Datacron Set-4 Infinite Loop, WAI?!?

"Ultra;c-2382079" wrote:

"CrispyFett;c-2382076" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2382073" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2382047" wrote:

"CrispyFett;c-2381818" wrote:
Yep, they really need to address this. Just fought a EP led LV, Thrawn, Tarkin and Piett. Stuck in an infinite time loop where Tarkin just keeps going and going and going until the match times out (much like the energizer bunny except this isn't funny). Maybe some thought by the Devs to the effects provided by the DC would be helpful prior to unleashing them on the community. Plus don't have them apply to GLs

Seems like CG are just going to go radio silent and avoid dealing with any issues that arise from any DataCon sets, it's like they've perfected testing-free releases!

They already addressed it by saying they aren't going to adjust OP datacrons because they are temporary. You can not like that stance, but that is their stance on the subject.

That's a bit different from this current issue raised however. While CG may not change datacrons which are "OP", that have always stated that mechanisms that cause infinite TM gain or turns etc are not intended are are usually fixed relatively quickly because of their impact. I would say having a toon take infinite turns until the match times-out is a glitch rather than "OP"

Again, with datacrons any TM loop issues will eventually expire so they'll just wait it out and probably not give empire this modifier the next time

So we should just expect EVERY new set of DataCrons to be untested and obviously open to some kind of massive and massively obvious exploit, and you believe that is genuinely just fine and an acceptable way for the game to be managed?!

Yes, you should expect that.

I don't think it's fine, but I'm not footing the bills for CG--in large part because I don't think what they've been doing the last 6 months is fine. The whales, however, are fine with all this. I don't have total revenue numbers, of course, but the bottom of K1, where I dropped to try and get away from DCs, is filled with plenty of whale accounts that seem very happy--i.e. they're spending like crazy on them.

"Beeblebrox;c-2382081" wrote:

"Ultra;c-2382079" wrote:

"CrispyFett;c-2382076" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2382073" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2382047" wrote:

"CrispyFett;c-2381818" wrote:
Yep, they really need to address this. Just fought a EP led LV, Thrawn, Tarkin and Piett. Stuck in an infinite time loop where Tarkin just keeps going and going and going until the match times out (much like the energizer bunny except this isn't funny). Maybe some thought by the Devs to the effects provided by the DC would be helpful prior to unleashing them on the community. Plus don't have them apply to GLs

Seems like CG are just going to go radio silent and avoid dealing with any issues that arise from any DataCon sets, it's like they've perfected testing-free releases!

They already addressed it by saying they aren't going to adjust OP datacrons because they are temporary. You can not like that stance, but that is their stance on the subject.

That's a bit different from this current issue raised however. While CG may not change datacrons which are "OP", that have always stated that mechanisms that cause infinite TM gain or turns etc are not intended are are usually fixed relatively quickly because of their impact. I would say having a toon take infinite turns until the match times-out is a glitch rather than "OP"

Again, with datacrons any TM loop issues will eventually expire so they'll just wait it out and probably not give empire this modifier the next time

So we should just expect EVERY new set of DataCrons to be untested and obviously open to some kind of massive and massively obvious exploit, and you believe that is genuinely just fine and an acceptable way for the game to be managed?!

1. CG not testing jokes aside, why do you think this wasn't tested? Because it does something you don't like?
2. Pretty sure Ultra has said a few times here that they don't agree with CG's stance on OP datacrons
3. This is the first one that has been just ridiculously OP, so why do you think they'll all be this way?

"StarSon;c-2382084" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2382081" wrote:

"Ultra;c-2382079" wrote:

"CrispyFett;c-2382076" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2382073" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2382047" wrote:

"CrispyFett;c-2381818" wrote:
Yep, they really need to address this. Just fought a EP led LV, Thrawn, Tarkin and Piett. Stuck in an infinite time loop where Tarkin just keeps going and going and going until the match times out (much like the energizer bunny except this isn't funny). Maybe some thought by the Devs to the effects provided by the DC would be helpful prior to unleashing them on the community. Plus don't have them apply to GLs

Seems like CG are just going to go radio silent and avoid dealing with any issues that arise from any DataCon sets, it's like they've perfected testing-free releases!

