.
    >
    > On the previous page you mentioned your key grievance is that the queues are harder to play because you can't see which one has players in it so you know which one to play. If this IS your key issue then I apologize as all discussion of repeating experiments and sample sizes is completely irrelevant.
    > Simply put your concern while valid is somewhat misplaced. With the new system you don't have to see which queues have players as all queues (with some specific noted exceptions) will be filled from the random TFO, this way you join whatever TFO YOU want and the players will follow rather than you chasing the players. In this way - again - the system becomes better and stronger the more players chose to use the random queue as they will cause not only their own diversity in what TFOs are run but they will cause more players to be able to play whatever they want whether someone is already queued or not.
    >
    > Bottom line, with new system you don't need to see who's already there, play what you want and ransoms will fill it.
    >
    >
    >
    > That is correct about my key grievance. I was talking about the 30+ queues which are in the exceptions list and are harder to play with the changes from random STF. But I am glad someone understands me and understands how full experiments are irrelevant and repeating experiments and sample sizes are irrelevant and not needed to demonstrate and prove this problem. All you need to do is follow the simple steps I posted and the problem shows up as clear as day. So thank you.
    >
    > For playing Elite or the other exceptions the new system is much weaker and harder to play. I found I am not longer able to play what I want to when I want to in the new system. (I do not play normal and have Elite set as default)


    All I can do here is sigh...you are clinging to your belief and ignoring all evidence and logic that is contrary, especially when you just agreed experiments etc are irrelevant when it was you that brought up your experiments and scientific theory originally.

    You specifically stated that it is harder for you now since you can't see what queue is busy so don't know which one to get into.
    As myself and others have demonstrated, with a large random player base your concern is totally baseless. If you only pick a queue the system will send random players to fill it out so you can play the one you want...unless you're saying that you cannot pick a queue unless someone had already queued for it so that the decision is made for you? If you can't make a decision on what to queue unless someone does it first you should join the random queue.

    Otherwise just play what you want and the system will put available players there. Thus more random players means a better system for all.

    In what way is any of this harder...what specifically about picking a queue you want and having random players put in to let it run is more difficult or unplayable for you versus you seeing who's queuing and trying to pick ones with people already in them? I'm at a loss trying to understand where you're trying to go with this at this point...we've shown the system works better for your concerns.

    My apologies to everyone for continuing this, but I'm kind of hooked now and really want to figure out why this system worries him so all evidence to the contrary.
    And sorry for excessive quotes above but I can't edit well on my phone.
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,627 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    “If you can't make a decision on what to queue unless someone does it first you should join the random queue.”
    Accept for as I said before the random queue doesn’t play the queues I like to play. Also I do not want to play random. I want to have choice and options which random STF is reducing.

    “If you only pick a queue the system will send random players to fill it out so you can play the one you want”
    But it doesn’t’ for me. I do not play normal and the queues I tend to play are not part of that feature. Zero elite queues are included and a decent amount of advanced queries are not included either. All of those queues are now harder to play. So far I have counted 30+ queues that do draw players from the random STF and many of those 30 are queues I like.


    “In what way is any of this harder...what specifically about picking a queue you want and having random players put in to let it run is more difficult or unplayable for you versus you seeing who's queuing and trying to pick ones with people already in them? I'm at a loss trying to understand where you're trying to go with this at this point...we've shown the system works better for your concerns.”
    Currently as I write this out of the elite queues 4 are active and the rest are empty on the live server. The active and empty ones change around moment to moment. I do not queue for Elite with zero people in and I only queue for select ones that I find fun and I have time to do. Typically I only queue up for 1 thing at a time as I like to know what I am getting into. On average right now I can scan the list of active and more often than not find a suitable queue to play within a short time frame.

    With the changes on tribble from random STF which you can simulate on live by covering up the data. I can no longer see what is active and what is empty. So I have to guess and stumble around picking empty queues. I just tied to play on live with the changes from tribble (data covered up) and wasted 15+ mins trying to pick a suitable elite queue and getting into a match. That doesn’t happen when you can see the data that is being removed. It has gone from a near certainty to random guess work that doesn’t always work.

    To put this another way. With the data that is being removed I can queue up for a single Elite queue and get a hit rate of 90%+ active being inside the mission within 2mins or a short timeframe. Remove that data on the live server to match tribble and the hit rate drops below 20% and the wait time massively increases when queuing up for single elite queue one at a time. Hence why I say the new system is making is way harder for me to play.

    As I said before I enjoy Drannur Beach Assault on advanced or Elite but dislike normal. Another one is Battle of Korfex. Both spends a large amount of time empty. Right now on live I can see when it’s active and choose to join in or not based on my mood and time left to play. After the changes I can never see when it’s active so never know when to join in. So I end up getting to play it far less. Or to put it another way in the old system I can queue up for it at the right time and play. In the new system its pure guess work and pure luck if I get to join at the right moment.

