Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,473
# 121
04-15-2013, 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by valoreah View Post
Nice try at the troll attempt. The same could be done for anyone looking to have a vote to kick function. Anyone can just as easily say "anyone who wants a vote to kick feature wants it so they can abuse it."
No 'attempt' made. I agree with you in that regard. I'd be surprised if there weren't any griefers in favor of seeing a poorly considered voting mechanic introduced (which would benefit them further).

However, I'm interested in having as much protection as is possible for both the subject of a vote and for those who feel they need to resort to a vote. I think if I was just interested in seeing a griefer tool introduced I wouldn't really care about both parties in the situation.

If the argument is that it would too easily be abused by griefers (and thats the argument lol), then we should be talking about how its best to limit the extent of that rather than maintain the status quo - which currently protects griefers and afkers to the detriment of a good gameplay experience (the definition of which should be determined by the majority opinion of the content's participants, i.e. the team).

Quote:
Originally Posted by marshalericdavid View Post
At best it would reduced the amount of leeching. At worst people who decide to stay would have a harder time completing the mission but that is their choice to stay. I hate being forced to stay with a leecher or face a ban and I know other people hate that choice as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by admgreer View Post
I posted this on another thread as well but wouldent this all go away if there were no leaver penality? If they allowed players to just drop out and queue up for another STF if someone was griefing or AFK would the world end as we know it? Already the game will load you into missions where there are only 3 players and the optional is already failed and you are stuck unless you want to wait for a hour. Or the server farts and you have to reload the game and then you are stuck for an hour as well. If there were no leaver penality then all this would not even be an issue.
In response to the scrapping the leaver penalty:
I think the suggestion to remove the leaver penalty without making other changes would see an increase in griefing and would actually degrade gameplay for all. Any passive-aggressive solution that requires a group majority to abandon the content they all want to play in order to disenfranchise a griefer or leecher, ultimately does more harm to the group than the griefer or leecher.

It makes griefing much easier by allowing unrestricted movement. You might think it would reduce leeching but I feel it would actually reduce real player PUG participation instead.

Players will not wish to commit their time to group content if there is no assurance that others are committed to completing the content too. The leaver penalty is imperfect, but it does go towards ensuring that other players at least weigh their options when considering to bail on a sub-optimal run, usually encouraging them to stay in and give it another try.

In my experience, (for groups that don't have a griefer or leecher) when the group members make the choice to try again despite a wipe, the team usually goes on to at least complete the STF. Without the penalty, I wouldn't be surprised if PUGs unanimously fell apart after failing optionals. The result would be fewer completions all round, driving people out of the PUG queues.

My thoughts on the leaver penalty:
The leaver penalty introduces a weighting for people to consider when leaving due to genuine gameplay and/or real life reasons (bad group composition, lack of tactic comprehension, baby is on fire, etc), e.g. "This group will take hours because they simply don't understand the tactics involved. Am I better of taking a one hour queue penalty or should I give it a few more goes, perhaps try to communicate to them the right way to do things and see if things improve?... Y/N... " I don't believe there is anything wrong with leaving a group for a genuine gameplay and/or real life reason. I'm not about locking people into completing content against their will (even IF they made the choice to queue in the first place).

The leaver penalty is imperfect because it asks people to consider taking a time penalty for social disturbance reasons (griefer, leecher, etc). In doing so it adds protections for griefers and leechers to continue their actions. I've said before that in my experience, people will tolerate a griefer or leecher if it ultimately means they will at least complete the mission themselves and get out. So they make the choice to suffer degraded gameplay not because of the actions of the griefers/leechers, but because of the leaver penalty. WHAT? Thats super ironic because the leaver penalty is there to prevent a degradation of gameplay, not to enforce one. Its dysfunctional in situations where there are griefers and leechers.

I believe this is why people reach out to the developers and ask for more control over their gameplay experience. Unfortunately, we often blame the penalty and not the circumstances. We often seek to change the symptoms of a problem and not it's cause. Only a vote mechanic will give people the control over our gameplay experience we seek. Simply removing the leaver penalty won't improve gameplay. We need a better approach, and one that looks at the leaver penalty, a vote mechanic, a better replacement mechanic and more defined controls over what type of queue you desire to be in (for example, if your picked to fill an empty slot in an STF in progress - does it matter to you if the optional has been completed or failed?).
nynik | Join Date: Dec 2009
<Dev> Oaks@dstahl: *checks for CBS listening devices in the office*

Last edited by nynik; 04-15-2013 at 11:16 AM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,818
# 122
04-15-2013, 11:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nynik View Post
If the argument is that it would too easily be abused by griefers (and thats the argument lol), then we should be talking about how its best to limit the extent of that rather than maintain the status quo - which currently protects griefers and afkers to the detriment of a good gameplay experience (the definition of which should be determined by the majority opinion of the content's participants, i.e. the team).
IMO there is no need to discuss how to limit a system that isn't needed. The only people who are protecting griefers and AFK'ers are those who refuse to do anything about it for themselves.

Again, you're able to deal with this on your own without any new programming effort. Team with people you know. This thread - and the others like it - are filled with players who don't like AFKers and leechers. Why don't you all send each other a /friend invite and start teaming together? Everyone wins.

Are there non-AFKers in the majority of STFs that you run? If yes, why don't you send those people a /friend invite? If you don't, that's your choice, just expect to live with the consequences of your decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecosmic1 View Post
Anyone calling Valoreah a "Cryptic fanboy" must be new to the forum.
Commander
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 289
# 123
04-15-2013, 12:10 PM
Okay so I took the advice of all these posters that say "dont PUG do private matches" as a solution for Leechers and tier 3 rainbow boats in Elite. So I log in and only 3 Fleet members are on and no one want's to do STF's.
So i go to ESD and start asking in Zone chat.
2 people responded and about 50 Trolls made stupid comments.
So i went to DS9.
No takers there.
So in all this time I could have ran 3 PUG STF's.
So I went a few more places asking in chat if there were any players that wanted to do a private match and all the replys were basically "just do a quick queue"
So on the Forums everyone says the solution is not to PUG.
But in reality when you go into game and try to find 5 people to do a private mission it's like pulling teeth and takes way more time and effort than just queueing up for a PUG.
So what next?
Anymore brilliant ideas?
Career Officer
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,818
# 124
04-15-2013, 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by admgreer View Post
So in all this time I could have ran 3 PUG STF's.
Are there non-AFKers in the majority of STFs that you run? If yes, why don't you send those people a /friend invite?

Quote:
Originally Posted by admgreer View Post
... and tier 3 rainbow boats in Elite ...
Now this I would totally support as it's way more irritating than AFKers. There isn't much of a reason to bring an NX class into a public HOSE queue, other than to be a complete idiot. There should be minimum ship requirements for some of the STFs. Not all were designed to be RA and up, but those that are should have the proper level ship required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecosmic1 View Post
Anyone calling Valoreah a "Cryptic fanboy" must be new to the forum.

Last edited by valoreah; 04-15-2013 at 12:36 PM.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 959
# 125
04-15-2013, 12:53 PM
The real issue is people who leech a lot. Any mechanism can be abused or catch people who are innocent - what if someone jumps to get the door as the mission starts?

No player based mechanic is the answer. What we need is Cryptic detecting that X has gone into 20, 30, 100 PvP matches or STFs without doing anything.
_________________________________________________
[Kluless][Kold][Steel Heels][Snagtooth]
[Louis Cipher][Outta Gum][Thysa Kymbo][Spanner][Frakk]
[D'Mented][D'Licious]
Joined October 2009. READ BEFORE POSTING
Career Officer
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 12
# 126
04-16-2013, 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by naevius View Post
The real issue is people who leech a lot. Any mechanism can be abused or catch people who are innocent - what if someone jumps to get the door as the mission starts?

No player based mechanic is the answer. What we need is Cryptic detecting that X has gone into 20, 30, 100 PvP matches or STFs without doing anything.
You could take that mechanic and create a smart grouping system with the PvE queues.

-If player A queues for 100 matches and is active for 95 of them (say 5 of them he got pulled away due to family,door, phone, dog having an accident on the floor etc...), then he in effect is active 95% of the time.
- Player B on the other hand is a leech and figured out after his first 10 STFs he could afk and get rewards. So he's about 10% active.

An intelligent grouping system would use these stats to group Player A with people closer to his/her activity percentage. Player B would get grouped with more AFK'ers. Now this could cause issues if Player B realizes that he's messed up and should really start playing more to get anywhere in the game. To combat that you can limit the sample period to the last X runs or a date range. This would allow a person to work at getting a better team by actually playing and would be in effect punished if they afk a lot by making them carry other AFK'ers as they fix their standing.

People who play 100 out of 100 runs wouldn't see any of the chronic afk'ers unless said afker got to 100 out of 100 runs active and repeated his/her actions.

A fresh starting player could be seeded at the upper end of the spectrum and their own actions will place them in the right spot. The key point of this system would be that it's out of the players control so they couldn't grief people by vote kicking because they have a name ending in 'y' Nor could they effectively afk with the same individuals over and over again without messing up their standing. It has no actions required of the individuals other than actually playing. No ignore lists, no reporting, no voting.

Not sure if it would work very well, but at least it could limit the occurrences of afk'ers. I am leaving this start of an idea here for anyone else to pick up and run with it to come up with an end result the community can agree upon, if possible. Further defining what activity means would be a good direction with the system...
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:23 PM.