test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Random TFOs have brought bad content to the surface

24

Comments

  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,624 Arc User
    I don't like random nor the idea of someone forcing me to grind what I don't want. Choice is better than being forced upon. Or at the very least make it juicer to do them These are waste of time IMO with little or same archaic reward system.​​

    So don't join random, queue what you want to play.
    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: 3,774 Arc User
    edited October 2018
    “Opposite experience I've had myself and seen documented through several STO streams. I'm really not sure how you're having such a bad time if you're accurately reporting your experience with the RTFO system. Some difficulty with specific queues? Sure, there's ways of replicating that (ie. playing ineligible TFO's.) All queues taking much longer to start, if at all? I just can't see how you're arriving at that conclusion.”
    Many people have reported the same as me in that many queues are either not starting any more or taking longer to start. Pressing the random button seems to get in straight away but queuing up single queues often takes far longer than the old system.

    I also didn’t say all queues take much longer to start. I said many queues take much longer to start or do not start at all. Some are faster yes I agree on that while others are now much worse off. Either way if they would just undo the UI change we would gain all the benefits of RTFO and all the benefits of the old system with none of the negative of the new UI.

    warpangel wrote: »
    “The numbers were removed because they were negative feedback that encouraged people to wait instead of joining queues. It's better the like minded people are in the queues together rather than lurking in the shadows waiting for someone else to queue first.
    That’s not true the numbers didn’t give a negative feedback. The opposite in fact the numbers encouraged people to take part in more queues and everyone benefited. If 4 people are waiting and I see them and think that looks fun lets join. All 5 of us benefit from faster queue starts and more queues played. Now instead of me joining them as I cannot see them those 4 people sit there waiting, and waiting and I myself sit there waiting and waiting. We all end up worse off.
    The numbers in the UI had a positive impact on queues. Removing them has only had a negative impact.

    warpangel wrote: »
    “On the other hand, if people don't want to play the same queues you do, well there's your problem. Either way it has nothing at all to do with the UI.”
    Accept it has everything to do with the UI change. Many do want to play the same queues but they cannot see that I want play and I cannot see that they want to play so neither of us end up joining together. Hence why removing the numbers has had a negative impact on queues starting and being played. Instead of us seeing each other and wanting to play the same content we now have to guess which doesn’t work. Evidence points to the UI number being removed has done a massive amount of harm to a large number of queues. Many which where playable with the UI number are now unplayable due to the UI change just as I warned would happen.

    It seems clear to me that the numbers encouraged people to join in with each other which was a positive impact on queues.
    Post edited by pottsey5g on
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    “The numbers were removed because they were negative feedback that encouraged people to wait instead of joining queues. It's better the like minded people are in the queues together rather than lurking in the shadows waiting for someone else to queue first.
    That’s not true the numbers didn’t give a negative feedback. The opposite in fact the numbers encouraged people to take part in more queues and everyone benefited. If 4 people are waiting and I see them and think that looks fun lets join. All 5 of us benefit from faster queue starts and more queues played. Now instead of me joining them as I cannot see them those 4 people sit there waiting, and waiting and I myself sit there waiting and waiting. We all end up worse off.
    You're left waiting because you refuse to just join the queue(s) you want to play. Precisely the kind of behavior the change is meant to discourage.
    The numbers in the UI had a positive impact on queues. Removing them has only had a negative impact.
    Only one player can be the 5th in a queue, so encouraging a 5th to join at the expense of discouraging the 4 others who must necessarily come in first is obviously not a positive impact.
    warpangel wrote: »
    “On the other hand, if people don't want to play the same queues you do, well there's your problem. Either way it has nothing at all to do with the UI.”
    Accept it has everything to do with the UI change. Many do want to play the same queues but they cannot see that I want play and I cannot see that they want to play so neither of us end up joining together. Hence why removing the numbers has had a negative impact on queues starting and being played. Instead of us seeing each other and wanting to play the same content we now have to guess which doesn’t work. Evidence points to the UI number being removed has done a massive amount of harm to a large number of queues. Many which where playable with the UI number are now unplayable due to the UI change.
    See above. Only people who joined queues counted for the numbers, so no amount of lurkers waiting to be the 5th would ever fill any queue.

    5 people joining a queue will start it. 5 people all waiting for the others to join first will not. Nothing has changed.

    In other words, the people waiting for the 4's weren't seeing each other in those queues, you were seeing the people who were willing to join the queues even when they said 0, 1, 2 or 3. Because someone has to. Only the last person could possibly see a 4 in the number. If those people no longer want to play those queues, it has nothing to do with the UI. And without them you would never see a 4 even if the number was still there.
  • rimmarierimmarie Member Posts: 414 Arc User
    ashstorm1 wrote: »
    Let's pray for never being randomly queued for Undine Infiltration (50% chances of automatic failure due to the infamous fire extinguisher bug. 'nuff said.)

    you can only fail because of that on Elite. and since Elite isn't in the random queue list....

    I don't like random nor the idea of someone forcing me to grind what I don't want. Choice is better than being forced upon. Or at the very least make it juicer to do them. These are waste of time IMO with little or same archaic reward system.​​

    no one is forcing you to do anything. the old system still works. click on the queue you want.
    what is it you think you are being FORCED to do?
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    But like minded people can no longer find and join each other leading to less queues starting with less queues being played due to the UI change. The UI change has been nothing but a negative impact on the queue system with no positive side to it. If the devs undid that UI change but kept the rest of TFO the same everyone would benefit and more queues would be played.

    While I can join any and all queues many will not start anymore or take much longer to start.

    Which ones are you trying to start? We regularly join Brotherhood of the Sword Elite and Miner Instabilities Elite. They seem to be starting in the same amount of time as they did before the addition of Random (between 3-5mins)

  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,774 Arc User
    edited October 2018
    edit
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,624 Arc User
    edited October 2018
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    Many people have reported the same as me in that many queues are either not starting any more or taking longer to start. Pressing the random button seems to get in straight away but queuing up single queues often takes far longer than the old system.

    Not what I'm seeing, most queues tend to pop within a couple minutes and I haven't yet seen an eligible queue hang as I've heard one other person report. If you're having the opposite experience I would note time and specific queue so Cryptic can investigate, could be something up on the technical side but it's hard to say with what little you've provided here.
    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: 3,774 Arc User
    edited October 2018
    warpangel wrote: »
    “You're left waiting because you refuse to just join the queue(s) you want to play. Precisely the kind of behavior the change is meant to discourage.”
    Not true I just joined 28 queues and set a stopwatch going. It’s currently on 18 minutes and counting up and nothing has popped. That would never have happened in the old system. All the evidence points to the UI change having a massive negative impact on the queue system just like I warned you it would. In the old system people would have seen me queue up and been encouraged to join in via the numbers that have been removed and we would all have benefited. Now because of the UI change we all end up sitting there waiting longer not playing. Plus the UI change has driven one batch of players away from the queues altogether. How is that a positive change?

    The UI change has done the opposite to what you wanted. The UI change has stopped likeminded people from seeing each other queueing up and playing together. The UI change has discouraged seeing other people and joining in with them which is very bad for the game and queues.

    warpangel wrote: »
    Only one player can be the 5th in a queue, so encouraging a 5th to join at the expense of discouraging the 4 others who must necessarily come in first is obviously not a positive impact.
    The UI numbers do not discourage the 4 others. Encouraging the 5th person to join via the UI numbers benefits everyone the 5th person and the 4 others all benefit. By removing the UI numbers you are not encouraging the 5th person to join so you are punishing the 4 waiting by making them wait longer. So clearly the UI numbers are a positive.

    The simple fact is by removing the UI numbers you making it harder for players see what each other are doing and so it is harder to choose to team up and start a queue.


    warpangel wrote: »
    “5 people joining a queue will start it. 5 people all waiting for the others to join first will not. Nothing has changed.”
    But it doesn’t work like that in reality. What happened before the change was 4 people wanting to join a queue and a 5th would see that and be encouraged to play and join in causing the queue to start. Now that 5th person doesn’t see the 4 people and so the 5th is not encouraged to play and so all 5 people end up waiting without playing any queues. So by removing the UI number you are discouraging players from joining up together which has a net negative effect on queues starting.

    By taking away the UI numbers you are discouraging players away from queues.
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,624 Arc User
    edited October 2018
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    That’s not true the numbers didn’t give a negative feedback.

    Negative as in "no one is playing this queue, best try ISA/CCA/Borg RA" because the number in question was zero.

