EarthWyrm

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also whats another hard one to get?

[/ QUOTE ]
Outcast bosses only spawn in the sixth mission from Marshal Brass, and only 3 per map if you are with a full team.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do updated spawn rules affect this?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's actually a really interesting question. I'll have to test this tonight if I remember.

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: A little bit more about the guy...

His only degree appears to be an SJ, which is "Society of Jesus".

[/ QUOTE ]
I speak both "Academic" and "Jesuit". What you're seeing is not that Myers is a reverend - that's all his title. He is the "Rev. Aloysius B. Goodspeed, S.J., BEGGARS Distinguished Professor in Communications". The S.J. indicates that the man for whom the professorship was named, Aloysius Goodspeed, was a member of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuit order. Goodspeed was a Jesuit in residence at Loyola in the 1950s, as near as I can tell from a quick Google, and got a professorship named after him that Myers now holds.

Myers does apparently possess a Ph.D., per a post on the university website in which he was recognized for 25 years on the faculty as of this spring. Why he doesn't have a curriculum vitae (academic resume) online is a mystery to me, as is why he wouldn't include the Ph.D. after his name. I'm willing to attribute that to "quirk," since I cannot imagine a university promoting someone to a distinguished professorship without a doctorate. If that's the case here, he's in the last generation where that will be possible.

[ QUOTE ]
This guy's a game addict who holds down a professorship in communications at a private religious university by combining technobabble and psychobabble.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jesuit universities are not places where academics are taken lightly. I have no good explanation for or defense of Myers. But the fact that he teaches at a Jesuit school is in no way evidence that we should expect him to be the troll/hack he's making himself out to be.

Oh, for a little irony, when I was looking up Goodspeed I ran across this:


This is someone that Myers accused of being a griefer for apparently playing a game differently than others.

edited to add: Finally dug up his credentials.

DAVID M. MYERS, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Communications; Arts and Sciences.

B.A., Yale University, 1975; M.A., University of Southwest Louisiana, 1977; M.F.A., Florida State University, 1979; Ph.D., University of Texas, Austin, 1984.

It's 1999. Only an associate professor because he hadn't been promoted to full and given his endowed professorship yet. The Ph.D. from UT was apparently in radio-film-television, which makes sense. If he had a sociology or anthropology degree, he wouldn't be in a comm department.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering why nobody has been spamming his Twitter page. After all it's within the rules.

Also, Prof. Myers made a post on his blog about this, sort of. Some of his replies to comments below the post are more intriguing than the actual post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, someone named Paul G copied my comment and Myers responded by...calling me names?

[/ QUOTE ]
Confirming that he is, in fact, reading these threads - since I have to assume the penguin jokes referenced your avatar.

I can't believe that's a grown man teaching at a Jesuit university.

From Loyola of NO's website, for those who aren't familiar with Jesuit philosophy:

[ QUOTE ]
Jesuit education is a call to human excellence, to the fullest possible development of all human qualities. This implies a rigor and academic excellence that challenges the student to develop all of his or her talents to the fullest. It is a call to critical thinking and disciplined studies, a call to develop the whole person, head and heart, intellect and feelings.

The Jesuit vision of education implies further that students learn how to be critical, examine attitudes, challenge assumptions, and analyze motives. All of this is important if they are to be able to make decisions in freedom, the freedom that allows one to make love-filled and faith-filled decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Myers' behavior in conducting the study may or may not have been ethical. Probably was, in a technical sense. Participant observation research has always been hinky.

His behavior in the aftermath, however, seems seriously at-odds with the philosophy of his employing institution. This is "a call to human excellence"? Trolling people until they display their worst sides? This is a man whose school charges him to educate people to be able to make "love-filled" and "faith-filled" decisions? A man who spends his free time trying to make people angry?

Amazing.

[ QUOTE ]
Does Myers become equally stunned when he gets a ticket for speeding? Afterall, he was obeying the laws of physics... >.>

[/ QUOTE ]
He is pretty selective about what "rules" he claims to be playing by.

