Archived from groups: alt.games.coh (
More info?)
Xocyll wrote...
> Zoiks! <zoiks@shaggy.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the
> porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
> >Xocyll wrote...
> >> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> looked up from reading the
> >> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
> >> say:
> >>
> >> >Bradd wrote:
> >> >>> Hrm, that's OK, but I would really like to see a more non-committal
> >> >>> option, i.e., "Wouldn't mind joining a team, if it's fun." That's how
> >> >>> I currently use the default state (not LFT but not hiding either).
> >> >
> >> >Xocyll wrote:
> >> >> They'd never put in something as vague as that since no two people are
> >> >> going to agree what "fun" means. Besides, under the current system,
> >> >> how do you determine it's going to be fun _before_ you join.
> >> >
> >> >By talking to the team leader, duh.
> >>
> >> How does the talking to the leader tell you how the team is going to
> >> behave.
> >
> >Now you're just being dense.
>
> NO, i'm just wondering how Bradd can tell he's going to have fun with a
> TEAM by talking to ONE person.
Because by talking to the leader he can find out if the person has a
clue, has a clear like-minded goal, and/or has an idea how to make a
functional team. If he sends a simple tell saying 'What's the plan?'
and gets back 'Going to run missions level 34+' he can safely assume it
will be a better experience than if the response had been 'dunno',
'wanna team??' or 'need an sk??'.
Is it really so difficult for you to understand that talking to the
leader gives you a better idea of what the team experience will be like?
> >> I've been on teams with some great leaders that also had the ADD type
> >> player that rushed off all the time and made the experience a real
> >> chore.
> >
> ><boggle> How is the person a 'great' leader if they can't either get
> >the rogue player(s) in line or kick them off the team? Great/fun person
> >to play with maybe, but great leader? No.
>
> And sometimes you can't reign them in well, and sometimes it's a
> taskforce so doing without isn't an option if they're a needed part to
> complete the TF.
So the ability to control team members and recognize weak team members
before committing to long term projects isn't required for being a great
leader?
> >> Talking to one person in advance is not going to tell you it's going to
> >> be fun - unless you're precognitive or something Bradd.
> >
> >Clearly the team leader has the most say in what the team will be doing
> >and how it will go. Is it foolproof? Of course not, but it's still the
> >best way to know what the team experience will be like.
>
> That's ridiculous.
Please explain, how is it ridiculous?
> >> >I would expect a "non-committal" option to appear in the user interface
> >> >as something like, "Will consider teams, but /tell first."
> >>
> >> Looking for any, Comment: send a tell first.
> >> Not a big deal.
> >>
> >> You're either looking for a team of some flavor, or you're not.
> >> Not looking but will team, is NOT a valid option seems to be what
> >> Cryptic are saying - which makes your stance on the whole Blind Invite
> >> thing a bit moot.
> >
> >How so? The default state is still the noncommittal one, the only thing
> >that has changed is that you are now listed as 'not seeking'. The
> >definition of 'not seeking' is not the same 'not willing', which you
> >seem to think it is.
>
> The default state is NOT LOOKING, and the default lookup is ONLY LFT
> FLAG ON.
>
> These two things go together to imply that sending invites to people
> with LFT off is BAD.
I've addressed the label change to 'not seeking', but I'll admit it at
least gives me pause. The default setting argument, though, is
completely bogus. The logic is so flawed you might as well have said
the developers think it's bad because you say so. Do they also think
it's bad to use an AT, zone, or level range filter besides 'all'? Is it
wrong to enable the teleport prompt? Is the request channel inherently
evil and that's why it's not enabled by default?
And you're still ignoring the counter argument that you can list and
invite people regardless of lft or not. There would be no reason to
allow this if it really were 'BAD'.
> >Again, the fact that you can list and can invite people who are 'not
> >seeking' implies that the developers do not feel the way you do. If
> >their intent was 'not willing' they should have labeled it that and made
> >it impossible to invite anyone in that state.
> >
> >They did add the ability to make it obvious when you don't want to team
> >though, put 'not teaming right now' in your comment field.
>
> Like that;'s going to stop the blind inviters.
>
> You're making the totally unwarrented assumption that they CARE if you
> want to team or not. They don't, they want AT X of level Y on their
> team and you fit the bill.
<boggle> How silly of me. Clearly anyone who sends a blind invite is
just out to use me. There's no way they could possibly have the intent
of teaming for fun and experiencing content they can't access alone...
Well that's exactly what many of the blind invites I've received were
for. Seems to me you're the one making the unwarranted assumptions. Do
you ever even accept blind invites or talk to the inviter?
Zoiks!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram