Thread: Update 6: Developer Diary Feedback: Instance Finder Rewards

Instance Finder is gaining the ability to opt-in and out of instances, broadening or restricting the possible matches through the Advanced tab. The Instance Finder Bonus will similarly scale, growing the IF Bonus as more instances are opted into. Additionally, Skirmish Daily quests are being modified. Read more in the latest Developer Diary from Brian "Zombie Columbus" Aloisio and post your comments here!

Nice updates.

With this, the IF will be exactly what I expected, and wanted when I first heard about it

Yeah great. Thanks to all the rage, we´ll now have to complete skirms again to get a reasonable XP gain.

Other than that, this is a nice update. Actually, the most important problem for me that it solves is that the un-navigatable instance finder is finally dead.

I'm wondering why the Isengard tab is still there now you can opt out of individual instances/clusters. Isn't it a bit obsolete now?

I was also hoping for the bonus to become a little bit higher as 50% if you checked them all.


But in overall, it's a step in the right direction. Now if only more instances became scalable...

Originally Posted by DobbelB_EU

I'm wondering why the Isengard tab is still there now you can opt out of individual instances/clusters. Isn't it a bit obsolete now?

I was also hoping for the bonus to become a little bit higher as 50% if you checked them all.


But in overall, it's a step in the right direction. Now if only more instances became scalable...

I would imagine there are a couple of possibilities;

1) Over time each Instance Cluster will be under it's own Header. That would allow us to get full the Reward Bonus if we wanted to say do GB or Mirkwood Clusters only.

2) The current end game Instance Cluster will have it's own Header, with the old Clusters rotated into the larger pool. I suspect this is the intent, to allow us the ability to focus on Current content for the full Reward Bonus.

And yes to more Scaled Instances! I had thought we'd see one or more for U6. Hopefully we'll see some with U7.

Uncheck Gondamon
Uncheck Tuck

Finally enjoy skirmishing again

So the 1.5x Skirmish Mark bonus is going away completely? All skirmish marks will be rebalanced so that it makes absolutely no difference whether you pick just one or let it random you?

I've been away for a bit so if this change happened earlier, I just didn't catch it. I'm just trying to make sure I understand this correctly.

Originally Posted by Update 6: Developer Diary: Instance Finder Rewards

If you wish to play a specific instance you can use World-join, but will receive no bonus.

In other words, freedom of choice comes with a penalty. It's not necessarily "My way or the highway". It's more "My way or welfare".

It's just sad really. You're essentially bribing players to play the instances you want them to play. Why? Just why? I don't understand how my ability to pick which instance I want to run is something that needs to be discourage or stamped out.

Again, if you have instances that are run less than you would like then examine those instances, compare them to more popular instances and change the unpopular instances to more closely match the popular ones. Fix your instances. Stop trying to manipulate player behavior.

So much effort to solve a problem that never existed.

Originally Posted by WiltenRose

So the 1.5x Skirmish Mark bonus is going away completely?[...]

I believe it'll still be available - providing you opt into *all* instances and allow one to be randomly selected for you.

Originally Posted by WiltenRose

So the 1.5x Skirmish Mark bonus is going away completely? All skirmish marks will be rebalanced so that it makes absolutely no difference whether you pick just one or let it random you?

No, there are actually two things at work here.
First, the Bonus is still there (as can be seen in the picture). You will get the bonus only if you have a sufficient amount of instances selected which you are prepared to do randomly.

As in, lets say there were only 4 skirmishes. If you select you´re willing to do any, you get the full bonus of +50% marks and +5% power/morale. If you select only 3 of 4, you only get a +33§ marks bonus and no morale/power bonus. if you select only 2 you will only have a 20% marks bonus. No bonus if you only select one.

The second thing is the rebalancing of marks and XP. Formerly, before the instance finder, skirmishes had a daily quest that always gave the same XP bonus, which wasnt working as intended. As in, a lvl 20 player would get the same bonus as a lvl 75 player. We´re talking about levelling in two or three skirmishes for low level players here. This had to go anyway. The second thing was that daily skirmish quests apparently did not work well with the early instance finder. So the devs removed those daily quest XP and divided them onto the mob XP.

