Bounty Hunter Archive
Thread: Beware the Return of White-Named Marks
FaceInTheCrowd wrote:
Do you have any hard data to support your claims of how bad it was? I mean, I remember very vividly the ones that were bugged. They stand out in your mind and that's all you think about. I have always suspected the claims of people that a very high percentage of their missions were bad. No data = no proof. Now, maybe I was somehow a luckier bounty hunter, but I don't see a whole lot of things I did that others weren't doing that could have somehow impacted the outcome of my missions. My point is people remember all the bad stuff but without any actual numbers to back it up talking about percentages is just wrong.
By publish 9 the major issue with bounty hunter missions wasn't white marks, it was 'invisible' marks. That was an entirely different issue. I was also doing missions and collecting data during that time. It seemed like I had a huge number of invisible marks, but in my collected data there really weren't that many (I'm at work now, so I can't give you any numbers). The memories of the ones that failed easily override the many, many more marks that were successful missions.
Message Edited by FaceInTheCrowd on 07-29-2005 08:30 AM
OhBuggah wrote:
I like that they re-implemented this. If they kept it at it is, then these types of mission would only degrade MBH to nothing more than a mission-puller for mass farming groups. From what I've read, these marks are going to be extremely difficult -- like solo'ing a Krayt Dragon. Very few MBH's have the proper template and equipment to solo such things, thus, keeping the TEF only with the mission holder will ensure that the high quality drops will remain rare and more valuable to the person who looted it.
You are completely missing the point.
Yes, this could potentially make it so only Bounty Hunters can get to the loot. However it could also potentially make 50% of our bounties unattackable. They're going back to an old buggy system that hasn't been fully tested yet, which is bad.
What good is loot if we can't get to it?
FaceInTheCrowd wrote:
Do you have any hard data to support your claims of how bad it was? I mean, I remember very vividly the ones that were bugged. They stand out in your mind and that's all you think about. I have always suspected the claims of people that a very high percentage of their missions were bad. No data = no proof.
I don't NEED to prove it to you. I remember how it was - my reason for quitting for several months certainly wasn't because I was HAPPY about how my missions were going.
Can you prove that you're not simply making up your own numbers? No, you can't - so I have to suspect your claim as well. I mean, why would someone collect data on every mission if he WASN'T having a problem significant enough to warrant attention?
Between invisible marks, white marks and marks hopelessly embedded in terrain objects, a majority of my Investigation IV missions had to be aborted and retried. I'm glad things went so well for you but don't presume for a moment that it was indicative of how it went for others.
And, to be honest, I don't care if the majority of missions go without a hitch - if this happens often enough for people to notice it and mention it this frequently, it's NOT a "non-issue".
Shaan'ti Hokai (Kauri) 
TashunkaSapa wrote:
I don't NEED to prove it to you. I remember how it was - my reason for quitting for several months certainly wasn't because I was HAPPY about how my missions were going.
Can you prove that you're not simply making up your own numbers? No, you can't - so I have to suspect your claim as well. I mean, why would someone collect data on every mission if he WASN'T having a problem significant enough to warrant attention?
Between invisible marks, white marks and marks hopelessly embedded in terrain objects, a majority of my Investigation IV missions had to be aborted and retried. I'm glad things went so well for you but don't presume for a moment that it was indicative of how it went for others.
And, to be honest, I don't care if the majority of missions go without a hitch - if this happens often enough for people to notice it and mention it this frequently, it's NOT a "non-issue".
It's not an issue at the moment. That's why I started posting on this thread. The OP started warning people that the sky might be falling in the future, but he's not sure, but you better watch out.
The reason I kept data on missions was precisely so I could provide factual evidence when faced with people screaming about the missions being hopelessly broken. I thought at the time the data could provide some assistance in showing trends. People like you kept screaming about how none of the missions worked and continued to claim stuff like 50% or 90% of the missions were bugged. Claims without data are just claims. Sure you could make up data or I could or anyone else could. My previous post in response to you was to say that I have numbers. I will reproduce them here since you tend to believe things were so pathetically, hopelessly borked that nobody could possibly get through investigation.
August 2003 to November 2003 (prior to worst of the invisible mark phenomenon)
# of missions completed to master: 337
# of missions for first 10k exp: 175
# of additional missions prior to training Inv 1 and 2: 25 (I don't remember why I did this, but I suspect it was for fast cash)
# of missions to complete Inv 3: 56
# of missions to complete Inv 4: 81 (last 20 or so were after the introduction of increased exp/payout)
# of missions attempted but failed out of first 200: 11 (lost data on breakdown, should be in a thread here somewhere)
# of missions attempted but failed forInv 3: 6 (3 no shows, 3 white)
# of missions attempted but failed forInv 4: 8 (2 stuck in buildings, 4 no shows, 1 in water, 1 white)
Total # of failed missions to master: 25
Total # of missions attempted: 362
Bugged mission percentage: 6.9%
Bugged mission percentage due to white marks: 1.1% (there may have been some in that first bunch, will investigate)
Did other people have different experiences? Absolutely, they did. Would you expect their bugged mission rate (especially for white marks) to be astronomically higher? No, unless all their missions were done during the period that the white mark phenomenon was at its worst. That period was mostly during the early part of my investigation grind. Even then, if all my bugged missions for that time were white marks that's only a failure rate of 11/200 = 5.5%.
Edit: found the old thread where I posted up data on novice missions. Breakdown of those 11 failed missions was:
Aborted
White Marks: 1
Mark Unattackable in wall: 1
Mark Unattackable in battlefield: 1
No Shows: 9
So, the total number of white marks out of 362 possible missions was 5, and only 1 in the first 211 attempts when white marks were more prevalent.
Message Edited by FaceInTheCrowd on 07-29-2005 04:25 PM
Your data is irrelevant to MY experiences - why can't you wrap your mind around that?
Can your data tell me how many of MY missions were bugged? It cannot - there are a lot of variables your informal experiment does not address. What planet they were on, location of the mark, condition of the server, what patch or bugfix had been recently deployed, etc. etc...
Your thread on Novice Missions is inconclusive when it comes to missions in general- those marks areusually done on starter planets, they don't run, and most bounty hunters only took missions that were close to a shuttle. So a lot of the factors that seem to contribute to the bug would not manifest. I'd like to see a thread where you say something like "If the mark turned out to be on Endor, I aborted" as most of us didafter experiencing the problems there. Your data leaves much to be desired if you wish for it to be a helpful tool.
Why can't you understand that all your data could illustrate (not "prove") is how things went for you? First of all, I find it hard to believe that you'd colllect that kind of data unless it were a significant enough issue to warrant attention. Therefore it wouldn't be something you'd track from the start - because how would you know it's an issue if you hadn't done any of them yet?
The fact that you attempt to distort the things that I've said further illustrates the suspect nature of your data. I could make up numbers just as easily, or you could go back and read my posts from last April, but ultimately I don't care how things went for you.
People like you make poor candidates for actually solving problems because you dismiss the notion that others might be seeing different data than you do. You remind me of the joke "Q: How many Microsoft techs does it take to change a light bulb? A: None, the light bulb on my endis working properly, thereforeyou don't have a problem."
Message Edited by TashunkaSapa on 07-29-2005 09:54 PM
TashunkaSapa wrote:
Your data is irrelevant to MY experiences - why can't you wrap your mind around that?
Yet somehow you refuse to believe that others experienced a much less buggy rate than has been quoted? Maybe you got lucky and fell to the high end of the bugginess distribution and I fell to the low end. We'll never know, since you bring no data to the table for further analysis.
Can your data tell me how many of MY missions were bugged? It cannot - there are a lot of variables your informal experiment does not address. What planet they were on, location of the mark, condition of the server, what patch or bugfix had been recently deployed, etc. etc...
No. However my data says much more than your 'recollection'.
Your thread on Novice Missions is inconclusive when it comes to missions in general- those marks areusually done on starter planets, they don't run, and most bounty hunters only took missions that were close to a shuttle. So a lot of the factors that seem to contribute to the bug would not manifest. I'd like to see a thread where you say something like "If the mark turned out to be on Endor, I aborted" as most of us didafter experiencing the problems there. Your data leaves much to be desired if you wish for it to be a helpful tool.
Endor was a mess and it was pointless to take missions there. If your horrid experience with white marks was due to taking missions there, who is to blame for your problems? Wow, on other planets it wasn't too bad, guess I should take those Endor missions so I can bash my head against the wall.
The data itself was meant to be added to the collective experience of the community, but nobody seemed interested. It was an experiment of one with many trials. Had others contributed in similar fashion we could have had a much better feel for what was happening.
Your complaining about my data is like saying 'I don't believe that the acceleration due to gravity 9.81 m/sec^2 because I haven't measured it myself'or 'I got a different value'.
Why can't you understand that all your data could illustrate (not "prove") is how things went for you? First of all, I find it hard to believe that you'd colllect that kind of data unless it were a significant enough issue to warrant attention. Therefore it wouldn't be something you'd track from the start - because how would you know it's an issue if you hadn't done any of them yet?
If 1,000 players experienced 1 or 2 missions failing and came to post about it, this would seem like a colossal issue. What we never got a firm grip on was how frequently the event occured. You fail to grasp this concept.
The fact that you attempt to distort the things that I've said further illustrates the suspect nature of your data. I could make up numbers just as easily, or you could go back and read my posts from last April, but ultimately I don't care how things went for you.
I attempted to distort nothing but your misinformation that was based on recollection, without any data on what actually happened to show you the frequency of the event.
People like you make poor candidates for actually solving problems because you dismiss the notion that others might be seeing different data than you do. You remind me of the joke "Q: How many Microsoft techs does it take to change a light bulb? A: None, the light bulb on my endis working properly, thereforeyou don't have a problem."
You appear to be the one who doesn't understand that there is different data. I merely asked if you could provide any hard numbers to back up your claims. Recollections are frequently wrong.
IF your data was correct and only 7% of BH missions were bugged, wouldn't we hear far less about it? Even so, don't you understand that ANY bugged mission indicates that there's a problem with the code, andf that unless that problem is identified and addressed it can happen at any time?
Agreed about bugged missions indicating there is a problem. I tried to help by documenting what I could. What did you do?
[EDIT: Here's one link I found to a post where I mentioned the problem:
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=Kauri&message.id=114749#M114749. "5 out of 11" may not sound like much, but it was representative of the sort of problem I'd encountered along the way. If your300-some missions are sufficient data to make a representative sample for all of us, then those 11 missions are sufficient to represent what I personally had experienced prior to that.]
Message Edited by TashunkaSapa on 07-29-2005 09:54 PM
I'm done responding to you after your semi-personal attacks and general lack of knowledge of statistics, sample sizes, andinterpretation of results. Your 11 missions are a statistically insignificant sample. It's funny that you attack me and say that I'm somehow inept at problem solving. It's what I do for a living and do it well. You, on the other hand, have only whined. My point all along has been that your lack of any kind of data to back up yourremembrances about your bad missions provides no reason to believe anything you've said.
I'm not saying there weren't bugged missions. There were and everyone who was a bounty hunter then knows it. What I'm talking about is the actual frequency of the bugged ones. Maybe I was just the luckiest bounty hunter playing the game at the time, but somehow I doubt that. Without more data we will never know. Surely the bugged missions per player fall in a distribution of some sort.More data sets from other players would have helped to pin things down.
I'm still perplexed how you fail to understand why a bounty hunter who started the investigation line in August of 2003 would take data on his missions from the beginning... Any bounty hunter reading the forum at that time saw post after post about problems with missions. I know I wasn't the only person gathering data.
The fact that I didn't post what planet I took the missions on is irrelevant to the discussion as all missions at all levels followed a more or less random choice of planet per mission (although I generally avoided Endor, Lok, and Dath because they were usually a pain for running missions). The course I took was much like most other bounty hunters at the time. Novice missions were mostly run on Corellia. My post indicated where I typically hunted for the novice missions... Anything past novice was a random sample of random events that all players would have experienced. That's why the number of missions becomes important statistically.