    It’s the fact we can no longer judge when to join a single queue or not. There is no choice anymore it’s just random guess work and random guess work means more wasted time with less queues being played.

    This is the best example I can think off. If 4 people are queued up for one of those 30+ queues that are not part of random STF I can see that queue is active and if I choose join that single queue within 30seconds. Leaving me in a suitable single choice queue. After the change if 4 people are queued up for one of those 30+ queues I cannot see that so I have to guess. So I go from having a queue active within 30seconds to spending 10mins+ guessing and hoping I land in the current active queue out of list.

    Let me ask you this. Given the queues I play how am I meant to queue up for a single queue one at a time without wasting time and without picking an empty one in the new system? That is not a problem in old system. But it happens a lot in the new system.

    It is worth stating my main play time is when the server population is at its lowest point. So there are a large amount of empty queues which means I relay on that data that is being removed to tell me which queries are active.

    Sorry for the long post but I am not sure how else to explain it. I do know others are starting to understand and have said the same thing. Perhaps they can explain it clearer if this doesn’t make sense?
  • ucgsquawk#5883 ucgsquawk Member Posts: 265 Arc User
    Okay, so we've narrowed your concerns down again. Now we're down to elite queues and a few advanced ones which may or may not be ultimately included.

    So you're problem isn't with the new system of random queues making it harder for you at all. Your only concern is that they've covered up the queue count on the queues that have nothing to do with the random system.
    Now that we've narrowed it all down to a specific complaint all of your extra discussion about trying it with a group and scientific method was not needed. Just say I would like to still be able to see queue numbers on the TFOs that aren't in the random system.
    That's a very specific piece of feedback that can go on the feedback forum or however they want the feedback from the Tribble server (I don't know...we don't get that on console). Just tell them you want to see the queue so you can find the busy ones that aren't covered by the random system.

    Glad We've finally gotten to the bottom of that one.
  • protoneousprotoneous Member Posts: 2,179 Arc User
    Think I'm in need of a refresher after a visit to Tribble. RTFO's are an optional way of queuing that offers an additional random bonus payout. They are n/a to elite and select queues requiring >5 people, EV suits, and some other criteria, with queue by choice still being available. When this system goes live is the player count going to be visible for when you want to queue by choice? Sometimes QBC can be opportunistic by nature even for lesser played queues. My apologies if this was answered earlier in this 14 page thread.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    This is not a research paper or academic paper. I do not need to reference all my sources, post full result documentation and methods.
    Maybe, maybe not, but if you want people to accept what you say as true, then you need to do more than say "I tested it and it's bad".
    protoneous wrote: »
    Think I'm in need of a refresher after a visit to Tribble. RTFO's are an optional way of queuing that offers an additional random bonus payout. They are n/a to elite and select queues requiring >5 people, EV suits, and some other criteria, with queue by choice still being available. When this system goes live is the player count going to be visible for when you want to queue by choice? Sometimes QBC can be opportunistic by nature even for lesser played queues. My apologies if this was answered earlier in this 14 page thread.
    Apparently the ui element for the number of people currently waiting is not there. Of course it wasn't particularly accurate.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 36,771 Arc User
    they removed the players queued section on the queue UI again, in other words? i'd have thought after how many people screamed the LAST time they removed it, cryptic would've learned their lesson​​
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!

    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    RIP Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks & Calvin Munerlyn

    blacklivesmatter.png

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."

    "Curiosity is bad! It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed...and more importantly, it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • protoneousprotoneous Member Posts: 2,179 Arc User
    they removed the players queued section on the queue UI again, in other words? i'd have thought after how many people screamed the LAST time they removed it, cryptic would've learned their lesson​​
    It appears they did. My question was if anybody knew whether this was just for testing purposes or does it go live without the players queued shown? (per my post above) Fresh from Tribble -

    Dat9JQL.jpg



  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,627 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    “Okay, so we've narrowed your concerns down again. Now we're down to elite queues and a few advanced ones which may or may not be ultimately included.”
    All Elite, more than a few advanced and normal queues as well. 30+ so far along all 3 settings and I bet there are more.
    I did explain all that before along with the steps to experience it in both threads but others called BS, one called me dumb and another started going on about how I have to do accurate full experiments with a pear review, control groups, and the rest and without them I am wrong and it is just speculation. Which as you can see is not needed to prove my point and prove its harder to run the queues.

    “Your only concern is that they've covered up the queue count on the queues that have nothing to do with the random system.”
    It’s not the only concern but it is by far the main concern. The others are minor in comparison. Personally I see it as part of the random STF changes as they did the change alongside random STF for random STF. But I can see how you might not. I am happy to settle with it’s a related change alongside random STF.

