Anyone know *why* they thought some of the 4.0 changes were going to be a good idea?

[voltaicbore]

The thread title should give away my bias - I'm not too excited about many of the fundamental game mechanics changes allegedly coming with 4.0 and KotFE. That being said, I've decided not to pick up my pitchfork/torch about it. When it goes live and I think the changes are crap, I will let my sub lapse. If I am pleasantly surprised, I will keep my sub. That's all there is to it.

 

I am, however, deeply curious as to why some of the changes are being made. Sure, we can all make pretty reasonable guesses as to what impact certain changes will have on the crafting market and gearing, but I'm more interested in knowing what motivated the team to go in that direction. Is there some super secret PTS or focus group that I'm not a part of that suggested any of these baffling gameplay changes? How and where do they get the data to say in meetings, "[X] is a good idea, this is what we're doing in the next xpac" ? I don't go to the Cantina events (not sure when the last time they rolled through my metro area was), and I haven't found anything directly from the dev team here in the forums that explains that.

 

I keep referring to "these changes" vaguely, and I apologize. I just didn't want to run afoul of the "don't talk about datamined stuff" policy that Musco laid out. I think company-player communication is still crap, and I think the policy is crap, but I'll try my best to adhere to it.

 

I ask because in the past, at least the dev team explained certain major changes. Back when we had skill trees, they made several changes to the way the skills were tiered and how powerful certain abilities were because they explicity wanted to punish hybrid builds and encourage everyone to take top-tier skills - and that was a sub-goal of their larger goal of trying to retake control of class balance issues. I don't recall seeing any "here's why we're making these changes" explanations this time around.

[KyaniteD]

For disciplines they straight out said it was easier to maintain. Some of the changes for 4.0 seem to fall into that category as well. Personally, I'm more likely to believe that little is really done for the benefit of the player, while much is for the benefit of the devs/company and just marketed as benefit to the players.

 

From a crafter's pov the prospects are bleak. From a raider's pov the prospects are bleak. To me it looks like they focus on the main crowd of casual short-term players. There doesn't seem particular interest in encouraging/fostering a longterm commitment. The only incentive for a continued subscription is making episodes subscriber only and releasing them on a monthly schedule.

[voltaicbore]

Agreed on the bleakness. None of the stat, crafting, or even the story changes appeal to me. I'm still mourning the loss of class missions, so I've been in mourning for a long time.

 

I was just hoping someone had heard something at an event/con, or there was a dev post I was missing about this. As much as I dislike disciplines compared to the skill tree system, it helped to know they had an agenda, were listening to at least a portion of the playerbase, and had some reasoned process behind the changes. Some of the stuff I'm hearing about 4.0 sounds totally off-base.

[Icestar]

The game is changing a bit but so far it seems interesting, we do not have all the facts yet so I look foward to when they explain more.

[dscount]

Very likely a CLOSED PTS is in progress as we speak. Those folks will likely have NDA's and unable to comment or post about items they see within the PTS (Even after it goes live).

 

The sad part is that PTS is more around "Testing" what they are going to deliver and fixing major bugs. At this late point in the game it's very unlikely they will make any MAJOR changes, beyond those that might totally break something.

 

Much like the "Conquest" changes (Which is totally stupid approach) we have very little input into that changing to what it really should be. They will rollout things w/o engaging the community first and then act surprised and take twice as long to put it the way it should have been in the first place. I liken this to piss poor management or more likely project management. Instead of doing something RIGHT the first time (IE: Engage the stakeholders - solicit options) and build/test something workable.. they tend to repeat historical screw up's and end up spending another 3-4 months fixing them. Things like that COST MONEY... when then piss away money it takes away from fixing other problems and/or adding content activities. So as a consumer I'm a tad annoyed. Glad EA shareholder value is still increasing... LOL

[voltaicbore]

The sad part is that PTS is more around "Testing" what they are going to deliver and fixing major bugs. At this late point in the game it's very unlikely they will make any MAJOR changes, beyond those that might totally break something.

 

That's what I figured - any closed PTS is there for testing what they've already decided to include, and has little to do with gathering input from players. Besides, I know of more than one instance where PTS players were reporting fairly significant bugs, but no changes were made and bugged content was launched.

