What is stopping newer players from pre-grouping and exploring dungeons? (highlight another character, open sub-menu, invite)
Chat isn't required to form a group...
Does the chat lockout apply to Guild/Alliance chat?
Over and over players blame the game while ignoring the tools/options right there in front of them...
Mostly what stops people from sending random dungeon invite to total strangers, is being completely ignored. Sometimes, what stops people from sending random invites to strangers is the invitation to "Stick a HAMSTER up your HAMSTER, and HAMSTER it, HAMSTER-ways! HAMSTER-ing newb!"
For this portion of the post it will be pretended that players were so scarred by a negative response and or afraid of receiving such a response that inviting others was completely off the table and to take it up a few notches, will act as if third-party tools are non-existent.
What other options are available? Guilds? Alliance? The forums?
Those things ALONE could supply new players with a wealth of information/the means to sustain an at level experience though a number of LLP's and others want the developers to step in, shape that experience for them and at the same time force it onto everyone else. Over time players have become more and more lazy and less and less creative in shaping their game experience even though more and more tools are available to help achieve what the experience sought.
In the age of information and technology the "excuse" of "not knowing" is seemingly even more rampant than it was back when internet was dial-up 56kbi/s speed and there were very few sites with juicy information plastered all over it (if any).
Welcome to the "ME" generation. No one else matters.
BOTH HLP's and LLP's play their role in the above statement. The negativity thrust onto the opposite is absorbed into a vicious cycle that feeds off of itself.
Lowering player gear to a basic level on entry would solve the problem, because no-one high level would queue for it, ever.
This would mean that levelling dungeons would never pop. Kinda a catch22 situation tbh.
Actually I'm not convincet that's true, currently I run skirmishes and dungeons with high level characters, but since I usually tend to stay with the party (or the slowest player) and try not to dominate the content so a less experienced or lesser geared player gets the opportunity to participate anyway, there would be little change for me and I'm aware of a lot of higher level players who act similarly in dungeons and skirmishes with lower level, less experienced players... it tends to be more stress free that way.
I personally believe the only "high level" players who might stop running dungeons or skirmishes are those players who currently use their higher level abilities to speed run or dominate the content, since they would no longer be able to do so.
At best all players would have to work together to accomplish a common goal, there wouldn't be as many players running off leaving other party members behind and there wouldn't be as many players attempting to dominate the content because of comparatively over powered gear and enhancements...
At worst the time required to run dungeon and skirmish content would be closer to the "estimated play time" and those players who only frequent dungeons and skirmishes for quick and easy AD's might not be as plentiful…. But I’m not sure that last part would be such a negative for some players.
15+ minute ND RQ's EACH time for a few thousand RAD would be quite unbecoming. Those are the type of suggestions that are selfish at the core and essentially not thought out. While the LLP's "may" get the experience they are seeking due to forcing others down to their level it harms the HLP's and when the LLP's that want such a system become HLP's personally would love to know how many are going to like the system that forced others down to their level when it forces them back down to the level of newer LLP's...
ND RQ's fire off quickly in part due to the time they are consistently completed by having HLP's in them. Forcing consistent 15+ minute runs will tie up 3 characters each, 6 sets of 100 ND RQ's would tie up 1.8k players for around 15 minutes and seeing as how quickly ND RQ's pop "100" is a very low number to use as an example. An at level IG run can take 30+ minutes to complete and will tie up 5 characters (around 45+ minutes from personal experience with varying level group members)...
15 minutes is even a generous time to use in such an example, it would arguably be closer to if not 30+ minutes because 15 minutes comes from having an HLP present so if it takes a group with an HLP 15 minutes, it would arguably take about double that time without one if not more.
The time to complete would increase either way. Those that run RQ's for fast AD before will be discouraged (how many is arguable) and can pretty much be guaranteed to lower the number that would continue to run (a number would arguably continue/switch to something like running Tomb of the nine Gods for salvage). Tying up players for longer periods of time will also effect the amount of available players in the RQ pool to form new groups (more players going in, fewer coming out in timely fashion).
Hundreds and thousands of players entering 30+ minute RQ's every few seconds/minute will quickly add up.
Pop a ND RQ and decline for a minute straight, each time it is "ready" that would be at least 3 players gone (personally can get about 6-7 to pop in one minute), times that number by 100 or more to get a rough estimate of how many players could/would be tied up in an RQ for about 30 minutes or more, it's no small number.
Again, arguably the majority of players in general don't want an at level experience period, let alone in lower content they have run or will run multiple times over so why try to force it on everyone to try and appease a much smaller "sect" of players that already have options/tools available for them to achieve such an experience whilst not disrupting the liking's of other players?
It makes very little sense to do that (disrupt the whole).
You can pretty much tell/argue from the posts that the "at level" experience seekers are simply solo RQ'ing while not even trying to secure their experience, denying/ignoring essentially EACH and EVERY option they have in front of them and since they are not getting their way as much as they would like, want the system to change to favor them in spite of how it will negatively affect others, that is selfish thinking as the day is long.
At least argue to get the chat lockout "bug" fixed so that newer players can use Guild/Alliance chat prior to lvl 30 and form their own at level groups which a number of players claim can't happen without in-game chat. Have yet to see that argument, fix the "bug", newer player could join a Guild and or simply use whispers to communicate via text chat, the problem is essentially solved because they could use text chat prior to lvl 30 to help them form their own groups.
ALL Rights Reserved for any and all suggestions, ideas, etc. from this user.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY "No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
greywyndMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 7,095Arc User
Entirely too many guilds won't even look at newer players becoming members. They only want endgame ready players. You can see this in the recruiting messages that go up in chat; Must be level 70, must have an il of 20k+, etc.
Then on the other end you send a guild invite to a low level character and they decline for a number of reasons; new alt, don't know what expectations the guild will have from them, etc.
I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
Sorry man, the thing with the speedruns is the random queue, then the grind, and the fact that the dungeons are not that entertaining, the story is not very interesting when u move to the dungeon, e.g. etos, u get into etos, there's no major story in there, and the fact that u can get loot from it even when u are 7k IL higher is why u see this, i mean, why would i wanna go through all the stuff i've seen over a thousand times, its not the players, ofc i agree u can get a bunch of aszholes in the game, but regarding the topic itself, its the system, its not well designed for u to enjoy the dungeons, the more you play the game the less entertaining the dungeons become and the main reason for this again is the grind. i have already suggested a few workouts for these but ofc all ignored so no point, this will remain until they decide to actually do something about it, i just feel bad for the new players that have to put up with it, i personally do those randoms when im bored and to help but ofc i know players that literally go "its not a speedrun? sorry im out, dont have much time" every new content has something unique and that uniqueness ends being in a dungeon and requires u to spend thousands of hours in the same dungeon, therefore making players to wanna bruteforce the dungeons to make the grind less tiring, and the thing with the low dungeons is the daily AD, also think of it this way, without the daily AD u'd still be able to get in but alot less players would be doing those dungeons, therefore making it tougher to get in.
a possible fix would restricting loot based on IL ( which means at above a certain IL, u wont get loots from the lower dungeons, including ad), scaling the dungeon difficulty based on total IL (which IMO, may end up being bad for newbies, unless they scale the players stats with the dungeon too while adding and IL restriction to prevent exploits), remove RQ, adding mechanics that require group play to advance (which normally doesn't do much, e.g. tong). thou i believe the IL restriction would be the best possible fix, if u cant get loot from the dungeon due to ur IL being too high (which wont change even if u remove ur gear, like they used to do in pvp) you wont do the dungeon, in this game its all about the loots, if u are to have any fun or cooperation, i hate to say it, its only gnna be with friends or guild, assuming u get into a helpful guild and not elitist.
Lardeson CW not Mage. Where's my fireball and my thunderbolt?
Perhaps the lower level charcter chat restriction could be lifted for players in a party?
Every party member being automatically connected and locked into "party chat" when they load for queues to dungeons, skirmishes or epics with no chat restrictions for the duration of that party. When the party disbands the chat channel disappears anyway, so players are returned to their previous settings, including level chat restrictions… some how I kind of doubt third party spammers are going to be willing to repeatedly join a party to hock their wares to 3-5 people at a time, just imagining something like that makes me chuckle.
Now this does not address any language differences (I suppose I could recommend PWE and Cryptic program in a chat language translator to the player’s native language j/k ) and it does not address players who would just choose to ignore everybody anyway, but really, aside from having no clue what kind of programming something like this would entail, just make it so party chat does not have the same low level chat restrictions as all the other channels.
Entirely too many guilds won't even look at newer players becoming members. They only want endgame ready players. You can see this in the recruiting messages that go up in chat; Must be level 70, must have an il of 20k+, etc.
Then on the other end you send a guild invite to a low level character and they decline for a number of reasons; new alt, don't know what expectations the guild will have from them, etc.
I've always thought the best way to approach a potential new guild member is after running with them either in some kind of random content, or out on regular game content, then asking them personally if they would be interested in joining a guild... for the most part I personally tend to, and recommend others consider, ignoring guild spammers whether it be the seemingly desperate act of trying to recruit just about anyone for their guild in Zone Chat or just random pop-up Tell invites from players you've never met.
Some guilds claim to be "casual" guilds, with no character or item level restrictions and also claim to be "friendly" and "helpful"...
But as some have learned, if you don't log in regularly enough to suit them, or you don't participate in guild group events to their satisfaction, or donate sufficiently to the guild coffers, they're suddenly not that "casual", "friendly" or "helpful" and the player once again finds themselves guild-less.
Guilds aren't for everybody and it is my personal opinion that's it's a shame Neverwinter has decided to put so much effort into designing content that appears to be specifically targeted to guilds and fabricated parties instead of a little more, meaningful, solo content for all players.
1
Options
greywyndMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 7,095Arc User
I currently have a 10-month idle time before I consider kicking. On the other hand, the helm of our alliance will kick after a month of being idle.
Recruiting in randoms works. Recruited a new CW today as a matter of fact. They were still chat blocked. I sent blind after we killed Blackdagger. They accepted.
I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
Entirely too many guilds won't even look at newer players becoming members. They only want endgame ready players. You can see this in the recruiting messages that go up in chat; Must be level 70, must have an il of 20k+, etc.
What does that have to do with the Guilds that recruit newer, LLP's? Nothing.
That statement is made as if all Guilds only want endgame players and that simply isn't true. You can see a number of Guilds in Protector's Enclave recruiting non-endgame players/no ilvl/lvl requirement and or via their recruitment message from the listings.
Then on the other end you send a guild invite to a low level character and they decline for a number of reasons; new alt, don't know what expectations the guild will have from them, etc.
The suggestion was for newer players to seek Guilds... Though it does work the other way around as well
From experience LLC's get randomly invited to Guilds quite frequently. In RQ's, Protector's Enclave, etc. so LLP's being recruited can and does happen, even more evidence that things are not as bleak as they are being expressed to be.
Perhaps the lower level charcter chat restriction could be lifted for players in a party?
Group chat isn't supposed to be part of the chat lockout, it's supposed to only include public channels. If it is in fact bugged to include group as well as Guild, Alliance and whispers then fixing it will kill the excuse of not being able to form groups without text chat and would make more sense to fix an obvious problem rather than taking the time, effort and resources to create another.
RQ's is exposing what happens when players try to force what they want onto others. If you solo RQ you are consciously putting yourself into a potentially compromising situation.
LLP's wanting a strict "at-level" experience will not consistently get that from RQ'ing solo period. HLP's wanting a strict speed run experience will not consistently get that from RQ'ing solo period.
Unfortunately and for the most part HLP's want to speed run lower content meaning if a LLP RQ's and gets into a group with a HLP more than likely they will rush through though there are options to prevent HLP's from getting being part of the group in the first place. Forcing everyone above back to low level status will not solve the "problem" more than it will create a new one.
Again, LLP's already have various content that is exclusive to them though they seemingly want to expand it into other content that they already have control over in regard to achieving an at-level experience though a number don't exercise that control and feel that just because they don't want to exercise that control that the system is the sole issue, which isn't true.
Post edited by trinity706#8838 on
ALL Rights Reserved for any and all suggestions, ideas, etc. from this user.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY "No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
greywyndMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 7,095Arc User
How does a newer player who can't communicate seek a guild?
I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
How does a newer player who can't communicate seek a guild?
"Can't communicate" is being expressed as if there are no communication options available whatsoever to new players.
Social Menu > Find A Guild > Whisper an officer
If chat lockout is indeed bugged to where they can't whisper an officer of a Guild(s) they are interested in joining:
Note the Guild name(s) > come to the forums and make a thread/post stating they are interested in joining a particular Guild(s) or a Guild in general (no third party option necessary).
PC players are already in close vicinity to a web browser...
If the chat is indeed bugged, rally for the developers to fix it, not to revamp a system and cause more issues, that's essentially going around the world to go next door.
ALL Rights Reserved for any and all suggestions, ideas, etc. from this user.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY "No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
greywyndMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 7,095Arc User
"Hide Guild from Search" seems to be a commonly used option.
I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
"Hide Guild from Search" seems to be a commonly used option.
Again, you are taking occurrences and portraying them as if they happen 100% of the time. Guilds hidden from search STILL doesn't prevent a new player from posting on the forums that they are interested in joining a Guild. When new players have "0" options to communicate then the argument may have an actual foundation to stand on.
ALL Rights Reserved for any and all suggestions, ideas, etc. from this user.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY "No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
greywyndMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 7,095Arc User
Jumping through any hoops to be able to do anything is not conducive to new players. There are more than enough hurdles.
I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
I kind of doubt a player would leave on a party of guild/alliance mates or known "friends" after queueing for content with them regardless or movement speed, gear level or play-style because most acknowledge doing so just isn't the proper thing to do.
As you said, many HLP's want to speed run through dungeons which in my opinion is no problem so long as they don't harangue or seek to exclude other party members for their movement speed, gear or play-style.
Some LLP's want to take their time through dungeons which as far as I'm concerned is okay as well as long as they don't harangue or seek to exclude other party members because of their play-style...
I personally believe there is room for all player preferences in random dungeons.
The real problem seems to be with those who use randoms as their primary source of obtaining quick and easy astral diamonds -vs- those who look at astral diamond acquisition as just a bonus to the dungeon content and since all players regardless of character level tend to believe they need AD's for their own purposes and random seems to be the primary source of obtaining quantity AD's - that's why I suggested perhaps alternate methods of obtaining AD's should be considered - like providing players with an AD reward for completing actual game area/campaign content.
If randoms continue to be the primary source for AD's and since player movement, gear seems to be the primary complaint for LLP's and HLP's players, standardizing the movement speed and gear for all members of a random queue would seem to take care of that complaint as well... individual player-styles and motivations for being in randoms would remain just something players of all levels need to deal with.
So far a lot of people seem content to try to point out what they think is wrong with random queues or players who participate in random queues without bothering to offer much in the way of suggestions on how to deal with it without something along the lines of "I want to kick anyone I out if I don't agree with their play style", or "I want to be able to do things the way I want to do them and screw everyone else -period".
Change is inevitable and since there did appear to be problems with the former dungeon and skirmish queue system it was changed to random, and some people are unhappy (although many of those same people admit to making AD's hand over fist), and possibly because of those complaints it seems there are to be more changes forthcoming, the nature or popularity of those changes remain to be seen... but complainers going to complain (even if they do seem to reaping benefits from the present situation) and those who don't complain as much are going to adapt... it is their nature.
Personally I wouldn't be surprise if eventually nearly all sources of AD accumulation (except the actual purchase from PWE) was eventually nerfed and players will have to content themselves with drops, but that would no doubt drastically change the dynamics and the census for Neverwinter. I figure that some long time players and most new players would probably easily adapt, but others wouldn't and decide to move on, but that too is the nature of things.
People need to be cognizant of what they complain about because as we've already discovered, not every change is going to be for the better or agreeable to everyone...
I still have no problem with and actually happen to like the random queue dungeon/skirmish and random PUG's system, figuring at worst I spend an average of 5-15 minutes per character in that environment and can choose not to queue for randoms anytime I like.
Also it seems the random system appears to be accomplishing much of the reason it was adopted in the first place, few can deny that the experience is more varied and less static and the queue wait times appear to be less - as for the goal of HLP's helping out LLP's, that still happens, but probably not to the extent it was hoped for.
Jumping through any hoops to be able to do anything is not conducive to new players. There are more than enough hurdles.
If posting on the forums is that much a hurdle typing in-game chat should be as well since it encompasses essentially the same actions...
The small bit of effort should more than justify the benefits/opportunities gained by doing so and getting into a Guild, smh. Seeing more and more why players want the system changed, they refuse to put in a small amount of effort to gain so much more.
If randoms continue to be the primary source for AD's and since player movement, gear seems to be the primary complaint for LLP's and HLP's players, standardizing the movement speed and gear for all members of a random queue would seem to take care of that complaint as well...
That's the problem, the complaints come from lack of preventing the opportunity for them in the first place.
LLP's have no/very little to be "standardized" because they have not achieved higher level/stat potential, they won't be affected to a considerable degree, HLP's on the other hand will lose what they have worked to achieve, how is that fair? Just so they will move slower and perform on par with native LLP's that refuse to tame their own experience so that they won't complain?
The easiest solution to implement is "pre-group or don't complain".
Again, going beyond the above is essentially unnecessary and doing so will simply give in to lazy players (BOTH LL and HL) that don't want to pre-group to help control their own experience that they have the ability to do, it's crazy. Trying to inflate how difficult it is for new players to "communicate" does not justify stripping HLP's of the stats that they have earned.
Pre-grouping will provide next to no issues because the group will have similar interests and or performance. Not pre-grouping AND complaining about the result is quite an ignorant thing to do being that one could have simply side stepped the uncertainty of the RQ system grouping.
ALL Rights Reserved for any and all suggestions, ideas, etc. from this user.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY "No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
I personally believe there is room for all player preferences in random dungeons.
There is, essentially just not together due to conflict of interest.
There is probably going to be conflict of interests if more than one person at a time is in a queue and since we've already been informed that allowing people to run private solo's was one of the causes of slow queue times that necessitated the change to random party queues in the first place, I kind of doubt and personally wouldn't want to see the developers going back to that system... but anything can happen I suppose.
If randoms continue to be the primary source for AD's and since player movement, gear seems to be the primary complaint for LLP's and HLP's players, standardizing the movement speed and gear for all members of a random queue would seem to take care of that complaint as well...
That's the problem, the complaints come from lack of preventing the opportunity for them in the first place.
LLP's have no/very little to be "standardized" because they have not achieved higher level/stat potential, they won't be affected to a considerable degree, HLP's on the other hand will lose what they have worked to achieve, how is that fair? Just so they will move slower and perform on par with native LLP's that refuse to tame their own experience so that they won't complain?
Actually LLP's could have their movement speed and gear scores increased to standardize the playing field almost as easily as higher level players having their movement speed and gear scores lowered for standardization purposes if it comes to that as both methods essentially produce the same results, no player faster/slower, or better/lesser geared than any other player.
HLP's will only "lose what they've worked for", IF they choose to queue for random queue content - but I also agree setting the random queue content as the primary method - some claim the only method - of obtaining astral diamonds appears to be at the crux of many of the manufactured complaints.
Which is why I also suggested players be awarded astral diamonds for participating in and completing actual game content campaigns as the primary source for astral diamonds and the award for repeatedly running the same quick and easy dungeon/skirmish content be significantly diminished.
It would also I think that last would reduce the botting prevalence as programming a character to contend with all the variables in actual game content would I believe be much more difficult than programming a character to contend with the static content of something like dungeons.
The easiest solution to implement is "pre-group or don't complain".
Again, going beyond the above is essentially unnecessary and doing so will simply give in to lazy players (BOTH LL and HL) that don't want to pre-group to help control their own experience that they have the ability to do, it's crazy. Trying to inflate how difficult it is for new players to "communicate" does not justify stripping HLP's of the stats that they have earned.
Pre-grouping will provide next to no issues because the group will have similar interests and or performance. Not pre-grouping AND complaining about the result is quite an ignorant thing to do being that one could have simply side stepped the uncertainty of the RQ system grouping.
I tend to agree that pre-grouping would solve many of the problems players of all levels seem to be complaining about and as you say, this applies to higher level players as well as lower level players - but disagree that the inability of lower level characters being able to communicate with other players has been "inflated", it is a given fact that LLP's are chat restricted.
Lack of LLP's ability to communicate was never suggested or intended as justification to standardize the movement and gear scores for participants of random queue content.
Rather complaints about party member movement speeds and gear is the impetus for suggesting standardization...
Two different problems, each with a different suggested proposal for solution - remove the chat restriction for players grouped in a party specifically pertaining to Party Chat - and make everyone's movement speeds and gear scores standardized (as well as nullifying boon enhancements) for every player who chooses to queue for random dungeon/skirmish content.
Players not wanting to hear from HLP's or LLP's while they play, don't join a party where those players are present - People who don't want to have the movement or gear nerfed or increased while in content, don't queue for random queues where that happens... that seems pretty simple and straight forward to me.
HLP's will only "lose what they've worked for", IF they choose to queue for random queue content
Similar could be stated for LLP's RQ'ing, they wouldn't not get the at level experience if that is what they are seeking.
Simply choosing to queue does not bring about the conflict, choosing to solo/not full party pre-group and complain that you don't get your way is when the conflict arises.
Which is why I also suggested players be awarded astral diamonds for participating in and completing actual game content campaigns as the primary source for astral diamonds and the award for repeatedly running the same quick and easy dungeon/skirmish content be significantly diminished.
That is directly forcing HLP's away from RQ content in an attempt to have only the LLP's remain which would essentially remove the need for them to pre-group to achieve their at level experience (if that is what they seek) and also promotes that HLP's are the problem.
It would also I think that last would reduce the botting prevalence as programming a character to contend with all the variables in actual game content would I believe be much more difficult than programming a character to contend with the static content of something like dungeons.
Botting thrives due to CS not cracking down on it in the first place, they are the ones with the tools to take action against negative accounts.
The easiest content to bot can simply be monitored and the accounts that do so (bot) can be actioned against. There's no need to change the entire system to move RAD elsewhere especially to campaign content that many players already loathe, stop doing after they complete and or buyout and skip completely. You don't kill/reduce botting by hurting legitimate players, you simply take responsibility and go after it head on.
but disagree that the inability of lower level characters being able to communicate with other players has been "inflated", it is a given fact that LLP's are chat restricted.
It is restricted and has also been inflated because the chat restriction does not 100% prevent communication and is continually being argued as if it does. Only those that allow it to completely restrict them fall victim to it.
When new players were suggested to utilize the forums to communicate it was essentially blown off as if it would require copious amounts of effort to do so (make an account, make a post) or some kind of fruitless effort, players gets rewards for linking their game and website account which will aid new players anyway, even though it's right in their face... That's clear evidence of negligence on the part of the players, negligence that impacts them in other ways, smh.
Lack of chat ability is the basis behind a number of arguments... (essentially since we are incapable of grouping without chat and even though we can communicate in other ways change other parts of the game to suit us personally and hinder others)
remove the chat restriction for players grouped in a party specifically pertaining to Party Chat
Party chat is not supposed to be restricted even for new players. If the developers fix the bug (if it exists) it will open the door wider for communication, again, and kill the "we/they can't communicate" argument more than it already has been.
and make everyone's movement speeds and gear scores standardized (as well as nullifying boon enhancements) for every player who chooses to queue for random dungeon/skirmish content.
Why would HLP's want to move slower period? That suggestion is STILL promoting that HLP's are the problem and that suggestion also demonstrates that players that CLEARLY have the ability to prevent themselves from being in a compromising situation, are simply too lazy to do something simple about it and would rather others suffer so they don't have to do something about it themselves.
greywyndMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 7,095Arc User
Everyone seems to be assuming that all players are coming into the queue randomly. My understanding is that, say a low level character queues for Cragmire and waits...
Meanwhile, you have X players queuing private to run Cragmire for rAD.
Pre-random the person that first queued would wait until two other people public queued for Cragmire. Now, with the random in place, the game pulls two other people out of the random queue and drops them into Cragmire to fill the party. Everyone isn't coming into the queues on the same footing. I don't know whether or not the game chooses random dungeons or not just to get bodies out of the random queue. If it does, those people might becoming in more or less on an equal footing.
I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
HLP's will only "lose what they've worked for", IF they choose to queue for random queue content
Similar could be stated for LLP's RQ'ing, they wouldn't not get the at level experience if that is what they are seeking.
Simply choosing to queue does not bring about the conflict, choosing to solo/not full party pre-group and complain that you don't get your way is when the conflict arises.
Actually if I'm in a party with LLP's they can have the at level experience they are wanting and possibly more...
Even though I might queue into a lower level dungeon, I don't attempt to out run the rest of the members of the party and I don't attempt to dominate the content, just heal, buff or support as needed. In content like the Cloak Tower for instance I can even show lower level and first time players where to pick up the various items needed to assemble those chests at the end of the run. In the Spider King I can tell and show new and less experienced players a few shortcuts to avoid mobs if they wish, things like that.
Saying LLP's won't get the experience they are looking for in dungeons is something I disagree with - here again we are talking about the differences in player behavior, not any fault of the random queue dungeon.
Which is why I also suggested players be awarded astral diamonds for participating in and completing actual game content campaigns as the primary source for astral diamonds and the award for repeatedly running the same quick and easy dungeon/skirmish content be significantly diminished.
That is directly forcing HLP's away from RQ content in an attempt to have only the LLP's remain which would essentially remove the need for them to pre-group to achieve their at level experience (if that is what they seek) and also promotes that HLP's are the problem.
Actually that's not forcing anyone into - or out of anything, it's just reallocating the primary source for quantities of astral diamonds... nor would it limit RQ content to lower level players.
HLP's are still free to run dungeons or skirmishes if they want to - just not for loads of quick and easy AD's as the source for quantity AD's will be put on the game campaign maps instead of in dungeon and skirmish content.
Even with a level 70 characters a players should still be allowed to repeatedly run content beginning with the Drowned Shore, Reclamation Rock and/or Spin ward Rise campaigns at least once a day. This would garner the same amount (or cumulative same amount) of AD's they can currently get by doing one dungeon/skirmish, the higher the difficulty of the campaign the greater the AD reward... the only thing it effects is the speed at which those AD's can be farmed. Instead of 4-5 minute dungeon runs, it will possibly take 20-30 minutes (+/-) to complete campaigns in each of these areas and the best part is more players will be able to solo those campaigns without being forced into random groups or parties.
It would also I think that last would reduce the botting prevalence as programming a character to contend with all the variables in actual game content would I believe be much more difficult than programming a character to contend with the static content of something like dungeons.