In the worst of the bad old days for this Sep-Oct 03, the rate of an attackable target spawning for me was never any better than 50%. When only taking the maximum level target,the non-completable mission rategot to be as much as 75 or 80%. Yes, 3 out of 4 or 4 out of 5 missions would not be completable, which was particularly disheartening as it was also before bikes and player cities and shuttle times being reduced.
But, this highest rate was only against the highest rated marks, level 30 or 31 at the time I think. The rates for failure on level 25 or so were much lower. This was also back in the days when you could bleed someone to death, even if you were already a corpse, and get a mission completion. I remember completing several missions sprawled out after taking an NPC special attack in the face. These were also the days before good armor and buffs being generally available.
Good Times tho...
JB
Message Edited by jbdotcom on 07-29-2005 08:43 PM
FaceInTheCrowd wrote:
Yet somehow you refuse to believe that others experienced a much less buggy rate than has been quoted?
It doesn't matter - the fact is, players were inconvenienced by the bug, some to the point of quitting.
No. However my data says much more than your 'recollection'.
All it says is that you didn't see the problem that others were experiencing.
Endor was a mess and it was pointless to take missions there. If your horrid experience with white marks was due to taking missions there, who is to blame for your problems?
Ummm... The Developers? Are you seriously going to try and blame players for actually trying to play the game as it's supposed to be - for going to where the mission is located and not just aborting it out of convenience? If that's what you were doing, you've contaminated your data and rendered it irrelevant. Way to test, dude - ignore the areas that are bugged and then proclaim that there's no problem! Do you still do that?
Your complaining about my data is like saying 'I don't believe that the acceleration due to gravity 9.81 m/sec^2 because I haven't measured it myself'or 'I got a different value'.
Can you substantiate the numbers from your thread? Do you have any way to prove that you just didn't make them up? Of course you can't - so your analogy is as useless as your data.
You appear to be the one who doesn't understand that there is different data. I merely asked if you could provide any hard numbers to back up your claims. Recollections are frequently wrong.
Well, as I "recall", I got so fed up at all the bugged missions, ignored CSR tickets and incompetence over it that I quit the game for several months. If you want to test that "recollection" you can observe the 3-month gap in my post history.
I'm done responding to you after your semi-personal attacks and general lack of knowledge of statistics, sample sizes, andinterpretation of results. Your 11 missions are a statistically insignificant sample.
They are as statistically representative of MY experiences as your 300-some are of everyone else's. So stow it.
If you were "done responding" you wouldn't have bothered.
As for statistics? They can be manipulated to demonstrate whatever you want. Let me tell you a little anecdotal story.
In the days of the Cold War, the United States was challenged to a car race by the Soviet Union. The American car won the race, but the Russian news story was "In glorious car race, Russian driver finishes in honorable second place, while capitalist American pig finishes next to last..."
The fact that I didn't post what planet I took the missions on is irrelevant to the discussion as all missions at all levels followed a more or less random choice of planet per mission (although I generally avoided Endor, Lok, and Dath because they were usually a pain for running missions).
Then your "experiment" does not accurately reflect the REAL data, any more than a study of heart disease among Americans would be if you tested only overweight alcoholics who smoked. If you REALLY were interested in useful data, you'd have taken your missions where they were givem, to see what it was really like.
It's a really simple point: Your experience was not indicative of actual events. I didn't keep notes because I didn't expect that I'd have to justify my frustration with bugs to an a.nal-retentive ostrich nearly two years later. Stick your head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen, but your numbers don't invalidate our experiences.
I could say that 99% of the players in this game think you're a jerk, how would you disprove that? The only statistic we need is a verifiable one - I cancelled my subscription for three months last April. Can you guess the reason?
Message Edited by TashunkaSapa on 07-30-2005 02:11 AM
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=bounty_hunter&message.id=497239
Don't say I didn't tell you so.