Right now, he seems to think that a substantive issue being left out of discussions of his behavior is the "rule" that you are to compete to win the zone. What he continues to fail to address is how his frustration-inducing tactics were necessary to do that.

He's almost certainly too smart not to know the difference between a "rule" and a "goal," which means that he's intentionally being obtuse. I also have no doubt that he's chuckling in his office as he reads these forums, and telling himself that this too counts as "research".

Meh. Academic troll is academic.

[ QUOTE ]
ooh well he no longer plays and im glad i never even heard of him untill this post because i dont like people that cause trouble to cause trouble and see how big the train wreck gets.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, if you read his blog after his "I'm leaving CoH" post, on January 29 of this year he was giving readers instructions on leveling lowbie CoH characters if they wanted to get started early (on what? sounds like a class assignment...), suggesting powersets for pvp, offering to give the folks to whom he was speaking 1m each to fund enhancements etc., and talking about arranging teams to get folks from 10-15 so they could go to Bloody Bay and get beaten up.

Then there are the folks who claim to have seen him in RV recently on other servers. I don't need that. I just need his own words (he even provided a global...) from after he said he was leaving to show me that he's still around, "collecting data".

QR

Interesting thing to note, if you read through his blog entries.

In January (after his "I'm leaving CoH" entry), he was giving advice for low-level characters to explore PvP zones, and offered to give a million inf to anyone who started a character and needed cash. He even gave out a global address at which he could be contacted.

So it sounds very much like Twixt may not be as gone as advertised, and further that he may have created a bunch of "disciples" (read: students) to keep breaching norms in PvP zones.

Link

[ QUOTE ]
If he's the type of lazy "professional academic" he appears to be, he really has nothing to be proud of. But then again, he's locked into a profession that's "Publish or Perish". Even if his research methods are sloppy and suspect, he's still got to put out an attempt at a paper.

[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't actually fly. He's a full professor. He could never publish anything again and be fine.

This is academic grandstanding, pure and simple.

[ QUOTE ]
So, for being the sort of researcher he is, having picked the lifestyle he has, and the sort of player he was, he deserves no more than a tiny modicum pity.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't even grant him that. The actual paper is a disturbing read - not because of how people reacted to his intentional norm violations (he also liked to disrupt in-zone duels, among other things), but because things he describes as Twixt's reactions or perceptions could only have been Dr. Myer's perceptions. Twixt never had to deal with a flood of tells that made playing the game so difficult he had to close his chat window - Dr. Myers did. I'm sure that's some sort of sociological/ethnomethodological thing that I, as a psychologist, would know nothing about - I just find it disturbing when people describe things that were clearly their own perceptions from the perspective of an imaginary character, and do so in scholarly writing.

I'm unimpressed. The ability to push people's buttons is neither new nor interesting. Violating ("breaching") social norms repeatedly and belligerently leads to ostracism.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as that teacher goes who refused to give students a A no matter what, that's a whole different story. Feel free to correct me if I'm off with any of these numbers for school grade structure:

A = 90% to 100%
B = 80% to 89%
C = 75% to 79%
D = 70% to 74%
F = 69% and below *though I've seem some schools had it that a D was 65% to 69%*

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never seen a grading system where C's were only 5% of the scale, and I've taught classes at four different universities. Generally, C's are 70-79, D's are in the 60s, and F's are 59 or below. May differ in other parts of the world. Of course, we're being pushed to move to a +/- system now, since 10-point ranges weren't recognizing meaningful distinctions among students, blah blah blah.

[ QUOTE ]
To not give a student a A at all is utterly impossible in the school system from my understanding.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is incorrect. The only way it's impossible is if the instructor is using a variation of "grading on the curve" in which the 90-100% range is defined as the top 10% of students. Most instructors define the range based on points earned, however, on the combination of tests and assignments. If an instructor writes hard enough tests that no one gets above 80% correct on them, it's absolutely possible for none of the students to earn enough total points to earn 90% of the overall points in the class.