Botting thrives due to CS not cracking down on it in the first place, they are the ones with the tools to take action against negative accounts.
The easiest content to bot can simply be monitored and the accounts that do so (bot) can be actioned against. There's no need to change the entire system to move RAD elsewhere especially to campaign content that many players already loathe, stop doing after they complete and or buyout and skip completely. You don't kill/reduce botting by hurting legitimate players, you simply take responsibility and go after it head on.
I'll pass on any discussion about who's fault it is in regards to bots, I'm of the personal opinion that the fault lies with the people who tend to use that disallowed feature, not the people who fail to identify and act on every instance of botting.
But I still maintain my opinion that it would probably be more difficult for a person to program a bot for fluctuating game area content than it would be for static content like dungeons, but since I have no experience with botting that's just a guess.
but disagree that the inability of lower level characters being able to communicate with other players has been "inflated", it is a given fact that LLP's are chat restricted.
It is restricted and has also been inflated because the chat restriction does not 100% prevent communication and is continually being argued as if it does. Only those that allow it to completely restrict them fall victim to it.
When new players were suggested to utilize the forums to communicate it was essentially blown off as if it would require copious amounts of effort to do so (make an account, make a post) or some kind of fruitless effort, players gets rewards for linking their game and website account which will aid new players anyway, even though it's right in their face... That's clear evidence of negligence on the part of the players, negligence that impacts them in other ways, smh.
Lack of chat ability is the basis behind a number of arguments... (essentially since we are incapable of grouping without chat and even though we can communicate in other ways change other parts of the game to suit us personally and hinder others)
Again another discussion I don't care to partake in, "other forms of communication", what was previously suggested and such.. but from the information I have lower level players do have chat restrictions and that keeps them from communicating in the standard way. Removing that restriction, just for players in Party Chat would still give LLP's and HLP's or LLP's and LLP's a way to communicate with each other regardless of character level, so long as they are in a party with another player.
and make everyone's movement speeds and gear scores standardized (as well as nullifying boon enhancements) for every player who chooses to queue for random dungeon/skirmish content.
Why would HLP's want to move slower period? That suggestion is STILL promoting that HLP's are the problem and that suggestion also demonstrates that players that CLEARLY have the ability to prevent themselves from being in a compromising situation, are simply too lazy to do something simple about it and would rather others suffer so they don't have to do something about it themselves.
This discussion isn't about what "Higher level players want", or what lower level players want for that matter. My intention is to try to suggest some kind of compromise... Compromise in that neither party will be completely happy with it - but it provides an unavoidable more fair and workable solution for both parties.
Higher level players complain that they have to contend with slower or more poorly equipped party members, giving lower level players a temporary boost to their movement speed and gear ability solves that problem - Lower level players complain about having to contend with players running off and abandoning them or dominating the content, a temporary reduction in higher level players ability also solves that problem...
Temporarily providing every member of a party entering a random queue with exactly the same movement ability and gear ability is the compromise that in my opinion most fairly address some of the more common complaints of both high level and low level players.
that seems pretty simple and straight forward to me.
Simple? No. Selfish and overbearing suggestion? All day.
Another thing I think I'll refrain from is the negativity and name calling directed at another poster, just because a person disagrees with them or their opinion - that's not the way I roll.
Everyone seems to be assuming that all players are coming into the queue randomly.
However a player gets into the group matters less if at all when compared to whether they queue solo/partial vs in a full group especially in regard to ones that will complain about being put into a group where there is a conflict of interest (explorer's + speed runners) even though they have the means to prevent it.
Actually if I'm in a party with LLP's they can have the at level experience they are wanting and possibly more...
Even though I might queue into a lower level dungeon, I don't attempt to out run the rest of the members of the party and I don't attempt to dominate the content, just heal, buff or support as needed. In content like the Cloak Tower for instance I can even show lower level and first time players where to pick up the various items needed to assemble those chests at the end of the run. In the Spider King I can tell and show new and less experienced players a few shortcuts to avoid mobs if they wish, things like that.
2 LLP's and a HLP does not an at-level experience make.
No matter how much you "hold back" or "support" simply being a HLP more capable many times over than the two of them combined helps deny the at-level experience for them. It would be like being on sports team comprised mostly of inexperienced players and one of your teammates is a professional player for that sport, that one player offsets the experience for everyone involved even if they don't "show out" simply by being on the team.
Showing new players where things are essentially is "robbing" them of discovering it for themselves. That's like telling a child what is in a Christmas gift before they open it, it can/does ruin it for them.
Actually that's not forcing anyone into - or out of anything, it's just reallocating the primary source for quantities of astral diamonds... nor would it limit RQ content to lower level players.
That is exactly what it would be doing.
Why would the majority of HLP's (or a lot of them for that matter) support a suggestion to rerun maps that they have already completed, let alone why would they run LLC for 0 or a considerably lower reward than currently offered? For the most part they won't and whom will be left to run lower level content? LLP's...
One RQ ND + SK RQ grants 14.5k RAD, that amount would have to be divided amongst the number of maps, dividing it between the EE campaign alone would be 3,625 for each map and since there are other campaigns it would drop even more making it not worth it in the first place, especially in regard to the amount of effort/time to run multiple maps being considerably more than running two RQ's. If the suggestion would grant more RAD than currently provided through the RQ system it would inflate the economy. A lot of extra effort/resources to develop such a system that is quite "wild" to be suggested in the first place as it has been described, especially when it is player behavior that is driving the conflict further than the RQ system itself.
I'll pass on any discussion about who's fault it is in regards to bots, I'm of the personal opinion that the fault lies with the people who tend to use that disallowed feature, not the people who fail to identify and act on every instance of botting.
What makes more sense, harming the player base as a whole by implementing changes to make botting less profitable or simply cracking down on the bots?
Bots helped ruin unbound enchantments and the removal of the Neverwinter Gateway, etc. which harmed the player base as a whole, instead of cracking down on them the "easy" course of action was taken and the player base suffered because of it yet bots still remain...
Again another discussion I don't care to partake in, "other forms of communication", what was previously suggested and such.. but from the information I have lower level players do have chat restrictions and that keeps them from communicating in the standard way.
There is supposedly a bug that causes the chat restrictions to extend into non-public chats which it shouldn't (only public chats were to be restricted). The bug is supposedly causing the issues, fix the bug, fix the issues. Though even with the "bug" there are other forms of communication that players essentially refuse to utilize in the meantime/anyway. Refusal to utilize those options forces the situation to be bigger than what it would be otherwise and on top of that a number of people are using the bugged chat restrictions to falsely support selfish suggestions that will affect far more negatively than they would positively.
Reread the previous posts if you would, when offered solutions they were denied and then the bugged chat was looped back into the suggestions to change the RQ system...
When the chat bug is fixed what will be the excuse of LLP's not being able to pre-form groups to help them escape those nasty HLP's ruining their experience? How would such previous suggestions be supported since the nail in the coffin of supposedly not being able to group (which clearly isn't true) would be banged in further? The argument already sits within quicksand, fix the chat bug and the last tip of it will vanish from sight...
This discussion isn't about what "Higher level players want", or what lower level players want for that matter. My intention is to try to suggest some kind of compromise... Compromise in that neither party will be completely happy with it
You have suggested compromises that require considerable effort to develop and arguably would provide little positive outcome.
LLP's and HLP's are consciously putting themselves into a situation of conflict in regard to RQ's and blaming the other, period, while others are suggesting all sorts of things as solutions when the "problem" at the core is the players within the environment of the game.
The game sets the environment and the capacity of various experiences to be had, the players either constrain the capacity of those experiences further or expand them further than the game natively provides.
Another thing I think I'll refrain from is the negativity and name calling directed at another poster, just because a person disagrees with them or their opinion
The suggestion itself was described as selfish and overbearing, where is the name-calling? You weren't "called" selfish nor overbearing, your suggestion was. If you took it personal, that was your choice to do so (not faulting you if you did).
Arguing on the forums is "negativity" though the term "negative" over time has been falsely associated with "bad". Without a negative battery terminal a typical car won't start by turning the key. Without "negative" arguments constructive criticism and expanding possibilities would be limited, if possible at all.
ALL Rights Reserved for any and all suggestions, ideas, etc. from this user.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY "No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
new players are being rushed through and screamed at in dungeons that are appropriate to their own level. No one has time to explore for fear of being voted out.
I've merely attempted to suggest possible solutions specific to the initial post...
You appear to be trying to make this discussion something else, with your apparent defense of high level players, condemnation of low level players and something akin to: 'pre-queue or just deal with it'.
I have posted my suggestions and feel I have sufficiently supported them with reason. I have nothing further at this time to contribute as it relates to the topic or the initial post so I think I'll just leave it at that.
The title is simply a title and the experience described could have been prevented by pre-grouping plain and simple. If pre-grouping with like minded players won't prevent the issues then please argue how it won't.
Since the OP didn't pre-group as well as many other players they get what they get as far as intentions in regard to the other group members the system selects. Pre-group and ensure you can explore without worry, pre-group so you can speed run without worry, so simple of a suggestion though a number of people would rather prefer development that will infringe upon others.