The good thing with this system was that you did not have to finish a skirmish since you were rewarded more for every kill. So, if the phone rang, or the laundry was done, or you just wanted a few more XP to reach the next level, you could simply do parts of a skirmish; the only penalty was not getting the marks and medallions from the boss chest.

Problem was, people did not see the flashy one-time XP kick they were used to get at the end of a skirmish, and campaigned against "nerfed" skirmishes. So now the devs reacted, we have an instance quest again that gives XP, but the mob XP was nerfed for balancing. So, no more cutting skirmishes short for a real XP gain. People however will still not get the hunge XP chunk from earlier times since that was not working as intended.

Originally Posted by TheREALify

In other words, freedom of choice comes with a penalty. It's not necessarily "My way or the highway". It's more "My way or welfare".

It's just sad really. You're essentially bribing players to play the instances you want them to play. Why? Just why? I don't understand how my ability to pick what instance I want to run is something that needs to be discourage or stamped out.

Again, if you have instances that are run less than you would like then examine those instances, compare them to more popular instances and change the unpopular instances to more closely match the popular ones. Fix your instances. Stop trying to manipulate player behavior.

So much effort to solve a problem that never existed.

QFE

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

Does the weekly lockout on skraids still apply, so that the item rewards can be assigned to anyone present regardless if they've run it this week or not? Or do I still need to track them and deselect them from what I'm willing to run?

Originally Posted by TheREALify

...
Again, if you have instances that are run less than you would like then examine those instances, compare them to more popular instances and change the unpopular instances to more closely match the popular ones. Fix your instances. Stop trying to manipulate player behavior.

So much effort to solve a problem that never existed.

Meh, this whole development effort is obviously not for the trivial reason of some instances being unpopular... what would be the point in that? Among other things, it is obviously intended to lay the groundwork for anonymous cross-server grouping.

So there´s your raison d'être.

Originally Posted by Namesse

Does the weekly lockout on skraids still apply, so that the item rewards can be assigned to anyone present regardless if they've run it this week or not? Or do I still need to track them and deselect them from what I'm willing to run?

Nothing changes with Raids. Skraids and other raids cannot be run by "instance finding"; you can only start them via the "Specific" tab in the new instance finder, which basically has the same function as the old instance join in a better menu.

Originally Posted by Vandervahn

Meh, this whole development effort is obviously not for the trivial reason of some instances being unpopular... what would be the point in that? Among other things, it is obviously intended to lay the groundwork for anonymous cross-server grouping.

So there´s your raison d'être..

I don't care enough to track down the original dev diary for the Instance Finder and the few dev responses in the thread(s) discussing it, but I do believe that one of the reasons given for penalizing people for choosing... sorry, rewarding people for accepting randomness was that the devs were noticing that certain skirmishes and instances were being run far more often than others and they wanted to rectify that. If it wasn't explicitly stated, the implication was certainly there.

OK, badly worded. Point was, a development of a magnitude that needed such a multi-month customer data to develpo further certainly is not undertaken just because some instances are unpopular.

Originally Posted by Lestache

I don't care enough to track down the original dev diary for the Instance Finder and the few dev responses in the thread(s) discussing it, but I do believe that one of the reasons given for penalizing people for choosing... sorry, rewarding people for accepting randomness was that the devs were noticing that certain skirmishes and instances were being run far more often than others and they wanted to rectify that. If it wasn't explicitly stated, the implication was certainly there.

I don't think it was "one of the reasons" ... I think it was the only reason. Anyway, is this the quote you were thinking of?

Originally Posted by Ransroth

Because we want to encourage players to run the breadth of the content and not to just focus on running the same "easiest" instance over and over again.

(Boy, it's hard to quote a closed thread!)

Again, if the breadth of the content isn't being run, perhaps the content is to blame and not the player.

When I first read about the U5 IF system, I was generally looking forward to a better group-building experience.

