Career Officer
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 233
# 11
02-26-2013, 06:52 AM
Well add in a gear check I don't like being punished for ditching an STF full of rainbow boats that can't break 2k DPS.
Lieutenant
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 53
# 12
02-26-2013, 06:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anazonda View Post
I hear these concerns, and i think they are a "non-issue" ...

Trolling? You'd have to end up in a full team of freinds/fleetmates, wich pretty much never happens in a pug.... And even so, it would still be a minority...

The only people I can see a kick function would be a problem for, are leeches, and the ones breaking missions on purpose.
It doesn't take coordinated "trolls" to cause abuse of the system. Just about all the kicks I've seen in that other game have been so nonsensical that I have to assume people are reflexively clicking "yes" just to clear the pop-up box.

That said, I don't know what the answer is. Any system that allows players to "punish" other players, directly or indirectly, for transgressions real or imagined, sends up a red flag in my head, regardless of how often it's likely to be abused.

Gonna end there, otherwise I'll start ranting about the whole "on-demand teaming" mentality that seems to pervade MMOs these days...
____________________

The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
Career Officer
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 233
# 13
02-26-2013, 06:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealted View Post
It doesn't take coordinated "trolls" to cause abuse of the system. Just about all the kicks I've seen in that other game have been so nonsensical that I have to assume people are reflexively clicking "yes" just to clear the pop-up box.

That said, I don't know what the answer is. Any system that allows players to "punish" other players, directly or indirectly, for transgressions real or imagined, sends up a red flag in my head, regardless of how often it's likely to be abused.

Gonna end there, otherwise I'll start ranting about the whole "on-demand teaming" mentality that seems to pervade MMOs these days...
well I was a wow player until about 6 months ago, and I can honestly say I used it only when we had people that couldn't DPS and do there jobs correctly. I have the same mindset in STO, If your in an Elite STF it should be because you know what your doing, you have taken the time to have an ideal spec and ideal gear, not because I can get more lootz. I'm not interested in handholding anyone, if you can't pull your own weight don't run them, because that just aggravates anyone tring to get a quick run in before work.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,483
# 14
02-26-2013, 07:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschooldork View Post
I agree with a timed kick system, or a no damage-no reward system. Having a team kick option, in my opinion, is a very, very bad idea. No matter what anyone says, it WILL be abused. Not might be abused some of the time, but WILL be abused, ALL the time. The stf's are already dominated by elitists and griefers, imagine giving them the power to kick people at will. It would be like putting a group of pyromaniacs in charge of a match factory...nothing good will come of it.
That doesn't have to be true at all. If the game tracked how often a person (or group of people) initiated a vote to kick, whether it be successful or not, it could interpret if something is amiss according to preset conditions. It could put their ability to vote on a lockout. Protecting the person/people they are trying to use the feature to abuse.

Damage and activity thresholds will never suffice. An afker can set someone on follow and have their keyboard macro automatically repeat the fire all command at the target of target.

I'm interested to see if Cryptic will institute higher rewards for those participating in doing things. How they do it is worrying though. If its based on damage, then the threshold will have to be low or those playing science will lose out. It will be the nail in the coffin of non-tactical gameplay. If an afk macro using cruiser's damage is higher than the actively participating science captain, thus qualifying, how is that fair?

If its range based, so that you need to be within x Km of something in order to register 'participation' upon destroying it, how does that exclude the afker on follow?

Has anyone thought of other ways which may be fairer for Cryptic to track participation short of these ones?
nynik | Join Date: Dec 2009
<Dev> Oaks@dstahl: *checks for CBS listening devices in the office*
Career Officer
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,791
# 15
02-26-2013, 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nynik View Post
That doesn't have to be true at all. If the game tracked how often a person (or group of people) initiated a vote to kick, whether it be successful or not, it could interpret if something is amiss according to preset conditions. It could put their ability to vote on a lockout. Protecting the person/people they are trying to use the feature to abuse.
This is still open to abuse. You will have groups of griefers intentionally entering matches just get people to vote them out multiple times, thereby locking their ability to vote. The best defense against any of these AFK'er issues is to find some friends or fleetmates who you know and run the content with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecosmic1 View Post
Anyone calling Valoreah a "Cryptic fanboy" must be new to the forum.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,502
# 16
02-26-2013, 08:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicalspock View Post
Dan Stahl recently said Cryptic was working on a vote to kick function, but I think this will create more problems in group pugs than it solves, for instance, a group of four trolls pugging an STF and then voting to kick a player right before he receives his rewards.

I suggest an alternate solution. Instead of a vote to kick function we introduce a secret ballot. When you are auto-teamed with someone, you can report them for specific violations such as not contributing the entire match or "griefing" (say by showing up in a starter ship to an Elite STF). These reports would put secret tokens on the player's account. The players could also leave specific descriptions. Automated tokens would also be placed on the account for such things as choosing to leave in the middle of an STF.

If the number of tokens per qualifying mission played exceeded a certain threshold (say two standard deviations from the mean), the player would get an automated warning. If he continued to accrue tokens at a significantly greater than average rate, he would get a one hour ban the next day. Every day he played an STF or similar content he would be eligible for a new ban and every day the ban would double.


The number of standard deviations from the mean would be set to make it very unlikely that it would net any innocent victims and the algorithm would have to be sophisticated enough to vary the time frame involves so that recent bad behavior does not get drown out by past good behavior and new players are not subject to the whims of statistically insignificant sample sizes.

The system would also not be a perfect solution. People could AFK or grief every once in a while and still get away with it and it would take time for griefers and AFKers to accrue a meaningful ban, but I think this, or some similar solution is the least abusable .
*thumbs down*

getting vote kickedby Trolls... might annoy you for 3 minutes, then you put them on ignore if you have their nicks and move on.

getting your account basically destroyed by a fleet of anonymous trolls...
yeah that sounds like a lot more fun for the professional griefers out there.

your suggestion would only increase griefing potential.


If somebody is AFK in a map and not helping, kicking him should automatically happen anyway (not happening with a 1 HOUR AFK timer), but since the auto AFK timer is also easily avoided by any kind of auto fire macro button... Cryptics simple screensaver software is not enough for this.

IMHO whoever joins first in a queue should be the appointed Teamleader and have the responsibility to kick someone who disrupts gameplay or just AFK leeches marks. Just like it is in Private queues.

Or maybe the Character with the longest /playedtime should be Teamleader in a PUG, as a kind of experience indicator.




-> simple solution for everything

*rightclick ignore*

IGNORING someone should make it impossible for the PvE queue to queue you up in the same match together ever again.

It does not, and THAT is what Cryptic needs to fix.

I do not want to PLAY with players on my IGNORE LIST... muting them in chat... who cares?

If all the AFKers are on everyones ignore list, then they will surely have fun AFKing with each other right?

When i played Minetrap for the Rom Marks i put at least one player on Ignore every round who was just standing around idle, added surely like 50 players to my ignore list in that time.

I do not want to be friends with these people, and i do not want to help them, and if they think they will ever get in a private queue, for example in the EliteSTF channel or anywhere else in a match that i started... guess again!

If that would apply to our AFKers in the queue too, then the knowledge of being blocked from joining a queue where just ONE player has you on ignore, any by that increasing your wait time for a match by that much, should be enough to discourage that kind of behavior.


And on the counter side, adding someone to your FRIEND LIST should make the queue prefer to add you together in the same queue.

I get lots of Friend requests after STFs and stuff, because people WANT to play together with me again, just that that isn't happening unless we make private queues, this should happen in the queue already, and by that it would increase quality of matches all the time!
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,483
# 17
02-26-2013, 08:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by valoreah View Post
This is still open to abuse. You will have groups of griefers intentionally entering matches just get people to vote them out multiple times, thereby locking their ability to vote. The best defense against any of these AFK'er issues is to find some friends or fleetmates who you know and run the content with them.
The tracking will work both ways too. If your being voted out an inordinate amount then system flags are raised as well, perhaps locking you out for a period of time.

I agree with your 'best defence' suggestion, but thats not an option open to everyone.
nynik | Join Date: Dec 2009
<Dev> Oaks@dstahl: *checks for CBS listening devices in the office*
Career Officer
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 578
# 18
02-26-2013, 08:39 AM
I had three STFs PUGs today where people went AFK. In principle I'm against such things as suggested in the OP as they tend to be popularity tools. With that said, if Cryptic can work something out where the person being voted on has not been in combat at least 75% as the average of other players (discounting respawn time) - I'm all for it damn it!
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,130
# 19
02-26-2013, 08:40 AM
Not even joking here but this feature could very easily make me quit the game.

The fact they are even considering it zero contact with reality right there
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 518
# 20
02-26-2013, 08:45 AM
Considering the way the /ignore to silence system is abused currently this will be as bad if not worse.
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 12:27 AM.