    The opposite in fact the numbers encouraged people to take part in more queues and everyone benefited
    By the number of queues that were left dead by a population exhibiting strong degrees of behavioral autocorrelation, it's pretty darn easy to say that this did more harm than good.
    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.
  • xyquarzexyquarze Member Posts: 2,091 Arc User
    edited October 2018
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    That’s not true the numbers didn’t give a negative feedback. The opposite in fact the numbers encouraged people to take part in more queues and everyone benefited. If 4 people are waiting and I see them and think that looks fun lets join. All 5 of us benefit from faster queue starts and more queues played. Now instead of me joining them as I cannot see them those 4 people sit there waiting, and waiting and I myself sit there waiting and waiting. We all end up worse off.
    The numbers in the UI had a positive impact on queues. Removing them has only had a negative impact.

    The numbers in the UI may have had a positive impact on queues which were already popular enough to get 4 people waiting. I have on more than one occasion tried to get queues started I like to play once in a while, and maybe even got up to 3 in the queue after a quarter of an hour, only for the number to decline back to 1. If any of your like-minded people would have been willing not only to start the queue as the 5th but thought "this might be fun, I'll join 'em so another like-minded person can start it" I would have played more. Granted, these may have been queues you don't consider fun and wouldn't even join at 4, but as warpangel correctly points out, only one person can be the 5th. For a queue to start, you'll need a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, too. If people don't want to take these positions -> less queues played overall -> negative impact of numbers on queues.

    The reason you are waiting longer is that you cannot reap the rewards of those willing to wait for a while anymore to get your quick fix. This may be disappointing to you, but in my eyes it's an overall win for the game.

    Oh, and the poor souls now waiting forever because they don't get their 5th player for the queue they want to play anymore? They'll get their 5th, if necessary from a RTFO guy. Most probably they won't need and randomeer though - if the queue was popular enough for players to sign up for the inconvenient waiting positions in the first place, they'd probably be willing to sign up and get the same position or every now and then a lucky immediate start as a bonus. They don't suffer.
    My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
  • artaniscreedartaniscreed Member Posts: 92 Arc User
    I think random TFOs are great. I've played some new stuff that i never have before and some stuff that i havent in a while for the same reason: nobody was Xing up for them because...nobody was Xing up for them.

    So yeah, that negative reinforcement was a problem.

    My question to those who are decrying this change; why do you not drop into zone or fleet/armada chats?

    @darkbladejk Are there any plans for a Looking for Group channel(s)?
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    The numbers were removed because they were negative feedback that encouraged people to wait instead of joining queues. It's better the like minded people are in the queues together rather than lurking in the shadows waiting for someone else to queue first.
    also, they were buggy and usually wrong.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,774 Arc User
    edited October 2018
    “By the number of queues that were left dead by a population exhibiting strong degrees of behavioral autocorrelation, it's pretty darn easy to say that this did more harm than good.”
    That’s was a good thing. Players gravitate towards what is more fun and avoid what is less fun. Trying to push players into less fun content at the expense of the fun content is bad all around. Behavioral autocorrelation is not automatically a bad thing. But I am not interested in arguing about Behavioral autocorrelation.

    What I am interested in is looking at Elites as more queues are dead now than before the UI change just like I warned. Not because the players have moved into TFO but because the UI change has stopped the Elite players from seeing each other and joining in with each other. We Elite player can no longer find each other and team up via the queue system. As you would say it’s pretty darn easy to see the UI change had done more harm at Elite level then good.

    TFO solves the population problem in the less played normal/advanced queues. So there is no need to punish the Elite queues by making it harder to play together at that level. Surly there has to be a middle ground that benefits both groups. All I want to do is go back to playing Elites with other people again but the change that is meant to make queues easy to find, at Elite level has made them far harder just like I warned it would .

    Can you understand where I am coming from? Can you see how at Elite level it is now very difficult to get a queue active due to the changes in UI.
  • artaniscreedartaniscreed Member Posts: 92 Arc User
    I havent played a TFO yet that i havent liked.
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,624 Arc User
    edited October 2018
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    That’s was a good thing. Players gravitate towards what is more fun and avoid what is less fun.