Most of the time, instructors who are doing this kind of thing are (a) trying in a misguided way to teach some sort of life lesson about how evaluations aren't important, (b) old and cranky and convinced that students who don't get challenged don't learn, and the low evaluations and nasty comments on ratemyprofessors.com don't matter because they've already got tenure, or (c) compensating for small genitals by engaging in a competition with their students, which the students are in no position to be able to win.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see your lvl as an indication of how much they trust or distrust you. That implies that a Lvl 50 has more trust then a lvl 5. When it really just means how high a threat they think you can be trusted to handle. It is a gauge of your power not how much they trust you, but rather what they trust you can handle.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps. Does it make any sense for a level 50 villain to side-switch into a level 50 hero and immediately be a "Hero of the City", though? That would seem weird, to me. Of course, we have no idea how it's going to work, so it's all fun speculation at this point.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that logic works. Becuase that means each time you swap, you would have to go back to lvl 1. That means lvling up a lot and constantly losing your enhancements.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be a drawback of the extreme flexibility of switching sides, not a logical reason why it couldn't be done.

I don't think any enhancements need to be lost, either. They could just scale down using the exemplar code, and you would regain set bonuses and whatnot as you level up, getting the powers in the order you took them in your most recent respec.

Pure speculation. I'll be interested in how they do it. I won't be surprised if they don't require a decrease in levels. I won't be surprised if they do.

[ QUOTE ]
Saving myself undue hassle and debate is my responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]
Quoted for irony.

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I didn't accuse the OP of not being able to take constructive criticism; nor did I conflate ratings without comments with constructive criticism.

[/ QUOTE ]
That was certainly how the original text to which I was replying, and which you quoted in my original reply, read - at least to me.

[ QUOTE ]
I merely pointed out that any comments given to accompany a rating, so long as they aren't deliberately insulting or abusive, are constructive criticism, and as such, a service to the author.

[/ QUOTE ]
A statement with which I agree. It really wasn't clear from what you originally said, though.

[ QUOTE ]
They don't exist to justify a rating or explain why the rating was less than perfect. The player has no need to justify or explain the rating, and therefore ratings of three stars without comments are perfectly valid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Deliberately avoiding what I said about 1- or 2-star ratings being "low", but okay. I see now that you're generally about playing rhetorical games, which is fine - just own up to it.

[ QUOTE ]
Evidently. Again, my point: comments aren't something that you deserve. They aren't needed to explain a rating. If they exist at all, they're merely constructive criticism, provided they're not deliberately insulting or abusive.

[/ QUOTE ]
And my point was simply that ratings without comments aren't constructive.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there is no feedback other than the raw stars, however, what's there to be thankful for?

[/ QUOTE ]

And here's my point again. To be thankful for something, you must realize that it wasn't your due, that you didn't necessarily deserve it, that you recieved something which you rightly might not have recieved.

[/ QUOTE ]
You really do like arguing, don't you? I'm not saying anyone is entitled to anything - only that ratings without comments do not constitute "constructive criticism".

The mis-use of that term is a huge annoyance for me. I think we've sufficiently clarified that what I read as your meaning and your intended meaning were not in-line.

I am not suggesting that anyone is entitled to anything. If you don't care about anyone else improving what they do, by all means, rate and move on.

I will also note, at this point, that you are using a version of the rhetorical "you" that I take as general, and not at all an indictment of how I read, write, or play arcs in the game. I did not take anything you said, when using "you," to indicate that you were accusing me of anything. That was the level of discourse I'd thought we were operating on.

[ QUOTE ]
But the OP's statement, "I don't mind being three-starred as long as you explain it," implies that he doesn't see a comment as something to be thankful for, but as something that he deserves as justification for a rating lower than five stars.

