Snow Globe

Actually, there are only 3 blueside unlockable contacts: Karsis (Caverns Trial), Ernesto Hess (Hess TF), and Katie Hannon (Croatoa TF). Each one is opened by doing the last arc in their zone.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think that tit-for-tat task force succeeded/task force failed bickering will really solve anything or convince anyone one way or another?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, you seem to think so by your actions.

On the other hand, I am 100% positive that the developers are [u]FULLY[u] aware of how many successful task/strike forces are happening. Just as I am sure they know the failure rates.

On the other hand, they might [u]not[u] know [u]why[u] the task force was failed/abandoned.

I would suggest that you might have something more productive to do with your time. On the other hand, I'm guessing that just because I am saying something that you would immediately discount it.

[ QUOTE ]
The picture on the first page by "The speedy"...is it not a edited photo of supergirl or batgirl or something....has the same bodytype and face. This is the best link i could find. I remeber drawing supergirl in this exact same pose when i was younger. *shrug* thought id bring it up.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is done in the style of the

Maybe you should look at Speedy's gallery page.

For comparison, see this picture from the "Bruce Timm Gallery".

Also, Bruce Timm's Silver Surfer, and Mr. Fantastic.

As you can see, Speedy captures Bruce's style, yet is original work (outside probable templating).

[ QUOTE ]
Before the Intro to Vanguard patch, Freedom was sending some players to Ouroboros 3.

[/ QUOTE ]
During the last day of the double xp weekend, Triumph was getting RWZ3, and I was crashing zoning to either Ouroboros or the RWZ.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides that TF tho (took us 4:36, think we could of gotten under 4, if it wasn't for the one buggy mission, and the AFKs)...what other TF takes that long?

[/ QUOTE ]
Quarterfield (first shard tf, 40-44): With a full team (8 needed to start), I haven't heard of it being done in less than 7.5 hours with everyone being present for all 25 missions. The funny thing is that later in the task force at least 4 people have to be on, as there are multiple click 4 glowies at the same time missions. There is no AV, so there is no real need for more than 4 people to be on that task force.

[ QUOTE ]
if positron knows what is good for him then he needs to not touch this thread with a 1000 foot pole. I dont see how any answer he gives will be acceptable at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly, while I would love to hear the damage control attempt, I think that people are too upset to accept anything other than a "time-out" of this change.

While I sort of support the change itself, I find that it "just got lost" is unacceptable to me. I also think that facts should be straight when trying to explain it (take the time and look at the requirements of each TF, their reward, and average time it takes to complete).

Part of the problem is that all the task forces are "lost content". By that I mean that they fall in the "we'd like to do something about them, but we have too many things ahead of them on the schedule."

The right time to have put this change in place would have been at the same time the task forces are revamped.

Task force rewards should be scaled to the difficulty of the challenge. Katies should give a step up from Pool A rares, while the Master of Statesman TF/Lord Recluse SF should be giving near purple recipies for the difficultly (of course that would yield other problems). Task Forces like Positron and Quarterfield in their present state should be nearer to the upper end of the spectrum.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason these items were not included in the Training Room testing notes, is that try not to call attention to exploits.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, and when they are changing a game mechanic that affects people who play the game normally, that policy needs to change. It needed to change for the Rikti Portal change, and it sure as hell needed to change for this. If this had been in the patch notes, the issue of the Shard TFs requiring 8 would have been raised in testing, where either this change could have been adjusted or the minimums could have been adjusted.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, I really don't like the policy either. We were asked if it was a policy, I was just giving the poster the references to it.

[ QUOTE ]
If there was going to be another patch before I12, I'd suggest some tweaks to TF/SF minimums and some tweaks to this change to make it workable. But since Rage's further changes had to be abandoned to work on I12, this change needs to be reverted. The side effects are just too bad to live with them until I12 goes live.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, at least until they fix the other related balance issues caused by this "fix".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Regardless of how big a change is, exploit fixes are not snd should not be tested without an NDA. NDAs are fairly useless for testing exploit fixes, since honest folk who would abide by an NDA don't knowingly exploit. Hence, no warning.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am very confused by the basic premise of your post. I've never heard of this "exploit fixes must be secret and NDA'd" rule before.

[/ QUOTE ]
It has been said many times before, but the most recent example is here:

[ QUOTE ]
The reason these items were not included in the Training Room testing notes, is that try not to call attention to exploits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is Positron saying pretty much the same thing June 29, 2006:

[ QUOTE ]
It is policy to NOT post patch notes about things that can be considered exploits or griefing tactics on the Training Room patch notes. When the fix goes to live, then the patch note appears.

Exploiters and griefers don't always "share their tactics" on how they do stuff. We would not knowingly put into a patch note that something is getting fixed on the training room that could be used to exploit/grief. This is so that players on the live servers don't abuse the bug until it gets off the training room and onto live.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, it has been well established that the above policy is in place.

Dead link:

VI. COMBAT MECHANICS
DAMAGE & EXPERIENCE & REWARDS & LEVELING
Leveling Chart (AnotherDeadHero) [I2]

[ QUOTE ]
Farmers spawn maps set for sizes of 6 to avoid bosses. This change would force them to fight bosses. Thats added danger plus it slows them down. This cuts into the influence / hour ratio & thus will be avoided.

[/ QUOTE ]
And where is your proof this is the case?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Lighthouse can not even tell us accurately the requirements to form task forces are, then why the heck should we trust them to fix this properly?

[/ QUOTE ]

followed by:

[ QUOTE ]
The information given to him or that he presented was clearly in error. That he passed that information to us as fact without checking those facts shows a breakdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Contradiction much.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no contradiction, and you are showing that you don't have any reading comprehension. You might try learning it sometime, as it is a useful skill in the real world.

Both statements agree that Lighthouse gave us bad information. Agree/Disagree?
Both statements are showing there is a breakdown in communications. Agree/Disagree?

Both statements are saying the exact same thing in different ways.

Lighthouse posted that the majority of task forces can be started with 4 people:

[ QUOTE ]
Just to quickly touch on this (since I'm on the Training Room with the Wedding Event, but reading here too) - most Task Forces and Strike Forces have a requirement of 4. I was looking over documentation on the list of SF/TF.

[/ QUOTE ]
So he clearly has far more access to the inner workings of this game than you think he does.

Also, unlike you, I CAN (and almost always) provide links to back up what I claim any red name says.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Lighthouse can not even tell us accurately the requirements to form task forces are, then why the heck should we trust them to fix this properly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Lighthouse = Dev

True Story

Lighthouse is so far removed from the development of this game its sickening. His job (which most of you clearly dont understand) is Forum Moderator. He has ZERO say in the game. He has ZERO say in the programming of the game. He has ZERO say in the decissions of the game.

Its not far removed to realize that he doesnt know everything about this game. Even if his cubicle is 10ft from Castle's.

I'm really shocked at how few of you understand that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think I can safely say that I have had far more contact with Lighthouse than you.

I know that he is not a developer. Unlike you, I know that he is a Community Relations Manager, that is a liaison between the developers and the players.

The information given to him or that he presented was clearly in error. That he passed that information to us as fact without checking those facts shows a breakdown.

Try to spin this however you want, you will not succeed.

The players have been given false information, are upset, and now are entitled to truthful answers no matter what [u]your opinion[u] is.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lighthouse opened the door to all this by saying:
[ QUOTE ]
We want to continue to offer good rewards based on a group accomplishment through such missions and maintaining that requirement is the reason for this change.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which shows that NCNC understands that this change affects rewards, length, and team size requirements.

The point is why don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]


*sigh* My point is, as I've been saying all along, is that its probably already being worked on Internally (and probably even apart of I12)

[/ QUOTE ]
Given that Lighthouse (personally I think the information given to him was wrong) has provided demonstratedly inaccurate information in this very thread, trust is flowing very thin at the moment.

NCNC is really messing up this week. Given that, why should we trust them to correct this? Even the stated reason (prevent RMT farmers) for this change has been shown to be in error. Even if they did fix things, the chances are that they would mess up those fixes too.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because its not immediate, which is what you want, makes it wrong?!? No, just no. If its in the pipes, then its perfectly acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
What I, personally, want is NCNC to tell everyone that the concerns in this thread are being looked at. In addition, I want them to acknowledge that the design specs that they are working from are not up to date. Given Lighthouse's comments, I do not think the are.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, with that said.... if by I12 we havent heard of alterations being made to TFs... then trust me, I'll be the first one leading the crusade to have them altered Immediately.

[/ QUOTE ]
Given the lackluster pace that benificial corrections to players have appeared in the past, I don't think you are standing on a firm position here.

[ QUOTE ]
But as it stands this minute.... we have to assume that they are well aware & are already taking steps to address these issues. Thus anything we do, say, etc in this regard are purely suggestions.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point point in this post, and it seems to be others' opinion too, is this:

If Lighthouse can not even tell us accurately the requirements to form task forces are, then why the heck should we trust them to fix this properly?

(Edit, punctuation error.)

Lighthouse opened the door to all this by saying:
[ QUOTE ]
We want to continue to offer good rewards based on a group accomplishment through such missions and maintaining that requirement is the reason for this change.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which shows that NCNC understands that this change affects rewards, length, and team size requirements.

The point is why don't you?