    Assuming of course that fun was the principle factor influencing queue selection, not rewards/time ratio (as was conventionally accepted pre-RTFO and demonstrated many times over with changes to the grinding meta affecting population distribution in the PVE system much more readily than gameplay changes both in TFO's and in the wider game [note the relative unpopularity of patrols, even though they are the closest possible analogs to "fun" queues].) Gameplay under the old system was a secondary consideration and it took some fairly significant changes (ie. everything done with AoD) to allow it have a greater impact. For a couple reasons, RTFO's wash out reward/time estimation and force players to act in an ideal way with respect to filling waiting matches, decided by those who want to play something for fun or specific rewards. Players still gravitate towards what they like to play, it's still embedded in the DNA of the new system. There's just more mitigating for player over-clustering.

    As for elite, the solution would seem to be an elite RTFO; not re-instituting a contributing factor to all-consuming population singularities (ie. folks tautologically choosing queues based on listed wait times, not personal gameplay preference.) That or just queue for everything you want to play regardless and opt for whichever pops first. You don't actually need to see what's available to make that choice, just let circumstances sort out the details. If queuing for all Elite queues doesn't do it, then you should consider whether the problem is really systemic (again, you literally don't need to see which elite queue to join for the fastest match when you can join all of them simultaneously) or players finally making more of a less constrained choice about what they like to play (ie. advance/normal.)
    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.
  • jaguarskxjaguarskx Member Posts: 5,945 Arc User
    Generally speaking I like the RTFOs because I am playing missions that have long been dead. It is not a perfect system, but it is a start. A couple of imperfections seems to be related to the queue missions themselves such as Starbase One and the Swarm both being buggy though I think the Swarm has been fixed based on my experience over the weekend. As for Starbase One, I have gotten placed in a queue where it seems to be stuck in the middle of the mission with all 4 evac ships escaped and all that is needed is to destroy the remaining Klingon ships... yet there are none on the map. I had one odd occurrence where I simply queue up for CCA, but it took nearly 8 minutes for the mission to begin. Though I did queue up Undine Infiltration and it took less than 2 minutes to begin.


    As for elite, the solution would seem to be an elite RTFO; not re-instituting a contributing factor to all-consuming population singularities (ie. folks tautologically choosing queues based on listed wait times, not personal gameplay preference.) That or just queue for everything you want to play regardless and opt for whichever pops first.

    I am definitely not going to join an elite RTFO. My ships are not setup for elite space combat, but elite ground missions are fine since they are much easier.
  • qqqqiiqqqqii Member Posts: 460 Arc User
    We've all had extensive evidence in the past for how much they care about player feedback (little-to-none). I'm just shocked that anyone who still plays the game thinks that posting about it here will matter (little-to-none).
  • darkbladejkdarkbladejk Member Posts: 3,379 Community Moderator
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    That’s not true we have been pretty much forced to abandon many queues. Via the queue system I cannot anymore team up with likeminded players as the tools we used to play with like minded people have been removed. I have been trying for well over a week now and have barely had any success. The pick and play the queue you want has been badly affected in a negative way from the TFO change. We cannot just ignore TFO’s and play the old way as its not working the same anymore.

    I do not care about the extra marks or other people playing random. The problem is the pick and play the queue you want has suffered badly. I cannot get many queues to start and the few that start now take ages to start making the entire experience much worse. I have had so much wasted time due to the new queue system that I have all but given up trying to play queues.

    No player has the power in this game to make you do anything in game let alone click that Join Random button save for yourself. You still have the option to get a group of like minded players together from player created channels, zone chat, from fleet, or friends. That option hasn't been taken away from you. If you scroll down in the list you also still have the ability to specific queue for an instance. In fact I have specific queued for ISA several times in the last 24 hours with fleetmates and friends. If you want a near immediate play then yes a random TFO will be faster by the very nature of what it is. In any mmo out there where you can join random instances, doing a specific queue will always be a bit slower than doing a full on random. You have the tools right now you need to get people together through in game player channels, this very forum here, facebook, zone chat, or any other type of communication method that lets you talk to other STO players.

    When you click the Join Random button, you've essentially check marked all 47 of the currently available queues in game and hit join. That means you have essentially told the system "I don't care what you put me in out of those 47 queues, just put me in something and let me play." Essentially you're reaching into a bag with 47 different number cards and whatever card number you pull out is the queue it puts you in. When you do a specific queue, you're essentially telling the system you're not willing to join any queue but one that corresponds to your chosen number. At that point you have removed 46 additional possibilities and you have severely limited yourself. Because you've told the system not to pair you except in specific circumstances it will naturally take longer to put you into something. That's not a bug or fault in the system. In fact the system is working correctly based off the information you gave it. If you don't like the idea of potentially playing an instance you don't like, I suggest not joining randoms as you agree to that possibility whenever you press the Join Random button.
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    The problem is many bugs get fixed and then unfixed a few months later see the Tricobalt bugs which are a good example they worked for a few months and then spent a year+ being broken again. It feels like people are working on different code branches and on merging fixed bugs are getting unfixed.