[/ QUOTE ]
I missed the part where he said he wouldn't be thankful for it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And if you don't get any feedback, it's probably because attitudes like those of the OP make giving feedback more hassle than it's typically worth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or it might be that your style of giving feedback elicits attitudes like those of the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've given precious little feedback on arcs, mostly limiting myself to positive comments, or to very minor points I felt I could address without a lot of debate, precisely because I don't want to get into the sorts of argument that I've witnessed others wasting their time with in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
I obviously don't know you (specific) or what you (specific) do with arcs. I was using the rhetorical "you" in the same sense I perceived you (specific) to be using it. I'm not drawing inferences about in-game behavior from forums behavior. If you (specific) meant every "you" to be about me specifically, I'll go ahead and quote the next phrase from your message and say, "Back atcha".

[ QUOTE ]
So your shot in the dark misses its mark

[/ QUOTE ]
See above.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, how is it that my style of criticism could possibly "elicit" an attitude of self-entitlement on the part of an author who feels he deserves something that he doesn't?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because a style of criticism that feels like an attack will naturally elicit a defensive reaction. Not "your" style of criticism, mind you. Goodness forbid I say anything about "you".

[ QUOTE ]
If you really do agree with me that non-abusive feedback is something to be thankful for and taken with a grain of salt, I can't understand how you can possibly hold that such behavior on the part of authors is partly the fault of the player who gave the comments.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because any interaction requires two people. If there's something in what a reviewer says that makes the author feel a need to lash out, odds are there was a better way to phrase the critique.

Of course, I'm also of the opinion that many MA authors are excessively juvenile, or may have grown up in a world that says "Everyone gets a trophy, nobody gets told they aren't the best," and have no idea how to handle constructive criticism. I've never seen so many people ARGUE with reviews in any other venue.

That being said, there can be no reaction without action, so both parties have to be aware of the situation. Your solution of just not providing feedback on things that are questionable is one way of dealing with that. The educator in me prefers to see people able to learn and improve, so I tend to take the other approach when I can. Different strokes, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh I don't mind that, as long as you explain it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if I have this right, you believe--really believe--that anyone who rates your arc with less than a perfect 5 stars owes you some sort of explanation?

And, so long as they justify themselves to your satisfaction, then you "don't mind?"

It seems you don't view constructive criticism as something you should be thankful for and accept with a grain of salt.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I can't be sure, I think that the OP would likely say that it's not "constructive criticism" if there's nothing other than a low rating. Without some sort of commentary on the weaknesses of the piece, there's nothing "constructive" about it - simply a statement that the rater's individual assessment of the meaning of [x] stars was all the experience warranted.

Some people ascribe low ratings, sans commentary, to griefing. Clearly that's not always going to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, anything short of 5 stars doesn't constitute a "low" rating. Second of all, the player is entitled to rate an arc with or without commentary. Third of all, the player owes the author no explanation as to how or why an arc was rated.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're just grandstanding and avoiding addressing my point. In fact, you're responding to an awful lot of stuff I never said, or even implied. When I type "low rating" I'm generally thinking of one that's low enough to fail to award tickets. 1 or 2 stars. I suppose I could have been more clear, I just didn't think it necessary.

I don't disagree with you that people can and should be able to give any rating they want. I don't disagree with you that ratings below 5 do not necessarily constitute "low" or "bad" ratings.

I am simply saying that any rating that does not come with commentary cannot meaningfully be called "constructive criticism". It's just an opinion, and is fine as far as that goes. If you're going to accuse someone, as you did, of not being able to take constructive criticism, it's better to not re-define "constructive criticism" to include random unsupported opinion that does nothing to help the author improve.

[ QUOTE ]
But the fact is that in many cases where players have offered constructive criticism on story arcs, they have been harassed in tells, publicly ridiculed, had their own arcs grief-rated, and have even had their comments taken out of context and posted in this very forum as a form of tar and feathering--as if those comments were anything less than a service to the author; as if they were somehow insufficient "justification" for the player giving the author fewer stars than he felt he deserved.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not disagreeing with you that quite a few authors have been extremely immature in their response to constructive criticism, either. You clearly know what it is, which causes me further confusion as to why you seemed to conflate it with raw ratings above. Am I just misunderstanding you?

[ QUOTE ]
But my point is, if you receive feedback that isn't deliberately insulting or abusive, you should be thankful for it and take it with a grain of salt.