The initial post of this thread was from a neutral position and asked why can't can't HLP's and LLP's pre-group so as not to interfere with the intentions of the other seeing as both don't play nice when in the same sand box.
As the thread progressed others made the claims that it is essentially impossible for newer players to form groups and that LLP's can do nothing whatsoever to help themselves (surprisingly in spite of the OP posting on the forums where players are connected anyway as if others cannot/are not encouraged to explore/utilize the forums), that was argued against as well and the position shifted away from neutral seeing as HLP's were being blamed for the choice of LLP's not to pre-group by any means whatsoever.
If using the forums and or a third party option gets the job done what is the problem (rhetorical)? A simple action(s) for a far greater benefit than not, it states a lot about players themselves that choose not to even try and shape their own experience.
Possible solutions were made, and a number of them were argued against, nothing more, nothing less. Essentially all of the solutions made in this thread that require the developers do not address the core action, or lack thereof that allows the negative experiences to come about.
Personally admire role-playing players, their community exists in spite of games that do not natively support such a community. They do what it takes to ensure that they get the experience that they seek even if it means doing so via unconventional means, comparing them to newer Neverwinter players/those that feel they are essentially helpless in shaping their experience, RPG'ers do what it takes AND get what they want, the others do very little (if anything at all other than complain) and NOT get what they want, anyone see the difference?
ALL Rights Reserved for any and all suggestions, ideas, etc. from this user.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY "No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
I'm a pretty new player - last month and a half, I guess. I signed up with this forum last week to express my concerns over the random queues, but during this past week I tried to pay closer attention during my three-four daily dungeon dives. I run with two 70s, a 65, and one that's currently at level 15.
I found that the random dungeons weren't actually as bad as they felt. Of the 50-some players I came across, I only ran into four speed scummers; one afk 70; one painfully slow player (<300 iL dc who kept stepping on leg traps), and just one brand spanking new player. Only about 20% of my dungeon crawls were negative experiences. The rest were fine, and a few were actually a lot of fun - mostly with lower level players.
Aside from the new player, the rest of the lower level players seemed to know their way around. Possibly most of them only join random queues after they've already been through those dungeons already. I doubt many are using the random queues to pick up AD and wrap up a quest at the same time. If most of them know the dungeon already, I don't see how they're missing out on an experience if a higher level player steamrolls everything.
As for speed scummers - the "players" who leave the rest of the team to fight everything so they can go afk by the portal - they're going to have a mostly negative experience with EVERYONE, but frankly - who cares. They have no one to blame but themselves. Nobody's forcing them to run a dozen characters a day. That was a choice they made.
While getting matched with a speed scummer can be annoying since they're essentially an empty slot in the roster, I find they're only really a problem if the other higher level character in the group follows their lead. In that case, the dungeon's going to take a good deal longer to clear, or however long it takes for the slowest/lowest player to either clean up the scummers' mess, quit, or get kicked. Most of the other fast players I encountered were smart enough to either kill everything outright, or to thin the hordes so the slowest member of the group could get to the circle in a timely fashion.
I'd say a little more than half of the players I met were team players, and it's heartening to find so many players on this forum who are the same way. So at the moment, I think I'm okay with the random queues after all. I don't even mind the speed scummers so much any more. Encountering abysmal people from time to time only reminds you how great most other people are.
As was mentioned in the first post I believe at least one of the major problems here is the "kick" feature implemented by players.
There is no question that sometimes something like this becomes necessary at times for the continuance of the content, but there also seems to be no question that this feature has been abused against players some considered; to slow, not geared appropriately, not participating in an acceptable manner, etc. when in my opinion the only reasons to implement such a step would be AFK or Disconnected.
It is my opinion that no one (or group) of players should be able to determine what is acceptable for other players in the party to the extent that it denies another player's ability to participate in open or random content.
A lot of players have been calling for quicker kick timers, I personally advocate for no player instigated kicks, except in instances of AFK or Disconnects.
Without the player initiated kick timer used by some players dissatisfied with the 'play-style' of other players, every player is allowed to participate in given content as they wish, speed run-poke around and explore, engage mobs-ignore mobs, pick up drops and chests-ignore drops and chests, whatever...
Players are still able to abandoned any particular content and their party, but they will have an account wide penalty lockout of 30 minutes (there has also been a few 24 hour suggestions) for doing so.
Admittedly may will effect the speed at which content can be completed - but necessarily not the ultimate completion of that content.
Pre-group and have a day at the beach or solo/partial queue and possibly enter the "battle dome", simple.
Yes newer players may have a harder time communicating due to the chat restrictions (amplified by the "bug" that supposedly applies it to all chats instead of just public ones) though there are other options, the simplest being the forums which players are suggested to explore ANYWAY. If a game account is NOT linked to an Arc account the player will NOT be able to contact customer support, that alone is reason enough to create an Arc/forum account. There's essentially no excuse of not being able to communicate even with restricted/bugged chat.
Newer players choosing not to utilize ANYTHING in regard to communication to help themselves until chat is unlocked (especially something as simple as a Arc/forum account) is self inflicting the resulting negative experiences for the most part and blaming the game is simply "passing the buck".
Currently there is about 6 threads from 2018 in the Player Corner" section of the forums...
An account-wide lockout is not necessary and as it has been presented makes little sense (if any) if a player simply chooses to abandon a queue and switch to another character, the 30 minute abandon penalty for the abandoning character serves it's purpose.
An account-wide lockout WOULD be beneficial in the case of a player trying to queue on multiple characters thus enabling them to illegitimately gain multiple sets of rewards while being AFK. As previously mentioned there is no legitimate reason to queue on multiple characters simultaneously, the system could either kick the previous queued character and apply the 30 minute penalty to it or kick the previously queued character and apply an account wide penalty, personally would prefer the account wide in that case since abuse is more than likely the reason for trying to do so.
Essentially the only thing an account wide lockout would do if it was applied for simply abandoning a queue is put players with additional characters in the same boat as those with only 1 or 2, that is a selfish suggestion all the way around.
If vote-kicking is abused by HLP's wanting the fastest completion time with a LLP present then the vote-kick timer is very well abused by abusers that AFK essentially until the near end of the content as well (both HLP's and LLP's), what's your point?
As previously mentioned a number of your suggestions would punish HLP's and at the same time allow even more abuse. No vote-kick means a player out of spite/AFK could sabotage a run and force another player into the abandon penalty, how is that positive? Giving abusers more freedom and punishing HLP's is not positive for the player base.
ALL Rights Reserved for any and all suggestions, ideas, etc. from this user.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY "No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
I just got voted out of my daily random in Greywolf because two scumbags ran through all the mobs and I had to fight them so I couldn't keep up. This happens a lot, and it is inexcusable. Now I have to try to queue up again because these touch holes thought that they are more important than me. Yeah Trinity, the system is just fine.
Comments
This would mean that levelling dungeons would never pop. Kinda a catch22 situation tbh.
What other options are available? Guilds? Alliance? The forums?
Those things ALONE could supply new players with a wealth of information/the means to sustain an at level experience though a number of LLP's and others want the developers to step in, shape that experience for them and at the same time force it onto everyone else. Over time players have become more and more lazy and less and less creative in shaping their game experience even though more and more tools are available to help achieve what the experience sought.
In the age of information and technology the "excuse" of "not knowing" is seemingly even more rampant than it was back when internet was dial-up 56kbi/s speed and there were very few sites with juicy information plastered all over it (if any).
It was pretty much stated best below BOTH HLP's and LLP's play their role in the above statement. The negativity thrust onto the opposite is absorbed into a vicious cycle that feeds off of itself. ^ POW ^
Seemingly this is what some players want to happen, don't see happening and or don't care happening.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY
"No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Ongoing Issue: Legitmate Players Banned for Botting (Console) and the Future for "Dedicated" Players
Suggestions: (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen
I personally believe the only "high level" players who might stop running dungeons or skirmishes are those players who currently use their higher level abilities to speed run or dominate the content, since they would no longer be able to do so.
At best all players would have to work together to accomplish a common goal, there wouldn't be as many players running off leaving other party members behind and there wouldn't be as many players attempting to dominate the content because of comparatively over powered gear and enhancements...
At worst the time required to run dungeon and skirmish content would be closer to the "estimated play time" and those players who only frequent dungeons and skirmishes for quick and easy AD's might not be as plentiful…. But I’m not sure that last part would be such a negative for some players.
The time to complete would increase either way. Those that run RQ's for fast AD before will be discouraged (how many is arguable) and can pretty much be guaranteed to lower the number that would continue to run (a number would arguably continue/switch to something like running Tomb of the nine Gods for salvage). Tying up players for longer periods of time will also effect the amount of available players in the RQ pool to form new groups (more players going in, fewer coming out in timely fashion).
Hundreds and thousands of players entering 30+ minute RQ's every few seconds/minute will quickly add up.