How disappointed I was when I was delivered a half-complete joke of a system that had to bribe use with extra currency to use it. As it is, the only reason to use it is to get a morale/power bonus on the 6-man Isen instance, after you've hand-built your team. It is simply not ready for prime time for any other purpose.

I've learned to be a little more cautious with my optimism when it comes to anything Turbine and Warner Bros. does nowadays.

You'd think you would give us features we could actually use, like some in game notification if we're loot-locked out of a particular skirm - keeping track of everything by hand bites (heck there's even a place for it in the social panel...). Or fixing the RK AFE bug. Or Fixing Draigoch - I did Draig for the first time a little while ago, only to have it glitch on us when we beat him. I was not happy. That fight took a very big chunk of my day, FAR more than I intended it to, and to walk away without even a reward for anyone in the raid left me with a VERY bad taste in my mouth.

The Devs need to fix their priorities. Squash bugs, THEN add features. Then squash new bugs new features add.

Originally Posted by TheREALify

In other words, freedom of choice comes with a penalty. It's not necessarily "My way or the highway". It's more "My way or welfare".

It's just sad really. You're essentially bribing players to play the instances you want them to play. Why? Just why? I don't understand how my ability to pick which instance I want to run is something that needs to be discourage or stamped out.

Again, if you have instances that are run less than you would like then examine those instances, compare them to more popular instances and change the unpopular instances to more closely match the popular ones. Fix your instances. Stop trying to manipulate player behavior.

So much effort to solve a problem that never existed.

Am I reading this incorrectly? Because you're quoting this:

Currently, the full Instance Finder bonus (50% currency and 5% Power/Morale) is granted only if you are willing to play a fully random instance through the Simple tab. If you wish to play a specific instance you can use World-join, but will receive no bonus.

With Update 6, you will be able to find a place between these two extremes. By indicating the specific instances you want IF to match you into, you will gain a relative IF Bonus. The more instances you opt into, the higher the IF Bonus will get, eventually reaching the current maximum.

As I saw it, the first paragraph describes what IF does right now (pre-U6). You cannot choose a specific instance with it, so you have to use the Instance Join panel, which gives no bonus. The second paragraph describes what IF will do with U6, which is that you can pick and choose your instance. I don't see a problem?

Originally Posted by LeppardUK

Am I reading this incorrectly? Because you're quoting this:



As I saw it, the first paragraph describes what IF does right now (pre-U6). You cannot choose a specific instance with it, so you have to use the Instance Join panel, which gives no bonus. The second paragraph describes what IF will do with U6, which is that you can pick and choose your instance. I don't see a problem?

I believe that the issue for some is the idea of having to accept smaller rewards for being unwilling to accept randomness.

The U6 reward structure gives you fewer and fewer rewards in direct proportion to how choosy you are about the content that you run. Sure, you'll now be able to choose exactly which instance or skirmish to run, but you'll receive fewer rewards for doing so than if you were to select multiple (or all) instances and skirmishes.

A number of folks, for a multitude of reasons, like to have control over which instances or skirmishes they run. Regardless of how it's worded by the devs, the U5 IF reward structure and the upcoming U6 sliding reward structure come across as a penalty on running content that one prefers to run.

It also didn't help things when the skirmish rewards were scaled back to a point that one virtually had to use IF instead of IJ to earn skirmish barter rewards in a similar amount of time as was needed prior to IF (even with the reduced barter cost of the skirmish barter rewards).

Originally Posted by Lestache

I believe that the issue for some is the idea of having to accept smaller rewards for being unwilling to accept randomness.

The U6 reward structure gives you fewer and fewer rewards in direct proportion to how choosy you are about the content that you run. Sure, you'll now be able to choose exactly which instance or skirmish to run, but you'll receive fewer rewards for doing so than if you were to select multiple (or all) instances and skirmishes.

A number of folks, for a multitude of reasons, like to have control over which instances or skirmishes they run. Regardless of how it's worded by the devs, the U5 IF reward structure and the upcoming U6 sliding reward structure come across as a penalty on running content that one prefers to run.