[/ QUOTE ]
And again, I don't disagree with you. You do a lovely job tilting at windmills, though.

If there is no feedback other than the raw stars, however, what's there to be thankful for? It's just data, and nothing you can use to make meaningful changes.

I'm not claiming anyone is owed anything. I'm just saying that the rating system used without feedback does not allow for any kind of remediation of problems.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not something that you deserve by virtue of writing the arc, and it isn't beig offered to appease you: its only purpose is to help you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
And if you don't get any feedback, it's probably because attitudes like those of the OP make giving feedback more hassle than it's typically worth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or it might be that your style of giving feedback elicits attitudes like those of the OP. I don't think that authors who react badly to feedback are the only ones involved in the situation, and I don't think that they're the only ones responsible if the situation degrades. Placing all the blame on them seems unfair.

[ QUOTE ]
So let me be clear on this point again: nobody owes you anything for playing your story arc: not ratings, not feedback, nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. I think of the MA, at this point, the way I think of blogs. You write it because you feel like writing it, you tell your friends, and if someone who's not your friend happens across it and thinks you said something interesting, great. Nobody owes any random blogger great respect for what they've done. Nobody even has to read what they've done. Being able to hit a button that says "Publish" does not mean that an individual is somehow worthy of more respect than they were before.

But they are worthy of the same amount of respect as anyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh I don't mind that, as long as you explain it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if I have this right, you believe--really believe--that anyone who rates your arc with less than a perfect 5 stars owes you some sort of explanation?

And, so long as they justify themselves to your satisfaction, then you "don't mind?"

It seems you don't view constructive criticism as something you should be thankful for and accept with a grain of salt.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I can't be sure, I think that the OP would likely say that it's not "constructive criticism" if there's nothing other than a low rating. Without some sort of commentary on the weaknesses of the piece, there's nothing "constructive" about it - simply a statement that the rater's individual assessment of the meaning of [x] stars was all the experience warranted.

Some people ascribe low ratings, sans commentary, to griefing. Clearly that's not always going to be true.

[ QUOTE ]
there is no gap to close. i'll say it again, the drop rates for an 8 man team are the same for a solo person runing a non padded mission. each person has the same chance of dropping something the same way they do if they ran a mission solo.

[/ QUOTE ]
You saying something repeatedly does not make it true.

I get better drops solo, non-padded, than I do in teams, when playing characters that have decent kill rates. The reason is that teams of 8 do not kill 8 times as many foes in the same amount of time as my solo character does, nor are all the drops equally distributed (they are, in fact, apparently randomly assigned to team members). Those two things are what would have to happen, for drops in teams to be completely equivalent to solo drops. The team would have to kill 8x as fast as the solo player, and the drops would have to be equally distributed to all members of the team.

The recipe (or salvage) drop rate for any individual enemy is the same whether you're solo or teamed, I'll certainly grant you that. But the probability of any individual obtaining a recipe (or salvage) drop from that enemy is 1/n, where n=number of people on the team.

[ QUOTE ]
the padded mission solo runner has no place in this discussion. get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I completely agree. They are a fringe case that doesn't enter into any of my arguments for why I prefer to solo rather than team when I'm trying to get drops. My reasons are all outlined above.

The problem, of course, is that the solo-padders might be the people the devs balanced the drop system around. What would happen to padded mission runners if a multiplier were applied to drops the same way it is to xp? If you set a map for 8, then run it solo, and everything is set to give 2.5x drop probability, has the solo padded runner just gone from getting 8x the rewards as a typical soloist, to 20x the rewards?

[ QUOTE ]
You could use it inside the mission? How cool is that

Would the changes be live or would you have to reload the mission?

[/ QUOTE ]
You would continue playing the version of the mission you loaded, but anyone who clicked it after you edited and republished would get the updated version. Very useful if you did something like forget to mark an objective as "Optional" or found a misspelling.