    “Maybe, maybe not, but if you want people to accept what you say as true, then you need to do more than say "I tested it and it's bad".”
    I agree which is why multiple times I explained what was missing and gave examples and simple steps to repeat how I tested to see the impact.

    Also I do agree it is not 100% accurate but it is an extremely useful guideline when you play at this time of day. (See my post timestamp). It gives me a 90%+ hit rate on queuing for a single mission and getting active in a short timeframe. Without that my hit rate of getting into into a queue with 1 queue at a time drops from 90%+ to under 20%.
  • ucgsquawk#5883 ucgsquawk Member Posts: 265 Arc User
    I think part of the problem with people calling bs was more that your original issues seemed somewhat muddled. Your post talked about experiments and scientific method at one point which lead myself and probably some others to the conclusion that you were talking about the random system itself rather than just changes to the ui.

    Your concern is very specific to the UI and how it affects your choices of which non random TFO to enter. That's quite a different problem than what came across in your earlier posts since it doesn't require testing you can see it's not there. Much misunderstanding I think.
    Now that we've uncovered the core concern that's a specific feedback you can give and I understand your issue.
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,627 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    I think part of the problem with people calling bs was more that your original issues seemed somewhat muddled. Your post talked about experiments and scientific method at one point which lead myself and probably some others to the conclusion that you were talking about the random system itself rather than just changes to the ui.

    Your concern is very specific to the UI and how it affects your choices of which non random TFO to enter. That's quite a different problem than what came across in your earlier posts since it doesn't require testing you can see it's not there. Much misunderstanding I think.
    Now that we've uncovered the core concern that's a specific feedback you can give and I understand your issue.
    Yes much misunderstanding and the science stuff was due to duncanidaho1 who was saying things like “because you're not presenting an argument with a scientific approach” and was incorrectly saying I need to run a full experiment design with control group and pear review and the rest that turned out to be false.

    Anyway I have proven my case and answered your direct questions, unless anyone else asks any other questions its time for me to move on. Thank you for being reasonable with me.
  • ucgsquawk#5883 ucgsquawk Member Posts: 265 Arc User
    Not really a case to prove, as you didn't need to do trials with your friends etc. I think your initial post just wasn't quite clear on your concern. But at least we got to it in the end.
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,612 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    Yes much misunderstanding and the science stuff was due to duncanidaho1 who was saying things like “because you're not presenting an argument with a scientific approach” and was incorrectly saying I need to run a full experiment design with control group and pear review and the rest that turned out to be false.

    No, what I said was that you weren't running a scientific experiment so would you please refrain from brow-beating other users (simply expressing an unconnected positive opinion about the random queue system) with your explicit claim to proof (via trying to play certain TFO's on tribble.) In this post I also reinforced that opinion based conjecture was A-Okay, your concerns for the potential impact were valid, it was just the dubious claim to having done any kind of definitive testing which was problematic for a level and respectful discussion (considering how you were using your conclusions.) You then responded by claiming that you were totally being scientific (without applying understanding for what the requirements of a basic scientific test are) while also calling me a liar, wrong, unconstructive, and my point totally invalid for noting that you weren't presenting a scientific analysis under a realized data set (so, ease up a bit.)

    Relevant quote, in it's entirety:
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    szim wrote: »
    [Note: this should be "Pottsey5g wrote," minor error when trimming the unwieldy comment tree in my original reply]

    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.

    This is why you should probably put some effort into reading for comprehension before hitting that quote button for another attempt at unrestrained contradiction. It puts you in some odd places which ultimately confound your intended argument. Focus on your points and develop them with greater care.
    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.
  • captaincelestialcaptaincelestial Member Posts: 1,871 Arc User
    Starting with the launch of #AgeofDiscovery, you'll be able to be matched into a Random Task Force Operation, and earn extra Marks and Dilithium in addition to the TFO rewards!

    https://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/10994033

    I, for one, would be happy to earn extra Marks and Dilithium. :smiley:

    Not everyone can win at the stock market, I mean the Exchange.
  • captaincelestialcaptaincelestial Member Posts: 1,871 Arc User
    sirsinjin wrote: »
    unotetsu wrote: »
    New Boff award announced for "Random Task" force!

    2hft0j.jpg

    I had to login just for this. This made my day. :)

    Hmm, hopefully that's not a shoe-phone.

    I've no idea what kind of long-distant plan the shoe has, or how bad the roaming cost is going to be....
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 36,771 Arc User
    coming this fall, Shoe Trek, featuring joe piscopoe

    'Mr Sock...set heels...to...stun'​​
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!

    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    RIP Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks & Calvin Munerlyn

    blacklivesmatter.png

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."