It also didn't help things when the skirmish rewards were scaled back to a point that one virtually had to use IF instead of IJ to earn skirmish barter rewards in a similar amount of time as was needed prior to IF (even with the reduced barter cost of the skirmish barter rewards).

I can understand that.

I see it like this: the bonus you get for picking more instance is just that - a bonus. Now, I'm not sure how this relates to pre-IF, but I assume that, without this bonus, we'll be earning as much marks etc. as we did pre-IF. This bonus will just make us earn more.

If it turns out that, without the bonus, we earn less than pre-IF, which stops the bonus from really being a bonus, then I agree this is a pointless thing to do. But is that the case?

Originally Posted by LeppardUK

I can understand that.

I see it like this: the bonus you get for picking more instance is just that - a bonus. Now, I'm not sure how this relates to pre-IF, but I assume that, without this bonus, we'll be earning as much marks etc. as we did pre-IF. This bonus will just make us earn more.

If it turns out that, without the bonus, we earn less than pre-IF, which stops the bonus from really being a bonus, then I agree this is a pointless thing to do. But is that the case?

Basically they scaled the rewards so that without IF you get about the same rewards as you got before IF without daily quest. They roughly moved the daily quest to the IF bonus.

The effect seems to be though that people who were used to running the same skirmish 8x a day now indeed go random and aren't really bothered, while those who enjoyed doing 8 different skirmishes each day are suddenly faced with running Siege of Gondamon 4x because of the 'randomness'.

Originally Posted by Ingaras

Basically they scaled the rewards so that without IF you get about the same rewards as you got before IF without daily quest. They roughly moved the daily quest to the IF bonus.

The effect seems to be though that people who were used to running the same skirmish 8x a day now indeed go random and aren't really bothered, while those who enjoyed doing 8 different skirmishes each day are suddenly faced with running Siege of Gondamon 4x because of the 'randomness'.

As it is, the IF makes me regret purchasing The Icy Crevasse even more. Once, it put me in a solo IC 3 times in a row.

I don't see why some of this is being done unless solo skirmishes are going to be phased out completely.

A lot of people can only do defensive skirms, and often can only do them solo. We have a lot of parents here who can hop online for 20 minutes, but have to be able to hit the 'pause' button if necessary. Same with people who work from home and all kinds of other situations.

The one chaotic skirm I used to like to run on my levelling toons was Ford of Bruinen because it let me finish up three Trollshaws slayer deeds in a convenient place, and level my skirmish soldiers on those toons at the same time. The rewards aren't enough to level skirmish pets anymore, though, if you have the audacity to only choose one solo skirmish you want to run, so skirmishes are still on my 'no point in buying' list.

You do not have near enough end-game content to make LoTRO a raiding game. There are a lot of folks who solo, or who only group very casually with friends, sometimes once in a blue moon. And you're alienating that entire part of the playerbase.

Why? Are you really going to build enough end-game instances to have a raiding population similar to that of WoW? I don't believe you have the resources for that, and I know LoTRO doesn't have close to the population to do it, not without some massive overhaul to the game engine and an even more massive overhaul and huge investment in PR and advertising to get those sorts of folks - in droves.

I guess that is to motivate people to group and the randomness too as several people needs deeds everywhere. Much of this game con is the fact new players have a hard time finding groups because the solo aspect of the game was very improved over the years. People can't progress with fun because some good quests needs a group. That's why Burglars and LMs in demand. Great soloers but not for newbies (feedback from kinnies). I also enjoy the solo aspect, is just my wife and I against the world because we don't like to wait for people or depend on them and I believe this view is shared by a lot of people...however...past week I had an amazing experience of join in a 6 man instance for first time with 6 people...man was epic! It really did feel like LoTR, massive battles, lots of enemies, mass confusion, adrenaline, you have to be alert all the time, was amazingly epic epic epic and I want to do again but is hard find a group because everyone so focused on solo. If Turbine applies policies to enforce grouping I more than welcome it. I believe like ME3 is spreading a new concept of several play styles in one game means more people and guess what more money. Must be immensily hard to please everyone but people to complain there will always be. I was a soloer untill that fellowship, now I crave for a raid of 24 people, must be ****ing epic. For soloers is worth have the taste...