If this was done to prevent people from publishing, getting the team into the mission, then unpublishing before someone could notice and report their farm, I'll be very disappointed. Not least because this change won't affect the ability to do that at all. It'll just require a second account.

I'm holding out hope that it's a bug, but having gotten the same pop-up in AE missions, regular missions, and in my base, I'm not sure.

One of my favorite things about the Architect Comlink (the Mission Engineer accolade power) was that it let me edit on the fly. If I found something in one of my missions that I didn't like, I could whip out the comlink and fix it.

Since I15 dropped, I get a pop-up saying that I can't use that power inside AE missions, or in my base.

Bug, or anti-farming measure?

edited because it might just be a bug, and I don't want to sound like a doooooom-cryer

Also, could any of the badgers who know the Arena draw up a guide for how to obtain the various "weight" badges, etc.? Because I've looked at the list and descriptions, and feel pretty clueless as to what's expected of me.

[ QUOTE ]
i think it was just caused by lots and lots of people trying to download

this sort of thing happens alot with the coh updater

[/ QUOTE ]
Lots and lots of people downloading at once wouldn't have caused multiple of us to have updater files named the wrong thing, when the game went to change the updater and couldn't find the right file.

Glad I found this thread, or I might have had no idea that the game was looking for something that wasn't there.

I got the same error, and found that somehow my "CoHUpdater.exe" had gotten renamed at some point in the past to "OldUpdater.exe". Found that out by looking at the Properties in my shortcut. I renamed "OldUpdater.exe" to "CoHUpdater.exe" and now it's doing its thing just fine.

I don't randomly rename files, so I have no idea how that happened, but there it is. Thanks to the folks in this thread for pointing me in the direction it took to find the solution!

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I understand the idea. What I don't agree with is that it warrants in-game rewards for choosing a specific path, that the other path does not get. What does the side-switcher get that the "pureist" does not?

[/ QUOTE ]
Side switching increases flexibility and options, possibly access to badges and other rewards, and potentially allows for limitless back-and-forth. What reward ought they design for characters that don't switch, that will be equivalent to the flexibility granted by the ability to switch sides?

I see no problem with the "exemplary" idea. In fact, using your logic, I'd say something like that is almost a necessity to keep people who don't want to switch sides from feeling shafted.

QR

Got a level 31 Gaussian's Rech/End on Virtue, redside, if it's still needed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
None yet, and likely to stay that way until probably right before Going Rogue's closed beta starts.

[/ QUOTE ]

No closed beta. They have already said that it was going to be open beta.

[/ QUOTE ]
They said it would have an open beta. They did not say that there would not be a closed beta before the open beta started.

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever had the experience of falling in love with one of your characters.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have a character whose waist/hip ratio is so perfect, after I saw her running thru Atlas for the first time I swore out loud - with my wife in the room - that I'd never give her a travel power that didn't involve running.

I guess that's not quite the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
dont try to dig our graves deeper, we all will die soon enough.

about the holes in our brains, its the riktis.

[/ QUOTE ]
This works better as rikti haiku.

Graves deeper: don't dig.
Soon enough: we all will die.
Brains: Holes. Rikti: Win.

[ QUOTE ]
Hitting the cap after just 40 tickets - before the mission bonus - would be a bit unusual. Can you tell the the precise circumstances of that mission: the precise map and other parameters?

[/ QUOTE ]
From my bug report:

"On map Virtue Zone/Mission: 911_PPD_Precint_01, I earned 15 tickets, and when I defeated a boss that granted 38 tickets I received a message that one or more tickets had not been awarded because I had reached the maximum number allowed"

So, I had earned 15 on the map. I got the 38 pop-up and the message that something hadn't been awarded immediately thereafter, so the precise number was 53 (I often brainfog when I'm posting). I believe the boss group was the second I fought (there aren't that many spawn points on the map). The map is used as the first mission in arc 101546, which is where I encountered this behavior.

Of course, after I got the "one or more tickets have not been awarded" message, I still got more tickets to drop from mobs, then got a ticket bonus on complete that was again accompanied by a message that one or more tickets had not been awarded.