 

And to be fair, I'm not sure I'd be the type of player they'd really benefit from listening to, because all I would say is "MOAR CLASS MISHUNZ" over and over again, even though I know that train's already left the station long ago. Even if I can't or shouldn't have an impact on the future development of the project, I am a subscriber and I think the very least I'm entitled to is "hey, this is what we're doing and this is why we thought you'd continue to pay us money to do it."

 

Lol or maybe I don't want to hear the real answer to that.

[Eillack]

"Metrics."

[Meraxos]

All MMOs seem to be moving in the same direction. The new type of MMO features two common elements:

 

1) A dumbed down, simplified, easy-mode single player leveling story where you are totally on rails and really don't make any meaningful decisions about your character. Nor do you have to spend much time or effort in classic MMO activities like gearing and optimizing.

 

2) Various group activities that are triggered from a common lobby like the fleet or from a special player instance like the stronghold at end game. These feature maximum re-use of content and various methods to equalize players such as bolstering.

 

4.0 is SWTOR's attempt to meld itself to this new model of MMO. It seems that developers have given up on the idea of cultivating long term subscribers and instead hope to attract masses of content locusts who will spend a month on the current batch of simple content and then return later for another month.

[EwromFlyingrider]

I'm fine with the changes and say bring them on but then again I'm not a hardcore player in this game.

[Exly]

"Metrics."

 

Or maybe it has something to do with string cheese theory or something like that.

[DreadtechSavant]

No and one here does know but bet a dozen or so think they do. BW generally don't divulge there thought process on such things. I remember players asking why the skill tree change at the time of the Revan expansion. It was never explained by them why the change.

 

Ok I have gotten used to the new skill tree and in time will get used to the change's that come with the new xpac but expect that for many including myself used to it and prefer it are not the same. So no, still like old skill tree better but its gone and we have to move on and get on with it or leave.

[Kryptonomic]

Personally, I'm more likely to believe that little is really done for the benefit of the player, while much is for the benefit of the devs/company and just marketed as benefit to the players.

 

I'm inclined to agree with this for the most part. I do believe that a lot of what is being put in place is to reduce internal technical debt by streamlining the development process around what is being promoted as a streamlined gameplay experience. This is being done, I believe, in service to the idea of broadening the appeal of the game to as wide a player-base as possible by normalizing the MMO aspects.

[Cox_The_Beast]

I'd like to know why myself...

 

It's been a while since I've began seeing ppl complaining about how players can go through with very stupid things - undergearing severely, gearing wrong, use of the wrong stance/form/charge/cell... you name it - and as such those who put in some effort get to be dragged down by those who don't; in the long term, having players at top level with no idea how to play is counterproductive. Everyone can understand why without forcing me to explain it, I think?

And yet this seem to be what's going to happen, soon enough.

 

That said, with the SoR arrival, things have gotten even worse. Not only balance was tinkered in some sort of weird way... And I say that as someone who mains a Sorc, of all things... But what was called the cast on the move in the end only worked properly for some classes (Sorcs/Sages).

 

Game care has decreased aswell - Revan Single Player battle back at launch, as an example - and players get to see changes they didn't want in the first place be presented as "what everyone asked for".

Think of the AoE change for PvP that was proposed and luckily didn't made it to live as a reference.

 

In all honesty, I really hope that the disapproving of players regarding some of the changes, and the increasing amount of threads where ppl vents frustration are taken as a reference of how things are going right now, and perhaps that things will change for the best.

 

In case you were wondering... Venting my frustration at how hte game is managed, here... While also adding my voice to this alert.

[Kryptonomic]

That's what I figured - any closed PTS is there for testing what they've already decided to include, and has little to do with gathering input from players.

 

This is correct. I work in Quality Assurance and Testing in my career and I do that freelance for some game companies. The notion of a "Public Test Server" is a misnomer, if emphasis is placed on the word test. Testing is a skillful discipline and it is not something you just turn over to a bunch of players. That's not a knock on the players, it's simply that game players aren't always looking at things as testers. In fact, they rarely are.

 

(Anecdote: I wrote a test game for interviewing developers and testers. See http://testerstories.com/2014/12/the-quest-for-testers/ if curious. Who do you think does the worst on that? It's usually the developers or testers who claim they are gamers, and assume they will do well.)

 

PTS is usually nothing more than a "code freeze" (or "code slushie") that helps to ferret out certain types of regressions and make sure no egregious bugs have cropped up.