Originally Posted by Lazlo_Hollyfeld

Uncheck Gondamon
Uncheck Tuck

Finally enjoy skirmishing again

Yeah, I reactivated VIP just to not do those anymore. (Then I used a new character slot, and that's all he could do until I got him to 25 to do Amon Sul, haha.)

Also, @Turbine: Loving that XP was added again, though! You're listening to us, and I like it

Originally Posted by Chanah

I don't see why some of this is being done unless solo skirmishes are going to be phased out completely.

A lot of people can only do defensive skirms, and often can only do them solo. We have a lot of parents here who can hop online for 20 minutes, but have to be able to hit the 'pause' button if necessary. Same with people who work from home and all kinds of other situations.

The one chaotic skirm I used to like to run on my levelling toons was Ford of Bruinen because it let me finish up three Trollshaws slayer deeds in a convenient place, and level my skirmish soldiers on those toons at the same time. The rewards aren't enough to level skirmish pets anymore, though, if you have the audacity to only choose one solo skirmish you want to run, so skirmishes are still on my 'no point in buying' list.

Exactly - I just don't understand the point of punishing people for playing the game they want to. Rather than reduce the rewards they can, why not see why people play the way they do?

I used to play this virtually every day. When they changed it to punish picking the skirmish we want to do, I simply stopped playing.

Originally Posted by TheREALify

This is little more than an ad hominem attack. Trancejeremy's observations are no less valid despite your questioning his credibility.

I see the forums as an important instrument for the community and game improvement. It allows players to share their views and discuss the game which matters to all that play it, that is why I do not appreciate trolling. I was carefull enough on the quote text where as you say I question his credibility.

False pretences and false facts just to over enhanced/ justify your views is not good.
Iif you care to read the post i linked and what he has been posting afterwards you will notice that he mocking the users of this forum just like many others who left the game to play other things but like to return here to wreck havoc.

Originally Posted by VentoPT

I see the forums as an important instrument for the community and game improvement. It allows players to share their views and discuss the game which matters to all that play it, that is why I do not appreciate trolling. I was carefull enough on the quote text where as you say I question his credibility.

False pretences and false facts just to over enhanced/ justify your views is not good.
Iif you care to read the post i linked and what he has been posting afterwards you will notice that he mocking the users of this forum just like many others who left the game to play other things but like to return here to wreck havoc.

You and I both know you can't stop trolls. Personally, if I think someone is a troll I add them to my ignore list and I don't read or respond to anything they post. I think that's the safest course of action and will result in the least number of misunderstandings. The opinions of trolls do not matter to me.

That being said, you're still focusing on a player and not their ideas. If you disagree with what they're saying - say so! Counter their argument, provide contrary examples, etc. Otherwise ignore them - well, that's my advice anyway.

Perhaps I missed it but I don't think I saw you state an opinion regarding Instance Finder Rewards. So, I invite you to join the discussion. Where do you stand on the subject of Instance Finder Rewards? Do you disagree with Trancejeremy's stated position? Do you believe that the ability to choose the instance one wishes to run should net fewer rewards than if you let Turbine pick an instance random instance for you?

I, for one, do not. I do not believe the use of the Instance Finder should be subsidized in any way.

Originally Posted by TheREALify

Perhaps I missed it but I don't think I saw you state an opinion regarding Instance Finder Rewards. So, I invite you to join the discussion. Where do you stand on the subject of Instance Finder Rewards? Do you disagree with Trancejeremy's stated position? Do you believe that the ability to choose the instance one wishes to run should net fewer rewards than if you let Turbine pick an instance random instance for you?

I, for one, do not. I do not believe the use of the Instance Finder should be subsidized in any way.

I think this is a "false" issue extensively discussed after U5 release.