They already addressed it by saying they aren't going to adjust OP datacrons because they are temporary. You can not like that stance, but that is their stance on the subject.

That's a bit different from this current issue raised however. While CG may not change datacrons which are "OP", that have always stated that mechanisms that cause infinite TM gain or turns etc are not intended are are usually fixed relatively quickly because of their impact. I would say having a toon take infinite turns until the match times-out is a glitch rather than "OP"

Again, with datacrons any TM loop issues will eventually expire so they'll just wait it out and probably not give empire this modifier the next time

So we should just expect EVERY new set of DataCrons to be untested and obviously open to some kind of massive and massively obvious exploit, and you believe that is genuinely just fine and an acceptable way for the game to be managed?!

1. CG not testing jokes aside, why do you think this wasn't tested? Because it does something you don't like?
2. Pretty sure Ultra has said a few times here that they don't agree with CG's stance on OP datacrons
3. This is the first one that has been just ridiculously OP, so why do you think they'll all be this way?

1) Because it was obvious the moment they were announced, before they were even in-game that they would allow for infinite loops, so even a mediocre and lazy tester testing them would've seen this
2) I've not seen that, and they defend too many indefensible positions to assume it would be the case
3) Because they're clearly not testing them, and the more ideas they have to come up with (something we know they aren't good at) the more they're likely to create completely broken mechanic situations which would normally be tested-out-of-use pre-release but clearly won't be with CG

P.S. I don't agree to this "all jokes aside" thing :D lol

"Beeblebrox;c-2382088" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2382084" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2382081" wrote:

"Ultra;c-2382079" wrote:

"CrispyFett;c-2382076" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2382073" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2382047" wrote:

"CrispyFett;c-2381818" wrote:
Yep, they really need to address this. Just fought a EP led LV, Thrawn, Tarkin and Piett. Stuck in an infinite time loop where Tarkin just keeps going and going and going until the match times out (much like the energizer bunny except this isn't funny). Maybe some thought by the Devs to the effects provided by the DC would be helpful prior to unleashing them on the community. Plus don't have them apply to GLs

Seems like CG are just going to go radio silent and avoid dealing with any issues that arise from any DataCon sets, it's like they've perfected testing-free releases!

They already addressed it by saying they aren't going to adjust OP datacrons because they are temporary. You can not like that stance, but that is their stance on the subject.

That's a bit different from this current issue raised however. While CG may not change datacrons which are "OP", that have always stated that mechanisms that cause infinite TM gain or turns etc are not intended are are usually fixed relatively quickly because of their impact. I would say having a toon take infinite turns until the match times-out is a glitch rather than "OP"

Again, with datacrons any TM loop issues will eventually expire so they'll just wait it out and probably not give empire this modifier the next time

So we should just expect EVERY new set of DataCrons to be untested and obviously open to some kind of massive and massively obvious exploit, and you believe that is genuinely just fine and an acceptable way for the game to be managed?!

1. CG not testing jokes aside, why do you think this wasn't tested? Because it does something you don't like?
2. Pretty sure Ultra has said a few times here that they don't agree with CG's stance on OP datacrons
3. This is the first one that has been just ridiculously OP, so why do you think they'll all be this way?

1) Because it was obvious the moment they were announced, before they were even in-game that they would allow for infinite loops, so even a mediocre and lazy tester testing them would've seen this
2) I've not seen that, and they defend too many indefensible positions to assume it would be the case
3) Because they're clearly not testing them, and the more ideas they have to come up with (something we know they aren't good at) the more they're likely to create completely broken mechanic situations which would normally be tested-out-of-use pre-release but clearly won't be with CG

P.S. I don't agree to this "all jokes aside" thing :D lol

Again, just because it does something you don't like doesn't mean it isn't what they intended. While I agree that they're very bad at testing, you don't even need to test this to know what would happen. It's even got a DV character bonus at level 9, so it's not possible that this is not intended.

The devs over at CG are an absolute joke (so much for joking aside :D), but there's no way this wasn't known that this would happen.