[voltaicbore]

Right there with you, Cox. As a sub with many toons at level cap, I really appreciated 12x for how quickly I could bring up alts (and how fast the "help lower level guildies" process could finish). That being said, I was deeply afraid of what that would do to pug ops, and my fears have more or less been realized. Maybe it's just bad luck, but I feel like I run into more Soresu juggs claiming to do "great DPS" and non-cleansing healers at endgame than I did before 12x ever was a thing.

 

And Jeff, I really liked your post & blog! I'm not sure I found the bug in the third screenshot, but I at least did find something that set it apart from the others. Also, I read your post about finding the Qyzen cutscene bug during the Esseles; I can definitely get a sense of where there's a division between "gamer" and "tester" - as long as I can somehow limp past a bug, as a gamer I really tend not to approach the issue systematically. Oddly enough the only remotely "tester"-type action I took with this game revolved around precisely the same underlying mechanic - the separation of cutscene from the game itself. In one of the early instances or FPs, I remember stealthing past a bunch of mobs to click on a terminal to start a cutscene. Initially things were ok, but I guess one of the mobs was pacing and took a few steps too close to my companion, because I could hear the fight going on underneath the cutscene. Fortunately for me, I guess the game was at a stage where the cutscene overlay went away properly and I was able to see the fight after the scene ended.

 

Dreadtech, I think the devs had a long series of posts or announcements about skill tree changes back when they happened. That kind of information is what I was hoping to get about 4.0; at least with disciplines, class changes, and other big updates, there was someone telling us "this is why we want to do this." Even if it was a unilateral decision and they really didn't care to gather input from the playerbase, at least it was a reasoned approach. With some of the radical changes I've been hearing about coming for 4.0, I just have no clue why they think it's a good idea. I really do agree with the people who say that it feels like the team no longer cares about keeping old-timers around, which is sad.

[Tsillah]

The problem is that whenever someone here comes to talk about "the players" or "the player base", they are actually just talking about themselves because the reality none of us knows what "the player base" wants.

 

BW are overhauling the game completely with a single purpose as far as I can tell: lay a foundation for the future of this game.

 

As with any patch or overhaul this will mean that a certain number of players will get upset about it. This cannot be avoided. Of course these people are more likely to come here and talk about it. Certainly fair enough, but probably not representative of the actual player base.

 

Look at the changes they are making that we know of and ask yourself why this might be good for the game in its entirety rather than just for yourself. Then it makes a little more sense what they're doing. For the rest, I am just waiting and seeing of I will be one of the people who will be happy with the changes or not. I am relatively positive I will be ok, but time will tell. Well in a month I'll know basically.

[Eldarion_Velator]

No and one here does know but bet a dozen or so think they do. BW generally don't divulge there thought process on such things. I remember players asking why the skill tree change at the time of the Revan expansion. It was never explained by them why the change.

 

Actually, it was - someone else earlier in the thread remarked on it as well - the disciplines are easier to manage and they tend to penalize "hybrid" builds (such as someone in the Shii-Cho sentinel/marauder tree working up the Ataru tree to gain dual saber mastery). At least the first part of that explanation was definitely given by the developers at some point close to the release of 3.0.

[Eldarion_Velator]

I'll throw in my (very lengthy) two cents here, without talking about any datamined stuff, because there's plenty of stuff in the information that has been released that is concerning. Be warned: this is a long post. My apologies in advance.

 

Part 1. Story.

 

SWtOR initially explored a broader perspective than KotOR, in which the player could see that era of the Expanded Universe through the eyes of multiple notable figures of that period. There were 8 primary classes/storylines; the fact that small details between the storylines didn't exactly match (missing Dark Council members at the conclusion of some stories, the election of Supreme Chancellor Saresh and the circumstances thereof, etc.) helped some players to assemble something of a chronology of the various storylines. Even if this aspect (the 8 storylines) was not what attracted players to the game in the first place, it was a major reason why they stayed.