[ QUOTE ]
The rewards of a TF, the length of various TFs, and the team size requirements of those TFs should all be addressed elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely not!

They are tied so closely to this change that to put this change in place without fixing these issues means that this fix is broken.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2. Reduce the minimum number of players required for a TF or SF to a maximum of six. Only exception: STF and LRSF, since they are meant to be endgame challenges and "hardcore".


[/ QUOTE ]

Just to quickly touch on this (since I'm on the Training Room with the Wedding Event, but reading here too) - most Task Forces and Strike Forces have a requirement of 4. I was looking over documentation on the list of SF/TF.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lighthouse, given as other players have stated your information is incorrect, how can we as players have any confidence that this change is a good idea?

Most task forces do not have a requirement of 4. Out of 21 task and strike forces in the game, only seven or 1/3 of the task/strike forces.

If you include the Trials:
The Cavern of Transcendence - 8
Terra Volta (all 3) - 3
Thorn tree trials (all three) - 3
Descent to the Hydra - ? presumed designed for 8 but can be started by one. This one is broken in so many ways it isn't funny.
Prisoners of Eden - 4

So out of 30 Task Forces, Strike Forces, and Trials only half are 4 or less. Not most by any assessment of the term.

Seeing how this change seems to be focusing on Task and Strike Forces, stating 1/3 is "most" is obfuscating the issue.

[ QUOTE ]
Behind the mask corrections
---

1.) I'm not from Guardian, I play on Triumph


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I should have caught that. I thought it was wrong.

Uh, Lighthouse, this thread's title is a week off.

Sad .

The Quarterfield Task Force [u]NEEDS[u] to be reduced to 4 players then. There is no reason for the required number of people needed.

While you are at that change, might I suggest removing the redundant missions?

Removal of missions 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, 23 should stongly be considered.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought this dead horse had long since rotted away

[/ QUOTE ]
It isn't dead until fixed. I prefer to think it is still in the hospital.

MadScientist just posted this in another thread, but it probably should have gone here :

[ QUOTE ]
We just received a great smoothing of the XP curve to help people get to the top level in a more reasonable amount of time and more even amount of effort.
Should the same logic be applied to a Heal Badge earning curve where there is way too much time spent getting over certain hurdles to the next badge, and not enough people are succeeding in getting to the top level?

I know some will reply that they see no problems. Well there was no problem with getting to 50 before, plenty of people were there. Yet the Devs still smoothed out the curve. So it's possible that something is currently not-broken and yet still worth improving.

anyways, just at thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
About the Visa gift-cards, I believe that this issue came up before, and it was posted that they aren't available up here in Canada for whatever reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
https://www.citizensbank.ca/Personal.../VISAGiftCard/

I've also found Visa Gift cards (Vancity "My treat" cards) in Safeway (western canada). You might want to check the above link or your grocery store or gas stations. You might be suprised.

[ QUOTE ]
Why? They have *never* had to do so. Let's not go over that old thing, which you must recall dragged on forever elsewhere. We don't have to pay for what we don't want to use, and frankly the company does not HAVE to tell anyone anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
If they are changing the business model that much, then people should be told now. There is absolutely no excuse not to.

Some will welcome the change, others will not. This is not for you to decide. This is for each player to decide. Without those questions answered, NCsoft is being

[ QUOTE ]
Did we know about the change from Cryptic to NC? NO. We did not. Did we need to? NO we did not. Was it to our benefit? YES.

[/ QUOTE ]
And were some decisions so bad that players cried foul just getting a whiff of the idea? Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
I trust the devs to do what they're doing. Sorry if you think the "marketing speech" paradigm shift thing is so very important to be on top of, but I'm just a customer like you. Should they make severe changes I don't like?

[/ QUOTE ]
And what exactly gives you the right to say that I or others should not question this?

[ QUOTE ]
I will stop playing, not give them my money any more, and let the folks who still enjoy it move on. But it's not a big deal to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, to you. To some in the playerbase, it is important.

Simply put, if you don't care what answer they give, then please by all means continue to ignore any requests for answers to those questions. Just don't block others from seeking those answers.

[ QUOTE ]
CoH and it's devs should let us know if they plan to change the business model, to what extent, and how it will effect content in the future. Did you hire more people to handle the creation of this new content or if it sells well do you intend to do so? If not, does this mean there will be less costume/animation content for other players as a result?

These are reasonable questions to ask.

[/ QUOTE ]
Zekiran, these ARE reasonable questions. There is no entitlement involved. As paying subscribers, we should know if there is such a fundemental change in the works. I would be asking my newspaper the same questions if they did something similar.

Just because it is a game we all enjoy doesn't mean we throw our brains out the door when a paradigm shift of this magnitude comes along.