Pop a ND RQ and decline for a minute straight, each time it is "ready" that would be at least 3 players gone (personally can get about 6-7 to pop in one minute), times that number by 100 or more to get a rough estimate of how many players could/would be tied up in an RQ for about 30 minutes or more, it's no small number.
Again, arguably the majority of players in general don't want an at level experience period, let alone in lower content they have run or will run multiple times over so why try to force it on everyone to try and appease a much smaller "sect" of players that already have options/tools available for them to achieve such an experience whilst not disrupting the liking's of other players?
It makes very little sense to do that (disrupt the whole).
You can pretty much tell/argue from the posts that the "at level" experience seekers are simply solo RQ'ing while not even trying to secure their experience, denying/ignoring essentially EACH and EVERY option they have in front of them and since they are not getting their way as much as they would like, want the system to change to favor them in spite of how it will negatively affect others, that is selfish thinking as the day is long.
At least argue to get the chat lockout "bug" fixed so that newer players can use Guild/Alliance chat prior to lvl 30 and form their own at level groups which a number of players claim can't happen without in-game chat. Have yet to see that argument, fix the "bug", newer player could join a Guild and or simply use whispers to communicate via text chat, the problem is essentially solved because they could use text chat prior to lvl 30 to help them form their own groups.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY
"No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Ongoing Issue: Legitmate Players Banned for Botting (Console) and the Future for "Dedicated" Players
Suggestions: (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen
Then on the other end you send a guild invite to a low level character and they decline for a number of reasons; new alt, don't know what expectations the guild will have from them, etc.
a possible fix would restricting loot based on IL ( which means at above a certain IL, u wont get loots from the lower dungeons, including ad), scaling the dungeon difficulty based on total IL (which IMO, may end up being bad for newbies, unless they scale the players stats with the dungeon too while adding and IL restriction to prevent exploits), remove RQ, adding mechanics that require group play to advance (which normally doesn't do much, e.g. tong). thou i believe the IL restriction would be the best possible fix, if u cant get loot from the dungeon due to ur IL being too high (which wont change even if u remove ur gear, like they used to do in pvp) you wont do the dungeon, in this game its all about the loots, if u are to have any fun or cooperation, i hate to say it, its only gnna be with friends or guild, assuming u get into a helpful guild and not elitist.
Perhaps the lower level charcter chat restriction could be lifted for players in a party?
Every party member being automatically connected and locked into "party chat" when they load for queues to dungeons, skirmishes or epics with no chat restrictions for the duration of that party. When the party disbands the chat channel disappears anyway, so players are returned to their previous settings, including level chat restrictions… some how I kind of doubt third party spammers are going to be willing to repeatedly join a party to hock their wares to 3-5 people at a time, just imagining something like that makes me chuckle.
Now this does not address any language differences (I suppose I could recommend PWE and Cryptic program in a chat language translator to the player’s native language j/k
Some guilds claim to be "casual" guilds, with no character or item level restrictions and also claim to be "friendly" and "helpful"...
But as some have learned, if you don't log in regularly enough to suit them, or you don't participate in guild group events to their satisfaction, or donate sufficiently to the guild coffers, they're suddenly not that "casual", "friendly" or "helpful" and the player once again finds themselves guild-less.
Guilds aren't for everybody and it is my personal opinion that's it's a shame Neverwinter has decided to put so much effort into designing content that appears to be specifically targeted to guilds and fabricated parties instead of a little more, meaningful, solo content for all players.
Recruiting in randoms works. Recruited a new CW today as a matter of fact. They were still chat blocked. I sent blind after we killed Blackdagger. They accepted.
That statement is made as if all Guilds only want endgame players and that simply isn't true. You can see a number of Guilds in Protector's Enclave recruiting non-endgame players/no ilvl/lvl requirement and or via their recruitment message from the listings. The suggestion was for newer players to seek Guilds... Though it does work the other way around as well
From experience LLC's get randomly invited to Guilds quite frequently. In RQ's, Protector's Enclave, etc. so LLP's being recruited can and does happen, even more evidence that things are not as bleak as they are being expressed to be. Group chat isn't supposed to be part of the chat lockout, it's supposed to only include public channels. If it is in fact bugged to include group as well as Guild, Alliance and whispers then fixing it will kill the excuse of not being able to form groups without text chat and would make more sense to fix an obvious problem rather than taking the time, effort and resources to create another.
RQ's is exposing what happens when players try to force what they want onto others. If you solo RQ you are consciously putting yourself into a potentially compromising situation.
LLP's wanting a strict "at-level" experience will not consistently get that from RQ'ing solo period.
HLP's wanting a strict speed run experience will not consistently get that from RQ'ing solo period.
Unfortunately and for the most part HLP's want to speed run lower content meaning if a LLP RQ's and gets into a group with a HLP more than likely they will rush through though there are options to prevent HLP's from getting being part of the group in the first place. Forcing everyone above back to low level status will not solve the "problem" more than it will create a new one.
Again, LLP's already have various content that is exclusive to them though they seemingly want to expand it into other content that they already have control over in regard to achieving an at-level experience though a number don't exercise that control and feel that just because they don't want to exercise that control that the system is the sole issue, which isn't true.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY
"No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Ongoing Issue: Legitmate Players Banned for Botting (Console) and the Future for "Dedicated" Players
Suggestions: (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen
Social Menu > Find A Guild > Whisper an officer
If chat lockout is indeed bugged to where they can't whisper an officer of a Guild(s) they are interested in joining:
Note the Guild name(s) > come to the forums and make a thread/post stating they are interested in joining a particular Guild(s) or a Guild in general (no third party option necessary).
PC players are already in close vicinity to a web browser...
If the chat is indeed bugged, rally for the developers to fix it, not to revamp a system and cause more issues, that's essentially going around the world to go next door.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY
"No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Ongoing Issue: Legitmate Players Banned for Botting (Console) and the Future for "Dedicated" Players
Suggestions: (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY
"No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Ongoing Issue: Legitmate Players Banned for Botting (Console) and the Future for "Dedicated" Players
Suggestions: (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen
As you said, many HLP's want to speed run through dungeons which in my opinion is no problem so long as they don't harangue
or seek to exclude other party members for their movement speed, gear or play-style.
Some LLP's want to take their time through dungeons which as far as I'm concerned is okay as well as long as they don't harangue or seek to exclude other party members because of their play-style...
I personally believe there is room for all player preferences in random dungeons.
The real problem seems to be with those who use randoms as their primary source of obtaining quick and easy astral diamonds -vs- those who look at astral diamond acquisition as just a bonus to the dungeon content and since all players regardless of character level tend to believe they need AD's for their own purposes and random seems to be the primary source of obtaining quantity AD's - that's why I suggested perhaps alternate methods of obtaining AD's should be considered - like providing players with an AD reward for completing actual game area/campaign content.
If randoms continue to be the primary source for AD's and since player movement, gear seems to be the primary complaint for LLP's and HLP's players, standardizing the movement speed and gear for all members of a random queue would seem to take care of that complaint as well... individual player-styles and motivations for being in randoms would remain just something players of all levels need to deal with.
So far a lot of people seem content to try to point out what they think is wrong with random queues or players who participate in random queues without bothering to offer much in the way of suggestions on how to deal with it without something along the lines of "I want to kick anyone I out if I don't agree with their play style", or "I want to be able to do things the way I want to do them and screw everyone else -period".
Change is inevitable and since there did appear to be problems with the former dungeon and skirmish queue system it was changed to random, and some people are unhappy (although many of those same people admit to making AD's hand over fist), and possibly because of those complaints it seems there are to be more changes forthcoming, the nature or popularity of those changes remain to be seen... but complainers going to complain (even if they do seem to reaping benefits from the present situation) and those who don't complain as much are going to adapt... it is their nature.
Personally I wouldn't be surprise if eventually nearly all sources of AD accumulation (except the actual purchase from PWE) was eventually nerfed and players will have to content themselves with drops, but that would no doubt drastically change the dynamics and the census for Neverwinter. I figure that some long time players and most new players would probably easily adapt, but others wouldn't and decide to move on, but that too is the nature of things.
People need to be cognizant of what they complain about because as we've already discovered, not every change is going to be for the better or agreeable to everyone...
I still have no problem with and actually happen to like the random queue dungeon/skirmish and random PUG's system, figuring at worst I spend an average of 5-15 minutes per character in that environment and can choose not to queue for randoms anytime I like.
Also it seems the random system appears to be accomplishing much of the reason it was adopted in the first place, few can deny that the experience is more varied and less static and the queue wait times appear to be less - as for the goal of HLP's helping out LLP's, that still happens, but probably not to the extent it was hoped for.
Just my two cents-
The small bit of effort should more than justify the benefits/opportunities gained by doing so and getting into a Guild, smh. Seeing more and more why players want the system changed, they refuse to put in a small amount of effort to gain so much more. There is, essentially just not together due to conflict of interest. That's the problem, the complaints come from lack of preventing the opportunity for them in the first place.