    "Curiosity is bad! It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed...and more importantly, it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,627 Arc User
    edited September 2018
    “minor error when trimming the unwieldy comment tree in my original reply “
    You really expect me to believe you forgot who you where quoting and accidently changed the name and then sometimes accidently change the quote link to yet another person different to the first name edit. Perhaps if it was a one off but you have done this multiple time across multiple threads and have been asked to stop it by multiple different people who say its confusing and misleading. Plus there was no unwieldy comment tree in that post or even a muti quote with different people. It should have been a simple case of press quote, write replay. My post was a simple quote with 1 simple line with nothing to trim with no chain of quotes before it and no muti quote either. Its not a minor error either as it makes discussions hard to follow when you swap the names around, attribute quotes of text to the wrong person and the click quote link takes you to the wrong place. Which is I problem I only experience with your posts because you edit the linknumbers, swap names around and sometimes you even direct the quote to different threads altogether. If it is a mistake than please stop making so many mistakes. It happens far to often.


    “it was just the dubious claim to having done any kind of definitive testing which was problematic for a level and respectful discussion”
    I clearly did do definitive testing and I clearly gave you simple repeatable steps with repeatable results to experience the same thing I did. But you incorrectly marked it off topic and wrote it off as not valid.


    “while also calling me a liar, wrong, unconstructive,”
    I can prove all that. You kept saying just like you did in your current post that I needed to present a scientific analysis under a realized data set which is wrong. I do not need to do that to prove my point hence me saying you are wrong. You where unconstructive when you stopped replying for a while and started tagging everything off topic, even when it was directly on topic. Then later when I asked you reasonable questions like explain “You also don't haven't evaluated your control group with the exact same methodology” you refused because you do not hold yourself to the same standard you expect everyone else to post at. Hence you being unconstructive. If someone said something you posted was wrong and does not explain why you have a go at them. But you seem to think its ok for you to say someone is wrong and not explain it.

    As for the lies that’s easy to prove. You lied saying I had no data when I did. You know nothing about how I looked at my control group but lied saying “haven't evaluated your control group with the exact same methodology” which as you where not in the control group and as you have not seen how I evaluate control groups there is no way for you to know. In other words you made up a false statement and tied to pass the lie off as fact in an attempt to discredit me.

    You lied again saying “Your testing method is, quite simply stated, unsound for the intended argument.” When you have not seen my full testing method and the one part I did post was sound and correct for the intended argument.

    Edit: if you did not lie you should be able to post my control group data and expand on how I did not evaluate that group with the exact same methodology. End edit:

    “This is why you should probably put some effort into reading for comprehension before hitting that quote button for another attempt at unrestrained contradiction.”
    As per the other threads where I had to say a similar thing. You need to apply the advice you give out to yourself.


    ““No, what I said was that you weren't running a scientific experiment so would you please refrain from brow-beating other users (simply expressing an unconnected positive opinion about the random queue system) with your explicit claim to proof (via trying to play certain TFO's on tribble.)”
    Which is another lie as I did run scientific experiments and did spend lots of time testing lots of things. I did not share that full experiment because it was not needed and this is not the suitable place. As I said before this is a gaming forum that doesn’t need that style of language and as I said before doesn’t need full post result documents, methods or conclusions with pear reviews.

    All I needed to do was what I did. Post my thoughts after testing, post the problem I experienced and post the steps of 1 tiny part of all the different tests which give repeatable results and shows the problem.

    I did not need to run and post a full experiment design with control group and pear review. That simple 1 tiny part of all the testing is enough evidence to backup what I was saying, which has been proven correct.
    Post edited by pottsey5g on
  • ucgsquawk#5883 ucgsquawk Member Posts: 265 Arc User
    For the OP, again you're going back to claiming scientific experiments etc....to be honest that's something that is fine but only gives you a result valid on the test server. Due to changes in sample size MOST issues are not going to carry over to the main server as we've shown.

    But to your specific concern there is no repeatable experiment to prove anything...in fact there's nothing to prove, it's an observation really..."I can't see the players queued for the non random TFOs and this is an issue for me". Your methodology on this is flawed.
    Its not anything that requires you to tell us about repeatable experiments with a group. Its a simple observation, however to be fair it did get lost in your original post when you began discussing repeatable steps etc.

    Might be best to walk away and just accept your point was somewhat convuluted in your original post and the discussion did nothing to try and get your point across until the end. That it took so long to work out a specific concern does suggest that perhaps your original post was somewhat...unorganized? Maybe difficult to digest? It didn't get your main point across as clearly as you may have thought (since you knew your point you naturally see the post differently).
    No lies etc. just plain old mistakes and misunderstandings.
Sign In or Register to comment.