 

Ultimately SWtOR itself told a single story arc: the aftermath of the Treaty of Coruscant; events that led to the resumption of hostilities; the first phases of the new war; the breakdown of the Imperial war effort, loss of Imperial gains, and the retreat of the Empire; the aftermath of Republic resurgence; Toborro's failed bid to make the Hutt Cartel a galactic political and military power; the end of the Revan saga begun before the events of KotOR I with the defeat of the Revanites and release of Vitiate. But before the events on Ilum, Makeb, and beyond, it was the way in which the story was told and the perspectives from which it was told that kept players coming back to the game. With Ilum, the 8 perspectives were merged into 2, and though players in both factions fought many of the same bosses, other lesser bosses and the story objectives at least through Makeb were still distinct enough to clearly show that the faction-specific perspectives were different (for instance, the Republic's goals in the Makeb story are quite different from the Empire's, though they both ultimately have to deal with Toborro in some way). This merging of perspectives disappointed many, but was still acceptable to most players, who by the time RotHC was released had gotten used to the MMO format and were otherwise pleased about most of the ways in which SWtOR was different from the KotOR games. The number of perspectives (as well as storytelling quality and attention to story- and universe-related details) is the primary, if not only, strength that SWtOR still wields over other MMOs.

 

With KotFE, while details are relatively scant, the fact remains that this expansion will tell a single story through a single perspective (the Outlander's). In my opinion, any reduction in the number of perspectives (cf. RotHC and SoR) weakens the major advantage SWtOR retains over other MMOs (story and multiple perspectives thereof), and KotFE's model rejects this attribute entirely. While this may be in line with the original KotOR games, this violates the spirit of SWtOR and a major reason why, in spite of it not being a single-player KotOR III, players (myself included) continue to play SWtOR. As implemented (or at least proposed to be implemented), to me "cinematic storytelling" means "we are going to tell the story of the game/expansion using cinematics, rather than in-game dialogue such as flavor dialogue with quest givers and companion conversations." Effectively I am being told that the story and its direction will be dictated to me by the cinematics, that the fate of the POV character (the Outlander) is predetermined and is a binary outcome, and that I will be experiencing the story I am given rather than imagining my own within the SWtOR environment. I am not a RP player, but I can see how this could be thoroughly discouraging to that group of players.

 

A move to a single story arc for all classes and factions is a major departure from the spirit of SWtOR and is categorically a mistake. Instead of a 16-chapter arc, it would have been far wiser to instead make the expansion a new 2-chapter arc for each of the primary classes. I don't know what, if any, market research was done (if so, it sampled a non-representative population), but in my opinion KotFE's format is most certainly *not* what any player base wants from a MMO, not years after release.

 

Part 2: PvP/GSF.

 

One of the ways in which SWtOR is different from and superior to the KotOR games is PvP/GSF. Neither depends upon storytelling (they only need the context to remain relevant), yet they allow players to interact across factions (albeit mostly with regards to killing each other) as well as become very familiar with the gameplay of secondary classes (by "secondary classes" I mean in the context of "Jedi Consular is a primary class, and the Sage and the Shadow are the secondary classes") as well as roles (by roles I refer to the MMO trichotomy of tank, healer, and damage-dealer/DPS). Balance between the secondary classes and roles is of course very important, and for the most part, through the life of the game the developers have done an admirable job in terms of balance when it comes to warzones (WZs).

 

In my opinion, GSF (Galactic Starfighter) is the single most complete and well-produced product the developers have released. It does not suffer from the game engine-related problems that WZs do, and the maps, while limited in number, are high-quality and sufficiently varied such that no two GSF matches are ever the same. I also believe that GSF is a "purer" form of PvP than WZs in that the upgrades/"gear" play less of a role in GSF than they do in WZs, and GSF in my opinion depends more on skill and taking advantage of class strengths/weaknesses than WZs do. Even so, in GSF, new characters in less-upgraded (or even stock) ships can score hits and kills on seasoned aces with mastered ships, whether they are lucky or know what they are doing, and as a result there is no such thing as being truly overpowered in GSF. WZs are similar in that no two matches are ever the same, and the maps are incredibly innovative, but the on-ground WZs suffer substantially from the game engine's flaws and therefore aren't as "clean" a form of PvP (especially given that fact that PvP gear is different from PvE gear, whereas in GSF everyone has the same equipment and access to the same upgrades with enough requisition).