LLP's have no/very little to be "standardized" because they have not achieved higher level/stat potential, they won't be affected to a considerable degree, HLP's on the other hand will lose what they have worked to achieve, how is that fair? Just so they will move slower and perform on par with native LLP's that refuse to tame their own experience so that they won't complain?
The easiest solution to implement is "pre-group or don't complain".
Again, going beyond the above is essentially unnecessary and doing so will simply give in to lazy players (BOTH LL and HL) that don't want to pre-group to help control their own experience that they have the ability to do, it's crazy. Trying to inflate how difficult it is for new players to "communicate" does not justify stripping HLP's of the stats that they have earned.
Pre-grouping will provide next to no issues because the group will have similar interests and or performance.
Not pre-grouping AND complaining about the result is quite an ignorant thing to do being that one could have simply side stepped the uncertainty of the RQ system grouping.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY
"No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Ongoing Issue: Legitmate Players Banned for Botting (Console) and the Future for "Dedicated" Players
Suggestions: (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen
HLP's will only "lose what they've worked for", IF they choose to queue for random queue content - but I also agree setting the random queue content as the primary method - some claim the only method - of obtaining astral diamonds appears to be at the crux of many of the manufactured complaints.
Which is why I also suggested players be awarded astral diamonds for participating in and completing actual game content campaigns as the primary source for astral diamonds and the award for repeatedly running the same quick and easy dungeon/skirmish content be significantly diminished.
It would also I think that last would reduce the botting prevalence as programming a character to contend with all the variables in actual game content would I believe be much more difficult than programming a character to contend with the static content of something like dungeons. I tend to agree that pre-grouping would solve many of the problems players of all levels seem to be complaining about and as you say, this applies to higher level players as well as lower level players - but disagree that the inability of lower level characters being able to communicate with other players has been "inflated", it is a given fact that LLP's are chat restricted.
Lack of LLP's ability to communicate was never suggested or intended as justification to standardize the movement and gear scores for participants of random queue content.
Rather complaints about party member movement speeds and gear is the impetus for suggesting standardization...
Two different problems, each with a different suggested proposal for solution - remove the chat restriction for players grouped in a party specifically pertaining to Party Chat - and make everyone's movement speeds and gear scores standardized (as well as nullifying boon enhancements) for every player who chooses to queue for random dungeon/skirmish content.
Players not wanting to hear from HLP's or LLP's while they play, don't join a party where those players are present - People who don't want to have the movement or gear nerfed or increased while in content, don't queue for random queues where that happens... that seems pretty simple and straight forward to me.
Simply choosing to queue does not bring about the conflict, choosing to solo/not full party pre-group and complain that you don't get your way is when the conflict arises. That is directly forcing HLP's away from RQ content in an attempt to have only the LLP's remain which would essentially remove the need for them to pre-group to achieve their at level experience (if that is what they seek) and also promotes that HLP's are the problem. Botting thrives due to CS not cracking down on it in the first place, they are the ones with the tools to take action against negative accounts.
The easiest content to bot can simply be monitored and the accounts that do so (bot) can be actioned against. There's no need to change the entire system to move RAD elsewhere especially to campaign content that many players already loathe, stop doing after they complete and or buyout and skip completely. You don't kill/reduce botting by hurting legitimate players, you simply take responsibility and go after it head on. It is restricted and has also been inflated because the chat restriction does not 100% prevent communication and is continually being argued as if it does. Only those that allow it to completely restrict them fall victim to it.
When new players were suggested to utilize the forums to communicate it was essentially blown off as if it would require copious amounts of effort to do so (make an account, make a post) or some kind of fruitless effort, players gets rewards for linking their game and website account which will aid new players anyway, even though it's right in their face... That's clear evidence of negligence on the part of the players, negligence that impacts them in other ways, smh.
Lack of chat ability is the basis behind a number of arguments... (essentially since we are incapable of grouping without chat and even though we can communicate in other ways change other parts of the game to suit us personally and hinder others) Party chat is not supposed to be restricted even for new players. If the developers fix the bug (if it exists) it will open the door wider for communication, again, and kill the "we/they can't communicate" argument more than it already has been. Why would HLP's want to move slower period? That suggestion is STILL promoting that HLP's are the problem and that suggestion also demonstrates that players that CLEARLY have the ability to prevent themselves from being in a compromising situation, are simply too lazy to do something simple about it and would rather others suffer so they don't have to do something about it themselves. Simple? No. Selfish and overbearing suggestion? All day.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY
"No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Ongoing Issue: Legitmate Players Banned for Botting (Console) and the Future for "Dedicated" Players
Suggestions: (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen
Meanwhile, you have X players queuing private to run Cragmire for rAD.
Pre-random the person that first queued would wait until two other people public queued for Cragmire. Now, with the random in place, the game pulls two other people out of the random queue and drops them into Cragmire to fill the party. Everyone isn't coming into the queues on the same footing. I don't know whether or not the game chooses random dungeons or not just to get bodies out of the random queue. If it does, those people might becoming in more or less on an equal footing.
Even though I might queue into a lower level dungeon, I don't attempt to out run the rest of the members of the party and I don't attempt to dominate the content, just heal, buff or support as needed. In content like the Cloak Tower for instance I can even show lower level and first time players where to pick up the various items needed to assemble those chests at the end of the run. In the Spider King I can tell and show new and less experienced players a few shortcuts to avoid mobs if they wish, things like that.
Saying LLP's won't get the experience they are looking for in dungeons is something I disagree with - here again we are talking about the differences in player behavior, not any fault of the random queue dungeon. Actually that's not forcing anyone into - or out of anything, it's just reallocating the primary source for quantities of astral diamonds... nor would it limit RQ content to lower level players.
HLP's are still free to run dungeons or skirmishes if they want to - just not for loads of quick and easy AD's as the source for quantity AD's will be put on the game campaign maps instead of in dungeon and skirmish content.
Even with a level 70 characters a players should still be allowed to repeatedly run content beginning with the Drowned Shore, Reclamation Rock and/or Spin ward Rise campaigns at least once a day. This would garner the same amount (or cumulative same amount) of AD's they can currently get by doing one dungeon/skirmish, the higher the difficulty of the campaign the greater the AD reward... the only thing it effects is the speed at which those AD's can be farmed. Instead of 4-5 minute dungeon runs, it will possibly take 20-30 minutes (+/-) to complete campaigns in each of these areas and the best part is more players will be able to solo those campaigns without being forced into random groups or parties. I'll pass on any discussion about who's fault it is in regards to bots, I'm of the personal opinion that the fault lies with the people who tend to use that disallowed feature, not the people who fail to identify and act on every instance of botting.
But I still maintain my opinion that it would probably be more difficult for a person to program a bot for fluctuating game area content than it would be for static content like dungeons, but since I have no experience with botting that's just a guess. Again another discussion I don't care to partake in, "other forms of communication", what was previously suggested and such.. but from the information I have lower level players do have chat restrictions and that keeps them from communicating in the standard way. Removing that restriction, just for players in Party Chat would still give LLP's and HLP's or LLP's and LLP's a way to communicate with each other regardless of character level, so long as they are in a party with another player. This discussion isn't about what "Higher level players want", or what lower level players want for that matter. My intention is to try to suggest some kind of compromise... Compromise in that neither party will be completely happy with it - but it provides an unavoidable more fair and workable solution for both parties.
Higher level players complain that they have to contend with slower or more poorly equipped party members, giving lower level players a temporary boost to their movement speed and gear ability solves that problem - Lower level players complain about having to contend with players running off and abandoning them or dominating the content, a temporary reduction in higher level players ability also solves that problem...
Temporarily providing every member of a party entering a random queue with exactly the same movement ability and gear ability is the compromise that in my opinion most fairly address some of the more common complaints of both high level and low level players. Another thing I think I'll refrain from is the negativity and name calling directed at another poster, just because a person disagrees with them or their opinion - that's not the way I roll.
No matter how much you "hold back" or "support" simply being a HLP more capable many times over than the two of them combined helps deny the at-level experience for them. It would be like being on sports team comprised mostly of inexperienced players and one of your teammates is a professional player for that sport, that one player offsets the experience for everyone involved even if they don't "show out" simply by being on the team.
Showing new players where things are essentially is "robbing" them of discovering it for themselves. That's like telling a child what is in a Christmas gift before they open it, it can/does ruin it for them. That is exactly what it would be doing.
Why would the majority of HLP's (or a lot of them for that matter) support a suggestion to rerun maps that they have already completed, let alone why would they run LLC for 0 or a considerably lower reward than currently offered? For the most part they won't and whom will be left to run lower level content? LLP's...
One RQ ND + SK RQ grants 14.5k RAD, that amount would have to be divided amongst the number of maps, dividing it between the EE campaign alone would be 3,625 for each map and since there are other campaigns it would drop even more making it not worth it in the first place, especially in regard to the amount of effort/time to run multiple maps being considerably more than running two RQ's. If the suggestion would grant more RAD than currently provided through the RQ system it would inflate the economy. A lot of extra effort/resources to develop such a system that is quite "wild" to be suggested in the first place as it has been described, especially when it is player behavior that is driving the conflict further than the RQ system itself. What makes more sense, harming the player base as a whole by implementing changes to make botting less profitable or simply cracking down on the bots?