Rewarding/subsidizing the IF is exactly the same thing as the rewards pre-U5 with IJ.
Before U5 the game provided content you could (re)run for rewards and experience and which also had daily locks to "desincentivate" the single instance farming.
When U5 brought out IF the reward system floated form the IJ to IF.
This was very much discussed at the time with one additional material factor which was the at the time state of underdevelopment of IF. With U5 was also assumed by turbine ( I believe that on the developer diary) that the intention was to fade out IJ and that IF was the future.

With U6 the IF is a more mature and flexible tool than IJ ever was.
Game wise the same game functionality and content is still available to players but delivered in a diferent way.
Skirmishes were always farm/grinding content and it was always about the rewards and the loot.
Exactly the same subsidizing that was in place for IJ before IF. The main concern about people is that it feels their grinding/farming methods are in danger and that thay may have to put in more effort for it.
Players would never had run the same skirmishes in repetitive cycles if it weren't for the rewards (subsidizes) in IJ.
And if they did they can still run them but not subsidized.

By the time U5 came outI was not normally running non raid skirms. Additionally and at least in my server when the Isengard instances pack came out even raid skirmishes decreased as there was new content with the newly need loots.

Incentives to make people try different things in the game content is positive and surely enriching for every player that likes the game and that wants to play it and not for allegedly "quit playing the game".

BUT my opinion on this is useless as the issue itself is outdated.
I would rather see discussed in this thread things that can be improved or corrected, things that are not working properly. This is why I read this thread. The concept discussion was made months ago.
And trolling/making fun is just to deviate from information and interest i think this threads are important.

Cheers

IMO the reasoning that ppl don't run instances simply because they aren't well designed is pretty from reality. Path of least resistance tends to trump the desire for novelty and the desire for challenge even in a game. Players don't like to admit prefering the quick and easy, but I'm assuming turbine isn't just throwing statements out to the public without having looked at the numbers which none of us have the access to.

With that said, it was a silly gamble IMO to release the IF in such a premature state. I know it's far more useful now but systems that have been previously shunned are far less likely to get used simply because past bad experiences tend drive ppl away from systems that are, in their current state, viable. Of course we aren't talking about a static player base so I hope we start seeing new ppl being satisfied by the IF which in turn should convince others to retry IF despite earlier difficulties.

Originally Posted by Joollio

I guess that is to motivate people to group and the randomness too as several people needs deeds everywhere. Much of this game con is the fact new players have a hard time finding groups because the solo aspect of the game was very improved over the years. People can't progress with fun because some good quests needs a group. That's why Burglars and LMs in demand. Great soloers but not for newbies (feedback from kinnies). I also enjoy the solo aspect, is just my wife and I against the world because we don't like to wait for people or depend on them and I believe this view is shared by a lot of people...however...past week I had an amazing experience of join in a 6 man instance for first time with 6 people...man was epic! It really did feel like LoTR, massive battles, lots of enemies, mass confusion, adrenaline, you have to be alert all the time, was amazingly epic epic epic and I want to do again but is hard find a group because everyone so focused on solo. If Turbine applies policies to enforce grouping I more than welcome it. I believe like ME3 is spreading a new concept of several play styles in one game means more people and guess what more money. Must be immensily hard to please everyone but people to complain there will always be. I was a soloer untill that fellowship, now I crave for a raid of 24 people, must be ****ing epic. For soloers is worth have the taste...

Not so much. I'm in a raiding kin, but regrettably, wardens are irrevocably broken and nobody is going to bring them to a raid - at least nobody with any sense. I certainly wouldn't. Before RoI, though, I successfully tanked everything in the game.

I have an unkinned champ that I'm always PUGging with, and it's usually a blast.

But remember how the epic had to be solo-ified because nobody could find a group for epic quests for - a couple of years, actually, after the game went live. There are also some instances, Tomb of Elendil the biggest, that come at the end of very long quest chains (that one is 32 or 38 quests, I can't remember which), which makes grouping very difficult.

It can also be difficult to find groups at lower than level cap.

Plus even those of us who like to group sometimes end up playing odd hours, or only have half an hour to play. LoTRO simply does not have the population base for mass grouping, and I shudder to think of going cross-server. When we had the 'invisible to everyone but the master looter' loot bug, even on my small well-behaved server there was a rash of ninja-looting. Putting grouping on a no-accountablity-whatsoever basis is not going to help the game.

Originally Posted by Fankdango

IMO the reasoning that ppl don't run instances simply because they aren't well designed is pretty from reality. Path of least resistance tends to trump the desire for novelty and the desire for challenge even in a game. Players don't like to admit prefering the quick and easy, but I'm assuming turbine isn't just throwing statements out to the public without having looked at the numbers which none of us have the access to. [...]

I've heard this argument repeatedly and frankly I don't buy it. It's a biased argument. I ran every skirmish available to me multiple times. I recorded time spent to complete each skirmish as well as all rewards garnered from a given skirmish. I reduced these numbers to "Skirmish Marks per Minute" averages for all the skirmishes. I analyzed the results to determine the most efficient means of earning Skirmish Marks. I focused on the ones with the highest averages and completely ignored the rest.

Creating a spreadsheet and researching every single skirmish available to me wasn't easy, it wasn't lazy and it certainly wasn't wasn't the path of least resistance. I optimized my efficiency. Typically when I skirmish I have a goal in mind - I need to get a certain number of Skirmish Marks. Why on Earth would I run anything but the most efficient skirmishes?

If developers wanted me to run something different, all they needed to do was bump up the rewards a bit - even things out a bit. Instead they choose to create the IF and reward randomness over choice. I don't know why.

Originally Posted by Fankdango

With that said, it was a silly gamble IMO to release the IF in such a premature state. I know it's far more useful now but systems that have been previously shunned are far less likely to get used simply because past bad experiences tend drive ppl away from systems that are, in their current state, viable. Of course we aren't talking about a static player base so I hope we start seeing new ppl being satisfied by the IF which in turn should convince others to retry IF despite earlier difficulties.

I can't argue with that at all. Although, I have no more use for the IF today than I did when it first appeared.

Originally Posted by VentoPT

I think this is a "false" issue extensively discussed after U5 release. [...]

If I select which skirmish I want to run I get some rewards.

If I let Turbine select a skirmish for me I get greater rewards.

Ergo, the use of the (randomizing feature of the) IF is subsidized. There's nothing "false" about that.

The rewards should be the same regardless of how a skirmish (or instance) is selected.

If developers want us to run different instances, adjust those instances so that they have the same appeal as the instances that do get run frequently. Simple problem - simple solution. I see no need at all for this 'solution'.

Yesterday I tried again.
With full reward bonus, I ended up in Stand At Amon Sûl (solo - T1 - level 75).
I got 120 Marks, 1 Medallion (no encounter done). At level 65 I used to get past 100 Marks just with the daily quest.
Will I do more non-raid skirmishes again?
No.

Originally Posted by GrandCru

Yesterday I tried again.
With full reward bonus, I ended up in Stand At Amon Sûl (solo - T1 - level 75).
I got 120 Marks, 1 Medallion (no encounter done). At level 65 I used to get past 100 Marks just with the daily quest.
Will I do more non-raid skirmishes again?
No.

But was that before or after the currency change? If before you have to account for the over the board reduced prices aswell.

I like the Instance Finder, though the interface could be more elegant. There's nothing wrong with it mechanically. The problem, I find, is that NO ONE ELSE EVER QUEUES. I can wait for hours queued as a tank for Isengard instances, and nothing. Sadly, it's faster to ask over and over in GLFF.

I don't think this is an incentive problem so much as it is a cultural one. In WoW, it's second nature to just hit 'I' and queue, but here, I still find myself trekking to the portal only to realize I didn't have to. So my question for the dev team is: How can we MAKE it second nature to use the Finder? How can we make this the primary method for joining pugs, without pushing the rewards past what is reasonable?

Originally Posted by Serin36

I like the Instance Finder, though the interface could be more elegant. There's nothing wrong with it mechanically. The problem, I find, is that NO ONE ELSE EVER QUEUES. I can wait for hours queued as a tank for Isengard instances, and nothing. Sadly, it's faster to ask over and over in GLFF.

I don't think this is an incentive problem so much as it is a cultural one. In WoW, it's second nature to just hit 'I' and queue, but here, I still find myself trekking to the portal only to realize I didn't have to. So my question for the dev team is: How can we MAKE it second nature to use the Finder? How can we make this the primary method for joining pugs, without pushing the rewards past what is reasonable?

The whole psychology is wrong. Instead of trying to reward the behaviour they wanted - ie provide a positive incentive - the incentive they set up was 'to avoid penalties'. People get stubborn over odure like that. Skirmishes are now much less rewarding to run and the medallion/seal price of everything so ridiculous compared to the old system so I don't do them as much any more.

Originally Posted by Serin36

I like the Instance Finder, though the interface could be more elegant. There's nothing wrong with it mechanically. The problem, I find, is that NO ONE ELSE EVER QUEUES. I can wait for hours queued as a tank for Isengard instances, and nothing. Sadly, it's faster to ask over and over in GLFF.

I don't think this is an incentive problem so much as it is a cultural one. In WoW, it's second nature to just hit 'I' and queue, but here, I still find myself trekking to the portal only to realize I didn't have to. So my question for the dev team is: How can we MAKE it second nature to use the Finder? How can we make this the primary method for joining pugs, without pushing the rewards past what is reasonable?

If you really like the system, you should have no complaints. Until Turbine makes it absolutely mandatory (and they may), very few people are going to use it. Most of us have preferred to give up skirmishes - even those of us who liked to run them occasionally - rather than use the IF. If they make skirmishing mandatory, we'll have to use it at least once in a while, some people will quit in disgust though, so your pool of available candidates will be overall less, but you should find groups then. Turbine seems to prefer the stick to the carrot. Or let's say that their idea of 'reward' strikes 98% of us as 'punishment'. And we don't respond well to that. Historically when that's happened, Turbine's increased the punishment to where we have to do what they want us to do.

Though I think it's blindingly obvious at this point that almost nobody wants a tool that forces us into random instances, much less one that forces us into random instances with people from other servers - I've happily given up scrolls of greater empowerment and scrolls of greater delving rather than be part of the new system. So have many others.

Credit where its due
I was one of those who were enraged by U5 and eventually quit the game altogether. I have tried the new IF after U6 and read the developer diary and I found that Turbine not only revamped it to the satisfaction of so many voices raised against it but also found a way to reach the middle ground of conflicting arguments. My congratulations and earnest thanks for listening and and applying. I can go back to playing now and actually enjoy it once more. Good job Turbine

Regarding skirmishes, it's great that we can now pick which skirms we want to run through the IF. But in true Turbine style, that nice option was immediately made irrelevant by not including the bonus to skirm mark acquisition for it. There is only one reason to run solo skirms, and that's to get marks. It's an utter waste of time unless you let the IF pick which you do to get the +50% acquisition rate.

Yes, it's basically the same as it was before Turbine combined everything into the IF. And it remains the same insanely stupid idea even while combined into the IF.

The only message it sends is a big middle finger to the players who want to choose which skirm they feel like running while still getting rewards that are worth their time. "Want to pick which skirm you run solo? Well too bad, unless you want to run it while getting pathetically low rewards."

Hmm, I notice April 10th is getting closer and closer.

Originally Posted by Ebyl

Regarding skirmishes, it's great that we can now pick which skirms we want to run through the IF. But in true Turbine style, that nice option was immediately made irrelevant by not including the bonus to skirm mark acquisition for it. There is only one reason to run solo skirms, and that's to get marks. It's an utter waste of time unless you let the IF pick which you do to get the +50% acquisition rate.

I thought that would have been obvious from the start - the +50% is for doing *random* content, so if you pick only a single skirmish, there's no bonus.

However, depending on the number of options you have, you can usually deselect one or two without losing any of the bonus, and if you keep, say, half of your options selected, you should still get a decent bonus. To me, that seems quite fair.

Most of the complaints I've seen (prior to update 6) were 'I'm sick of Gondamon' or 'I don't want to do Icy Crevasse - ever'. I think these people pretty much got what they were asking for.