"StarSon;c-2382092" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2382088" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2382084" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2382081" wrote:

"Ultra;c-2382079" wrote:

"CrispyFett;c-2382076" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2382073" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2382047" wrote:

"CrispyFett;c-2381818" wrote:
Yep, they really need to address this. Just fought a EP led LV, Thrawn, Tarkin and Piett. Stuck in an infinite time loop where Tarkin just keeps going and going and going until the match times out (much like the energizer bunny except this isn't funny). Maybe some thought by the Devs to the effects provided by the DC would be helpful prior to unleashing them on the community. Plus don't have them apply to GLs

Seems like CG are just going to go radio silent and avoid dealing with any issues that arise from any DataCon sets, it's like they've perfected testing-free releases!

They already addressed it by saying they aren't going to adjust OP datacrons because they are temporary. You can not like that stance, but that is their stance on the subject.

That's a bit different from this current issue raised however. While CG may not change datacrons which are "OP", that have always stated that mechanisms that cause infinite TM gain or turns etc are not intended are are usually fixed relatively quickly because of their impact. I would say having a toon take infinite turns until the match times-out is a glitch rather than "OP"

Again, with datacrons any TM loop issues will eventually expire so they'll just wait it out and probably not give empire this modifier the next time

So we should just expect EVERY new set of DataCrons to be untested and obviously open to some kind of massive and massively obvious exploit, and you believe that is genuinely just fine and an acceptable way for the game to be managed?!

1. CG not testing jokes aside, why do you think this wasn't tested? Because it does something you don't like?
2. Pretty sure Ultra has said a few times here that they don't agree with CG's stance on OP datacrons
3. This is the first one that has been just ridiculously OP, so why do you think they'll all be this way?

1) Because it was obvious the moment they were announced, before they were even in-game that they would allow for infinite loops, so even a mediocre and lazy tester testing them would've seen this
2) I've not seen that, and they defend too many indefensible positions to assume it would be the case
3) Because they're clearly not testing them, and the more ideas they have to come up with (something we know they aren't good at) the more they're likely to create completely broken mechanic situations which would normally be tested-out-of-use pre-release but clearly won't be with CG

P.S. I don't agree to this "all jokes aside" thing :D lol

Again, just because it does something you don't like doesn't mean it isn't what they intended. While I agree that they're very bad at testing, you don't even need to test this to know what would happen. It's even got a DV character bonus at level 9, so it's not possible that this is not intended.

The devs over at CG are an absolute joke (so much for joking aside :D), but there's no way this wasn't known that this would happen.

I don't agree. Based on the evidence from the dev's conduct since game has been released, I would argue its more likely that they did not know this would happen. There are numerous instances of changes being implemented which the community realizes right away will have some "adverse" effect and the only logical inference would either be: (i) they are so incompetent as to not know the anticipated effects of their changes; or (ii) they don't care/are making these changes with the intention of causing "adverse" effects on gameplaying. Just one example would be changing the layout in the "featured shipments" which (very foreseeably) caused numerous players to click on the crystal purchases (rather than the credits purchases) out of muscle memory because they switched the locations. There was no real reason to make that change. Afterwards, they said it was not done intentionally to dupe players out of crystals. So we're left with the explanation that they were not able to foresee that happening, when it was quite obvious to anyone else that it would. I don't think they intended to make a DC that caused infinite TM gain or turns. I just don't think it was tested well/at all or thought out.

"CrispyFett;c-2382104" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2382092" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2382088" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2382084" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2382081" wrote:

"Ultra;c-2382079" wrote:

"CrispyFett;c-2382076" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2382073" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2382047" wrote:

"CrispyFett;c-2381818" wrote:
Yep, they really need to address this. Just fought a EP led LV, Thrawn, Tarkin and Piett. Stuck in an infinite time loop where Tarkin just keeps going and going and going until the match times out (much like the energizer bunny except this isn't funny). Maybe some thought by the Devs to the effects provided by the DC would be helpful prior to unleashing them on the community. Plus don't have them apply to GLs

Seems like CG are just going to go radio silent and avoid dealing with any issues that arise from any DataCon sets, it's like they've perfected testing-free releases!

They already addressed it by saying they aren't going to adjust OP datacrons because they are temporary. You can not like that stance, but that is their stance on the subject.

That's a bit different from this current issue raised however. While CG may not change datacrons which are "OP", that have always stated that mechanisms that cause infinite TM gain or turns etc are not intended are are usually fixed relatively quickly because of their impact. I would say having a toon take infinite turns until the match times-out is a glitch rather than "OP"

Again, with datacrons any TM loop issues will eventually expire so they'll just wait it out and probably not give empire this modifier the next time

So we should just expect EVERY new set of DataCrons to be untested and obviously open to some kind of massive and massively obvious exploit, and you believe that is genuinely just fine and an acceptable way for the game to be managed?!

1. CG not testing jokes aside, why do you think this wasn't tested? Because it does something you don't like?
2. Pretty sure Ultra has said a few times here that they don't agree with CG's stance on OP datacrons
3. This is the first one that has been just ridiculously OP, so why do you think they'll all be this way?

1) Because it was obvious the moment they were announced, before they were even in-game that they would allow for infinite loops, so even a mediocre and lazy tester testing them would've seen this
2) I've not seen that, and they defend too many indefensible positions to assume it would be the case
3) Because they're clearly not testing them, and the more ideas they have to come up with (something we know they aren't good at) the more they're likely to create completely broken mechanic situations which would normally be tested-out-of-use pre-release but clearly won't be with CG

P.S. I don't agree to this "all jokes aside" thing :D lol

Again, just because it does something you don't like doesn't mean it isn't what they intended. While I agree that they're very bad at testing, you don't even need to test this to know what would happen. It's even got a DV character bonus at level 9, so it's not possible that this is not intended.

The devs over at CG are an absolute joke (so much for joking aside :D), but there's no way this wasn't known that this would happen.

I don't agree. Based on the evidence from the dev's conduct since game has been released, I would argue its more likely that they did not know this would happen. There are numerous instances of changes being implemented which the community realizes right away will have some "adverse" effect and the only logical inference would either be: (i) they are so incompetent as to not know the anticipated effects of their changes; or (ii) they don't care/are making these changes with the intention of causing "adverse" effects on gameplaying. Just one example would be changing the layout in the "featured shipments" which (very foreseeably) caused numerous players to click on the crystal purchases (rather than the credits purchases) out of muscle memory because they switched the locations. There was no real reason to make that change. Afterwards, they said it was not done intentionally to dupe players out of crystals. So we're left with the explanation that they were not able to foresee that happening, when it was quite obvious to anyone else that it would. I don't think they intended to make a DC that caused infinite TM gain or turns. I just don't think it was tested well/at all or thought out.

You're comparing apples and sweaters. A UI change they made for marketing reasons has nothing to do with gameplay interactions.

If they were going to say something more than they've already said on the subject, they would have done so by now.

I'm just posting again because I just fought the Never-ending Battle against Super Tarkin, who must have been wielding the Infinity Gauntlet due to his mastery of time allowing him to take infinite turns against me until the battle timed out. I guess thats what we get from Disney/Marvel/Star Wars

"CrispyFett;c-2382946" wrote:
I'm just posting again because I just fought the Never-ending Battle against Super Tarkin, who must have been wielding the Infinity Gauntlet due to his mastery of time allowing him to take infinite turns against me until the battle timed out. I guess thats what we get from Disney/Marvel/Star Wars

Have you tried not letting Tarkin take a turn?

"StarSon;c-2382949" wrote:

"CrispyFett;c-2382946" wrote:
I'm just posting again because I just fought the Never-ending Battle against Super Tarkin, who must have been wielding the Infinity Gauntlet due to his mastery of time allowing him to take infinite turns against me until the battle timed out. I guess thats what we get from Disney/Marvel/Star Wars

Have you tried not letting Tarkin take a turn?

I'm not looking for strategy on how to overcome a game-breaking bug/glitch/un-intended consequence of developers not adequately testing their work prior to release. Its not something that needs to be overcome by players, its a mistake that needs to be corrected by the developers. At least for future release of this DC set, and perhaps thought should be given to future potential bugs caused by "unforeseen" DC interactions before they are released.