 

PvP in the form of WZs and GSF is probably the one aspect in which SWtOR is far and away a step up from the KotOR games. It is almost an obligatory feature of the MMO format, and I suspect that a substantial proportion of the player base (and of the potential player base) enjoy PvP so much over the rest of the game that they will log on only to queue for WZs/GSF. Yet PvP has been largely neglected in that neither WZs nor GSF have seen a new map in almost a year, and new patches are regularly disrupting the previously seamless balance that was so painstakingly achieved before (cf. the Sorcerer v. the Sage in WZs, and the fact that the most recent patch de-selected certain equipment on non-base GSF ships, i.e. bombers and T2/3 scouts, strike fighters, and gunships, such that they have to be re-selected at every login for each character with a hangar). Team selection/distribution mechanics, especially in GSF, have been wonky (I have been in at least 25 GSF matches, on both factions, in which a GSF match was prematurely ended because the queue put 8 players on one team and 4 players of the same faction on the other team, whereas taking 2 players from the 8-man team and putting them on the 6-man team would have balanced the fight numerically and prevented premature match termination). But these things have not been fixed, and several have not even been acknowledged.

 

Based on the the KotFE story, both the Republic and the Empire have largely been defeated and though not completely annihilated/rendered nonexistent, have lost large swaths of territory to the Eternal Empire. This should mean that the Republic and Empire, despite having a common enemy, will not interact nearly as much as before. This renders PvP interactions obsolete, context-wise, and things like Huttball or the Relics of the Gree event anachronistic if they are to continue into KotFE in their current form. If, according to the story, there is only one Outlander, and the other notable personalities of the era are either dead or missing, then the context for PvP/GSF is obviated, and the one thing required for PvP/GSF to remain relevant to the SWtOR/KotOR universe regardless of storyline is gone, and a major part of the MMO experience (and therefore a reason why players would subscribe in the first place) will either disappear or suffer greatly as a result. Without adjustments to WZs/GSF (for instance, the presence of NPC players in WZs and/or GSF matches of a relevant faction), this is unquestionably another major mistake in SWtOR's development.

Edited September 20, 2015 by Eldarion_Velator
minor stuff

[psandak]

Actually, it was - someone else earlier in the thread remarked on it as well - the disciplines are easier to manage and they tend to penalize "hybrid" builds (such as someone in the Shii-Cho sentinel/marauder tree working up the Ataru tree to gain dual saber mastery). At least the first part of that explanation was definitely given by the developers at some point close to the release of 3.0.

 

Other definitive explanations include the removal of NiM EV and KP for 65; they do not live up to the level of quality/distinctiveness that newer NiM Ops have. And the conquest changes were made to get players to participate in Conquests as they were intended; no more craft to win. the reduction in personal goal requirements is probably the result of <redacted> crafting changes.

 

So there are several documented "why"s already out there.

 

Changes to Ops can be easily attributed to a single factor widely asked for on these forums: the desire to uplevel the existing operations has been asked for since 2.0. And the lack of new operations can be attributed to the upleveling required too many resources to create new ops right away. I guarantee there are new operations in the pipe.

[EnkiduNineEight]

I have developed a prejudice that they likely weren't thinking at all. Various things like the deal with the CSM and how it was 'dealt' with indicates they don't really think. And if the rumours end up being true and every planet is scaled then they likely were not thinking then either. That they don't want ability bloat and their response is basically to back everyone off and take away abilities from players and make them re-earn them shows they aren't really thinking. They seem to frequently break the social contracts with their players at will.

[voltaicbore]

The problem is that whenever someone here comes to talk about "the players" or "the player base", they are actually just talking about themselves because the reality none of us knows what "the player base" wants.

 

BW are overhauling the game completely with a single purpose as far as I can tell: lay a foundation for the future of this game.

 

That's precisely it - none of us individually know what the "player base" wants. Furthermore, I'm not saying the devs should be bound to (a) discover what that is, and (b) mindlessly cater to it. All I want to know is why they felt the need to make several significant changes to aspects of the game that didn't superficially warrant such changes. It's not that I'm out to change their minds about any of it, I would just prefer to know why, is all. The explanations helped me swallow some class changes and disciplines back in the day, and I was hoping similar information could ease my acceptance of 4.0 on some level as well.

 

Your reference to laying a foundation for the future of the game is sadly a non-answer to my question. As part of the game's past and present, that's precisely what I'm trying to figure out - do the devs even still want me as part of the future? I came to SWTOR because I was promised (and initially given) class-based stories that were really unlike any other MMO out there. I stayed after they abandoned that concept because there was enough class and companion variety to push my mastery of the game in a ton of interesting ways. Also, for all the communication issues the dev team used to be accused of, at least up to 2.5 the dev team did at least tell us what they were thinking and what precisely they were trying to achieve with major changes to a lot of stuff we might have become used to. Sure, they were messing with stuff that some of the old(er) guard didn't want to see changed, but there was a stated reason for it and it seemed clearer that they were interested in keeping us satisfied and on board.

 

Now, I hear a lot of things are going to be outright homogenized, gameplay elements that we're used to and not too many folks seem to complain about are going out the window, the wide variety of companion and gear choices might be whittled away. I accept that those changes are coming, and if I don't feel like abandoning my entire legacy and guild, I'll just have to live with them.

 

But I feel it's a bit insulting not to be told why this time. I'm constantly being told be just get excited about these huge changes, when really it just feels like the devs want to abandon the game I currently pay for and instead just expect me to shut up and take whatever is thrown at me. It's less the product and more the attitude that I resent.

[voltaicbore]

Other definitive explanations include the removal of NiM EV and KP for 65; they do not live up to the level of quality/distinctiveness that newer NiM Ops have. And the conquest changes were made to get players to participate in Conquests as they were intended; no more craft to win. the reduction in personal goal requirements is probably the result of <redacted> crafting changes.

 

So there are several documented "why"s already out there.

 

Changes to Ops can be easily attributed to a single factor widely asked for on these forums: the desire to uplevel the existing operations has been asked for since 2.0. And the lack of new operations can be attributed to the upleveling required too many resources to create new ops right away. I guarantee there are new operations in the pipe.

 

Ah I did read about the EV/KP, and the conquest changes. There's a reason why I made a separate thread from the "*** 4.0 ops" threads already out there, and there are a few good ones running.

 

The explanations I want are about the more fundamental changes allegedly in the works. Down-bolstering, crafting changes (this one could be HUGE for my guild), etc. After Rav and ToS, I'm actually happy they're not pushing out another buggy set of ops. Let 'em sit on those for a while, keep them in the pipe so they come out neater.

[branmakmuffin]

I am a subscriber and I think the very least I'm entitled to is "hey, this is what we're doing and this is why we thought you'd continue to pay us money to do it."

If you don't like what they deliver, you are entitled to cancel your subscription. That is all you are entitled to.

[Heat-Wave]

Look at the changes they are making that we know of and ask yourself why this might be good for the game in its entirety rather than just for yourself. Then it makes a little more sense what they're doing. For the rest, I am just waiting and seeing of I will be one of the people who will be happy with the changes or not. I am relatively positive I will be ok, but time will tell. Well in a month I'll know basically.

 

Oh, no worries, I get the concept... I just think it was poorly handled...

 

If you're going to roll out a new level cap, a new batch of group content needs to come with it...

 

The other issue is that ALL the existing group content is being changed in one go, rather than having done it at each raise as they went...

 

I would submit that the benefits they are aiming for could have been accomplished by moving everything to level 60 rather than level 65.

 

What does lvl 65 honestly bring? The story content never requires it, it is always driven by the group content. Even PvP players are getting the shaft since they have to regear for nothing.

 

I actually like the idea of scaled up content, but I think they went about it the wrong way. As I've said before, if new ops were dropping in 4.0, I wouldn't have nearly the issues that I have now.

[voltaicbore]

If you don't like what they deliver, you are entitled to cancel your subscription. That is all you are entitled to.

 

Which is precisely what I said the situation is, on multiple occasions. The choice to sub or lapse is really the only choice any of us have.

 

Feeling "entitled" in retrospect was a poor word choice for any internet conversation, and doesn't reflect how I feel. As someone who wants to continue to find a place in this product, I would prefer to have justified changes rather than "here you go, take it or leave it." Sure, consumers don't have the right to any more than that, but that doesn't mean we have to like it. In fact, this you-don't-have-to-like-it idea underpins the very concept of being entitled to take your business elsewhere, no?

 

Hi Heat! Honored that you'd be here lol (I've been following your 4.0 ops thread, as well as your other one about how 4.0 is really just pushing us back to 162 without really saying so). Totally on board with you on the idea that cap raise means nothing without commensurate group content changes. That being said, I'd rather have no ops temporarily than bugged ops with slow fix schedules, and sadly I think if they tried dropping ops on us we'd get products worse than bugged Rav bosses or random green cross wipes on UL.