    With modern games there are literally hundreds and even thousands of lines of code in most modern games, sometimes even multiple programming languages trying to talk to each other as well. With as complex as games can be today, and so much variation that's possible with computer builds, it's nigh impossible to not have some type of bugs. That's not meant to be an excuse to avoid fixing bugs, but simply stating a fact. Also just because 2 bugs look similar doesn't mean the coding causing issues behind the scenes is the same. As I've said to others elsewhere, fixing bugs takes time if you want it done right. A single one or zero out of place can bring the whole thing crashing down around us, whether it's the full on studio production level like what Cryptic does, or small time mods like what I do for some older games.

    I have seen quite a few bugs that myself and my crew of test monkeys have personally reported make it into patch notes over the years. Simply because a bug doesn't get fixed right away doesn't mean it will never be fixed, or fixed again in this instance. As to all the processes behind bug fixing on the dev end I can't comment on because I'm not privy to that information.
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    I have tried that not with you but others and have been trying to years with the Kinetic 1 shot kill bug. See https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline#/discussion/comment/13435880

    We got the attention of the bug hunter at last. But they never collected the screenshots or combat logs or responded to anything. From our point of view we have no way to even know if they read our reply's or just abandoned the thread after that post. Did the bug report even make its way up the chain? The 1 shot kill bug has been going on for years now.

    Reading through that thread and seeing which dev responded I can safely assure you that the information was collected. I have wired info through them before and saw a fix make it into the patch notes not too long after. The devs aren't always able to keep up with threads or comment as much as they might like to.

    In regards to the kinetic bug you named, stuff like that are extremely hard to pin down due to lack of information on how to reproduce them, and general lack of documented incidents that can be shown through combat logs. When dealing with something like that there are also other factors that must be taken into account. What kind of mob fired the weapon, how many mobs fired it, what was the status of the player at the time it hit them, what kind of damage resistances did the player have, how tanky is their build, what kind of gear do they have on the ship, etc. A mk xv epic shield is generally going to have a much easier time than it's mk xii very rare counterpart of the same type. Considering all the variation in builds and upgrades, you then have to ask, how much of that is due to the build of the player and the actual attack itself. Someone like me who generally builds as a tank is going to have a much easier time soaking up damage vs someone who builds as a glass cannon. You've already submitted some screenshots which are good. If you have combat logs from those runs those can reveal quite a bit of information as well, such as what was going on leading up to that one shot kill, and can give information not readily visible in the screenshots. The more information when dealing with stuff like this the better.
    I think random TFOs are great. I've played some new stuff that i never have before and some stuff that i havent in a while for the same reason: nobody was Xing up for them because...nobody was Xing up for them.

    So yeah, that negative reinforcement was a problem.

    My question to those who are decrying this change; why do you not drop into zone or fleet/armada chats?

    @darkbladejk Are there any plans for a Looking for Group channel(s)?

    Also to answer this last question posed to me, generally imo they will probably leave that to the players given past experiences. If I were to have access to that information I probably couldn't tell you anyways because to quote an Ambassador of Kael, they don't talk about upcoming content =p.
    "Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations

    Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
  • ussvaliant#6064 ussvaliant Member Posts: 1,006 Arc User
    i wasn't going to use this random TFO system but it is a better way to earn marks from various reps than Borg Red Alerts. Yeah sure you could get sucked into Swarm or Starbase zzz.... 1 a few times in succession but minimum reward from the TFO BOX is 70 marks, more if you use the mark boosters from lockboxes bought off the exchange.

    Sure i've been dropped into some missions i dislike. Battle of Procyon V, Herald Sphere and Gravity Kills and Dranuur Gauntlet Tzenkethi are just a pain in the TRIBBLE to fight.

    I've also been dropped in Cure Ground and Infected Ground a few times which i haven't played since Delta Rising and enjoyed them.
    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.
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,774 Arc User
    edited October 2018
    “That or just queue for everything you want to play regardless and opt for whichever pops first.”
    That doesn’t work anymore for me at Elite level as like mined people are unable to see and join. Tried that last night not all but 28 queues and hit a 20min timer then gave up, 30+mins this morning and still going. Before the change I could play 1 Elite every morning. Now after the change I can play zero Elites in 1 week. The change has constrained my choice at Elite level. It’s not because the players are doing different things, it’s because we cannot see other to team up. Other people have said the same thing as me they used the UI numbers to join already partly filled queue to help out as it looked fun. Now they just do not queue up at all. Those people can no longer see and join the queue so it will not start or takes way longer to start. If I spotted 4 people in Bug Hunt Elite I would at times in the old system be encouraged to join them and get the queue started. Now those 4 people will just sit there waiting a lot longer. Likewise if I started a queue in the old system people would see get encouraged and join. Now I just end up sitting and waiting in the new system. How can you call that an improvement at Elite level?


    “If queuing for all Elite queues doesn't do it, then you should consider whether the problem is really systemic (again, you literally don't need to see which elite queue to join for the fastest match when you can join all of them simultaneously) or players finally making more of a less constrained choice about what they like to play (ie. advance/normal.)”
    I have noticed that with you, not just with me but with everyone else you are not able to admit to being wrong no matter what the evidence is. The problem is clear after looking into it. The UI change is stopping likeminded people from seeing each other and joining in with each other. This in turn is causing the queues in question not to start as people are no longer encouraged to join each other. Even the ones that do want to still play together are no longer able to, as they cannot see each other. The fact is for me and many others the change in UI has caused a more constrained choice not less. Why is that so hard for you to accept and admit that?

    I can admit that for normal/advance some queues are less constrained. But at Elite level it’s caused nothing but problems and constrained choice.

    Before the change every day I had no problem finding peoples to join and people had no problem finding my queue to join. Now after the change we are unable to get the queues to start and the same people are unable to play together at Elite. I warned you the UI change would cause this and it has happen precisely as I described. Elites are about working together and taking away tools to see each other and work together has all but killed the Elites community via queues at least in the timezone I play in..
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,774 Arc User
    “In regards to the kinetic bug you named, stuff like that are extremely hard to pin down due to lack of information on how to reproduce them, and general lack of documented incidents that can be shown through combat logs.”
    “You've already submitted some screenshots which are good. If you have combat logs from those runs those can reveal quite a bit of information as well, such as what was going on leading up to that one shot kill, and can give information not readily visible in the screenshots. The more information when dealing with stuff like this the better.”
    In that thread the bug hunter never took or looked at the screenshot or combatlog and I offered to provide more information if needed but none was taken. Hence my frustration at trying to help and nothing getting fixed. It’s a major bug I have been trying to get fixed for 2+ years now. Same for the Tricobalt bug where the cooldowns are broken and shared with mines, the torpedoes cooldowns are broken and shared with each other triggering a 15second cooldown instead of 0.5. They do not work with torpedo powers like Concentrate firepower and they sometimes hit for zero damage again broken for 2+ years. An entire weapon system that is not working.
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    ruinthefun wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    In other words, the people waiting for the 4's weren't seeing each other in those queues, you were seeing the people who were willing to join the queues even when they said 0, 1, 2 or 3. Because someone has to. Only the last person could possibly see a 4 in the number. If those people no longer want to play those queues, it has nothing to do with the UI. And without them you would never see a 4 even if the number was still there.
    I don't see how this would have any thing except an adverse outcome. Imagine you have a group of people: Some people are willing to join on 0 or more. Some people are willing to join on 1 or more. Some will join on 2 or more, etc.

    In the old system, the 0s would join immediately. The 1s would see them and follow. Then the 2s. And then the 3s. And finally the 4s, and pop.
    That is not logical behavior, nor good for the game. It it's better for everyone to join the queues immediately, instead of waiting. Because it just so happens you could have 50 people all waiting for the 4, they could immediately start 10 queues if they'd just stop waiting and queue up.

    Which is why the number was removed, so that people can't do that.
    In the new system, the 0s would still join. But since the display never shows 1, the 1s don't follow. Thus the 2s don't follow. And soforth. Because that data field is never initialized and thus always contains the default value of 0.
    No number at all is not a 0. Most people will now join queues they want to play, now that there is no more negative feedback telling them not to. The rest will not be missed.

    And if nobody wants to play some queue, it has nothing to do with the UI. But the crappy rewards.
  • ussvaliant#6064 ussvaliant Member Posts: 1,006 Arc User
    Just had my very 1st ever Undine infiltration run, almost curled up in the fetal position as I suddenly thought i'm in Of Bajor I can see why this mission fails it does require you to pay attention and use your brain when questioning those filthy Bajorans
    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.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    Just had my very 1st ever Undine infiltration run, almost curled up in the fetal position as I suddenly thought i'm in Of Bajor. I can see why this mission fails it does require you to pay attention and use your brain when questioning those filthy Bajorans
    the hilarious part is that if you look around the game gives you all the info you need. Like the one where you ask if the Bajoran has ever been to the fire caves.... there's always a photo of them IN the fire caves in the level. So it's not guesswork whether it's right, and if you've played it as many times as I did when it was new, you've memorized the right answers. That's another thing about this. The right/wrong definitions don't change. The only part that changes is if the people you question give you the right answers.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,774 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    That is not logical behavior, nor good for the game. It it's better for everyone to join the queues immediately, instead of waiting. “
    It was very good for the game and it was perfectly logical and normal behaviour. Nearly all the time when I have ran Bug Hunt Elite it wasn’t because I pre planned to play that queue. It was spur of the moment there are people over there that looks fun lets join. That is how many people play and it benefited everyone. Now spur of the moment joining other people has been stopped which has done massive harm to Elite queues.

    You are under the false impression that those people who are waiting will now join immediately. But it doesn’t work like that. Those people that would have spur of the moment joined and kicked a queue into action are now just not running queues. Which is having a negative impact on queues starting.


    warpangel wrote: »
    “Which is why the number was removed, so that people can't do that.”
    Look at it this way. In the old system 4 people could be queued for Bug Hunt Elite. I could spur of the moment spot them and decide that looks fun and join. All 5 of us get into a queue have fun everyone benefits. Now in the new system those 4 people queue up for Bug Hunt Elite. I do not queue up for anything or queue up for some other Elite as I cannot see them. All 5 of us sit there for ages waiting and waiting and waiting. No one gets to play a queue so we all lose out in the new system. That is way the new system is bad and hurts queues.


    warpangel wrote: »
    “Most people will now join queues they want to play, now that there is no more negative feedback telling them not to. The rest will not be missed.”
    That is not correct and the ones who do not are being missed. Those missing people are causing queues to fail to start leading to more restrained options and less queues being played.

    There is a much larger negative feedback from removing the numbers then we had from having the UI numbers at Elite level. Removing the UI has not made people act in the way you describe. Many of those people who would have spur of the moment caused queues to start are just not joining now. So everyone loses out.
  • ashstorm1ashstorm1 Member Posts: 639 Arc User
    Just had my very 1st ever Undine infiltration run, almost curled up in the fetal position as I suddenly thought i'm in Of Bajor I can see why this mission fails it does require you to pay attention and use your brain when questioning those filthy Bajorans

    Actually, this is the easiest part of the whole STF if you get the time to read the clues around each suspect. Paradoxically, it is also the part that fails the most easily, since a lot of players either have zero idea what they're doing or just don't bother reading the text.

    This put aside, if you have the chance to be in a decent group, this is one of the easiest TFOs, even on Elite mode. If only it wasn't plagued by the fire extinguisher bug...
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    edited October 2018
    Just had my very 1st ever Undine infiltration run, almost curled up in the fetal position as I suddenly thought i'm in Of Bajor. I can see why this mission fails it does require you to pay attention and use your brain when questioning those filthy Bajorans
    the hilarious part is that if you look around the game gives you all the info you need. Like the one where you ask if the Bajoran has ever been to the fire caves.... there's always a photo of them IN the fire caves in the level. So it's not guesswork whether it's right, and if you've played it as many times as I did when it was new, you've memorized the right answers. That's another thing about this. The right/wrong definitions don't change. The only part that changes is if the people you question give you the right answers.
    Unfortunately, STO queues are not the kind of environment that's naturally conducive to patient observation and thought, even in that part of the playerbase that's capable of such. It's all rush ahead finish it fast and if failing the optionals makes it go faster...

    It would help if there were a list of correct answers or even a transcript of the dialogue involved that players could study in advance. The wiki apparently has at some point received a link to such a list...but it doesn't work.
This discussion has been closed.