Bots helped ruin unbound enchantments and the removal of the Neverwinter Gateway, etc. which harmed the player base as a whole, instead of cracking down on them the "easy" course of action was taken and the player base suffered because of it yet bots still remain... There is supposedly a bug that causes the chat restrictions to extend into non-public chats which it shouldn't (only public chats were to be restricted). The bug is supposedly causing the issues, fix the bug, fix the issues. Though even with the "bug" there are other forms of communication that players essentially refuse to utilize in the meantime/anyway. Refusal to utilize those options forces the situation to be bigger than what it would be otherwise and on top of that a number of people are using the bugged chat restrictions to falsely support selfish suggestions that will affect far more negatively than they would positively.
Reread the previous posts if you would, when offered solutions they were denied and then the bugged chat was looped back into the suggestions to change the RQ system...
When the chat bug is fixed what will be the excuse of LLP's not being able to pre-form groups to help them escape those nasty HLP's ruining their experience? How would such previous suggestions be supported since the nail in the coffin of supposedly not being able to group (which clearly isn't true) would be banged in further? The argument already sits within quicksand, fix the chat bug and the last tip of it will vanish from sight... You have suggested compromises that require considerable effort to develop and arguably would provide little positive outcome.
LLP's and HLP's are consciously putting themselves into a situation of conflict in regard to RQ's and blaming the other, period, while others are suggesting all sorts of things as solutions when the "problem" at the core is the players within the environment of the game.
The game sets the environment and the capacity of various experiences to be had, the players either constrain the capacity of those experiences further or expand them further than the game natively provides. The suggestion itself was described as selfish and overbearing, where is the name-calling? You weren't "called" selfish nor overbearing, your suggestion was. If you took it personal, that was your choice to do so (not faulting you if you did).
Arguing on the forums is "negativity" though the term "negative" over time has been falsely associated with "bad". Without a negative battery terminal a typical car won't start by turning the key. Without "negative" arguments constructive criticism and expanding possibilities would be limited, if possible at all.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY
"No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Ongoing Issue: Legitmate Players Banned for Botting (Console) and the Future for "Dedicated" Players
Suggestions: (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen
You appear to be trying to make this discussion something else, with your apparent defense of high level players, condemnation of low level players and something akin to: 'pre-queue or just deal with it'.
I have posted my suggestions and feel I have sufficiently supported them with reason. I have nothing further at this time to contribute as it relates to the topic or the initial post so I think I'll just leave it at that.
Since the OP didn't pre-group as well as many other players they get what they get as far as intentions in regard to the other group members the system selects. Pre-group and ensure you can explore without worry, pre-group so you can speed run without worry, so simple of a suggestion though a number of people would rather prefer development that will infringe upon others.
The initial post of this thread was from a neutral position and asked why can't can't HLP's and LLP's pre-group so as not to interfere with the intentions of the other seeing as both don't play nice when in the same sand box.
As the thread progressed others made the claims that it is essentially impossible for newer players to form groups and that LLP's can do nothing whatsoever to help themselves (surprisingly in spite of the OP posting on the forums where players are connected anyway as if others cannot/are not encouraged to explore/utilize the forums), that was argued against as well and the position shifted away from neutral seeing as HLP's were being blamed for the choice of LLP's not to pre-group by any means whatsoever.
If using the forums and or a third party option gets the job done what is the problem (rhetorical)? A simple action(s) for a far greater benefit than not, it states a lot about players themselves that choose not to even try and shape their own experience.
Possible solutions were made, and a number of them were argued against, nothing more, nothing less. Essentially all of the solutions made in this thread that require the developers do not address the core action, or lack thereof that allows the negative experiences to come about.
Personally admire role-playing players, their community exists in spite of games that do not natively support such a community. They do what it takes to ensure that they get the experience that they seek even if it means doing so via unconventional means, comparing them to newer Neverwinter players/those that feel they are essentially helpless in shaping their experience, RPG'ers do what it takes AND get what they want, the others do very little (if anything at all other than complain) and NOT get what they want, anyone see the difference?
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY
"No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Ongoing Issue: Legitmate Players Banned for Botting (Console) and the Future for "Dedicated" Players
Suggestions: (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen
I found that the random dungeons weren't actually as bad as they felt. Of the 50-some players I came across, I only ran into four speed scummers; one afk 70; one painfully slow player (<300 iL dc who kept stepping on leg traps), and just one brand spanking new player. Only about 20% of my dungeon crawls were negative experiences. The rest were fine, and a few were actually a lot of fun - mostly with lower level players.
Aside from the new player, the rest of the lower level players seemed to know their way around. Possibly most of them only join random queues after they've already been through those dungeons already. I doubt many are using the random queues to pick up AD and wrap up a quest at the same time. If most of them know the dungeon already, I don't see how they're missing out on an experience if a higher level player steamrolls everything.
As for speed scummers - the "players" who leave the rest of the team to fight everything so they can go afk by the portal - they're going to have a mostly negative experience with EVERYONE, but frankly - who cares. They have no one to blame but themselves. Nobody's forcing them to run a dozen characters a day. That was a choice they made.
While getting matched with a speed scummer can be annoying since they're essentially an empty slot in the roster, I find they're only really a problem if the other higher level character in the group follows their lead. In that case, the dungeon's going to take a good deal longer to clear, or however long it takes for the slowest/lowest player to either clean up the scummers' mess, quit, or get kicked. Most of the other fast players I encountered were smart enough to either kill everything outright, or to thin the hordes so the slowest member of the group could get to the circle in a timely fashion.
I'd say a little more than half of the players I met were team players, and it's heartening to find so many players on this forum who are the same way. So at the moment, I think I'm okay with the random queues after all. I don't even mind the speed scummers so much any more. Encountering abysmal people from time to time only reminds you how great most other people are.
There is no question that sometimes something like this becomes necessary at times for the continuance of the content, but there also seems to be no question that this feature has been abused against players some considered; to slow, not geared appropriately, not participating in an acceptable manner, etc. when in my opinion the only reasons to implement such a step would be AFK or Disconnected.
It is my opinion that no one (or group) of players should be able to determine what is acceptable for other players in the party to the extent that it denies another player's ability to participate in open or random content.
A lot of players have been calling for quicker kick timers, I personally advocate for no player instigated kicks, except in instances of AFK or Disconnects.
Without the player initiated kick timer used by some players dissatisfied with the 'play-style' of other players, every player is allowed to participate in given content as they wish, speed run-poke around and explore, engage mobs-ignore mobs, pick up drops and chests-ignore drops and chests, whatever...
Players are still able to abandoned any particular content and their party, but they will have an account wide penalty lockout of 30 minutes (there has also been a few 24 hour suggestions) for doing so.
Admittedly may will effect the speed at which content can be completed - but necessarily not the ultimate completion of that content.
Yes newer players may have a harder time communicating due to the chat restrictions (amplified by the "bug" that supposedly applies it to all chats instead of just public ones) though there are other options, the simplest being the forums which players are suggested to explore ANYWAY. If a game account is NOT linked to an Arc account the player will NOT be able to contact customer support, that alone is reason enough to create an Arc/forum account. There's essentially no excuse of not being able to communicate even with restricted/bugged chat.
Newer players choosing not to utilize ANYTHING in regard to communication to help themselves until chat is unlocked (especially something as simple as a Arc/forum account) is self inflicting the resulting negative experiences for the most part and blaming the game is simply "passing the buck".
Currently there is about 6 threads from 2018 in the Player Corner" section of the forums...
An account-wide lockout is not necessary and as it has been presented makes little sense (if any) if a player simply chooses to abandon a queue and switch to another character, the 30 minute abandon penalty for the abandoning character serves it's purpose.
An account-wide lockout WOULD be beneficial in the case of a player trying to queue on multiple characters thus enabling them to illegitimately gain multiple sets of rewards while being AFK. As previously mentioned there is no legitimate reason to queue on multiple characters simultaneously, the system could either kick the previous queued character and apply the 30 minute penalty to it or kick the previously queued character and apply an account wide penalty, personally would prefer the account wide in that case since abuse is more than likely the reason for trying to do so.
Essentially the only thing an account wide lockout would do if it was applied for simply abandoning a queue is put players with additional characters in the same boat as those with only 1 or 2, that is a selfish suggestion all the way around.
If vote-kicking is abused by HLP's wanting the fastest completion time with a LLP present then the vote-kick timer is very well abused by abusers that AFK essentially until the near end of the content as well (both HLP's and LLP's), what's your point?
As previously mentioned a number of your suggestions would punish HLP's and at the same time allow even more abuse. No vote-kick means a player out of spite/AFK could sabotage a run and force another player into the abandon penalty, how is that positive? Giving abusers more freedom and punishing HLP's is not positive for the player base.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY
"No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Ongoing Issue: Legitmate Players Banned for Botting (Console) and the Future for "Dedicated" Players
Suggestions: (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen