test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Add quitter penalty for alerts
wimpazoid
Posts: 456 Arc User
Proposal 1: Adding a debarment from alerts (scratched)
Proposal 2: A penalty system with benefit of the doubt given, i.e. leavers have their alert bonuses removed on the 1st quit. Furthermore, they take a stacking penalty appropriate to the type of alert they abandon subsequently for repeat offenders.
For example, a player using the ingame option to leave a Smash has his XP bonus removed. No penalty on the 2nd quit, but subsequently suffers a -10% XP deficit on the 3rd quit which stacks up to 3 times and each stack lasts for 10 or 15 mins. The strikes have a timer of 5 minutes before they reset eg. if you haven't quit the same type of alert for 5 mins after your 2nd strike, the counter resets to 0. If you quit the same type of alert after 5 mins after your 3rd strike, you won't get the next stack of penalty. Though your counter resets, the penalty from your 3rd strike remains till it times out. Repeated quits after the 3rd stack before the 5 mins to reset the counter refreshes the most recent penalty stack. Each successful Smash after incurring a penalty stack can negate the ill effects of a single penalty stack, but the penalty timer remains and the XP bonus from the Smash will not kick in until the timer expires.
The penalty to Grabs can be similar where you get decreasing resources with penalty stacks, and Bursts can simply reduce the number of mod rewards in the alert by 1 for each stack until you get no rewards with 3 stacks.
Proposal 3: (originally by man515drake) Motivational Incentive: Rewards should be increased appropriately for each player that left or scale inversely to the number of players that stayed and completed the alert. This provides motivation/incentive to complete an alert when it is within players' means.
Proposal 4: Encourage participation with scoring whereby granting percentage rewards bonuses through participation (to discourage leeching).
Proposal 2: A penalty system with benefit of the doubt given, i.e. leavers have their alert bonuses removed on the 1st quit. Furthermore, they take a stacking penalty appropriate to the type of alert they abandon subsequently for repeat offenders.
For example, a player using the ingame option to leave a Smash has his XP bonus removed. No penalty on the 2nd quit, but subsequently suffers a -10% XP deficit on the 3rd quit which stacks up to 3 times and each stack lasts for 10 or 15 mins. The strikes have a timer of 5 minutes before they reset eg. if you haven't quit the same type of alert for 5 mins after your 2nd strike, the counter resets to 0. If you quit the same type of alert after 5 mins after your 3rd strike, you won't get the next stack of penalty. Though your counter resets, the penalty from your 3rd strike remains till it times out. Repeated quits after the 3rd stack before the 5 mins to reset the counter refreshes the most recent penalty stack. Each successful Smash after incurring a penalty stack can negate the ill effects of a single penalty stack, but the penalty timer remains and the XP bonus from the Smash will not kick in until the timer expires.
The penalty to Grabs can be similar where you get decreasing resources with penalty stacks, and Bursts can simply reduce the number of mod rewards in the alert by 1 for each stack until you get no rewards with 3 stacks.
Proposal 3: (originally by man515drake) Motivational Incentive: Rewards should be increased appropriately for each player that left or scale inversely to the number of players that stayed and completed the alert. This provides motivation/incentive to complete an alert when it is within players' means.
Proposal 4: Encourage participation with scoring whereby granting percentage rewards bonuses through participation (to discourage leeching).
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I would support a strike system for regular quitters. I would not support a one and done system.
@Quincy-St-Moth's PRIMUS page
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
What it comes down to is there is no way to tell *why* someone left, so you are better off not jumping to conclusions...
"Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
So, for me, penalties are bad idea in general.
But lets say, we implement this.So what do you do when you run into players who you simply don't want to group with?
The way the que system works its often possible to run into the same folks more then a few times. So what happens if you pop into an alert and you are stuck with the same clown whos soul contribution to the last alert was hide behind the shipping crates and wait for it to be over?
How about the folks who simply rush in over and over again dying without care, unaware that they are shortening the clock timer. Or what about the trolls, simply going out of their way to wreck alerts out of boredom.
I'm not obligated to group with them. Simply because they happened to get randomly dropped into the group. This game is simply not worth the stress. It really doesn't matter if the player is simply bad, uninformed, or doing it intentionally for jollies. If their play style conflicts enough with your own to cause annoyance or irritation. Do you really want to limit and enforce these forced pairings?
Its not about being superior or elite. Some players or play styles just don't work well. The knock spammer might not annoy my ranged characters, but my melee has to simply deal with it? Shouldn't we be allowed to remove ourselves from these situations without penalty? Isn't it less stressful and conflict free to simply be able to remove ourselves from a poor or incompatible group and look for another?
Because it ALWAYS places you back in the playable area of the alert map, amirite?
Yeah. I can tell you right now, this won't work for just a single alert. I would say it would work for frequent alert droppers, but it really won't work for "Oh, crap. I got bugged out/dc'd/why the crud didn't the game stick me in the alert team?".
I'm willing to bet someone was thinking something very similar to this a while back... "Lets give them the ability to chat ban people that spam too much!"
Objectively, if you're talking about a bug, the bug needs to be addressed, which falls on Cryptic, simple as that.
Just a thought.
And playing by myself since Aug 2009
Godtier: Lifetime Subscriber
Not everyone has access to a premade. Is really the situation premade or deal with it? If that was truly the case why have the que system at all?
Give me one good reason why I HAVE to, why im OBLIGATED to, stay with folks who have demonstrated incompatible play styles. Simply because we both happen to be running similar alerts at similar times.
Yes, no one is obligated to ask for or join a premade from chat, nor stay in a premade when there's no penalty. But PUGing from chat at least allows you that option or others the option to not PUG with you. This whitelisting seems reasonable to those who don't wish to PUG with someone they deem undesirable like you mentioned.
At the same time, prevents someone undesirable from PUGing the queue until they decide to either make the effort to contribute or level up appropriately through missions prior, otherwise let the leechers suffer repeated failures.
This is in the hope to give (or rather push towards the passive) power of choice to players instead of randomness of queue PUGing.
We already have the power. Finding another alert is simple quick and hassle free. And truthfully if enough folks adopt this same mentality. Griefers, leechers, and other problem players might actually find themselves without a group more and more often.
I'm less convinced, however, that cryptic will be able to implement any kind of system that works better then options we already have. Their track record on this has been poor and even less so when you consider player run solutions.
In STO, it's the 1st person who quits, the others are exempted from penalty.
This is what attributes to the leeching mentality.
Hence my edit in brackets before your post about the community being too passive for there to be a change.
My feeling is if I fail an alert no big deal I just queue again. Why do people want alerts to be a definite victory every time and anybody who causes the fail to be punished. Start punishing people and watch people stop doing them because they will fear getting punished just because their gaming gets interrupted.
[SIGPIC]http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd175/Fifer71/mandrakesigmark3.jpg[/SIGPIC]
I'll admit 1 hr like STO is a bit harsh, 20-30mins should curb quitters and leavers. If you did have to do something else, then the shorter penalty won't hinder you for it's full duration. Curbing the majority of undesirable players that hinder alerts can be weighed against the odd quitting due to an emergency. Penalising a leecher for 20 mins as opposed to penalising 4 other players attempting an alert 5 times for 20mins (significantly more wasted for grabs and pyramid power).
1. DCs are not penalised.
2. Failures are not penalised.
I just don't understand your need to punish people and there fore will never agree to this idea.
I mean how would you explain these punishments to people that don't use forums. There is so many problems with this in my simple point of view these out way any need.
[SIGPIC]http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd175/Fifer71/mandrakesigmark3.jpg[/SIGPIC]
They can't even fix the report spammer function.
Further more:
To prevent re-logs from bypassing lockout
People can end up locked out through no fault of their own.
I totally understand what you're saying (and hence my lack of wanting to level my last two FFs) and I do wish there was some sort of penalization for habitual leechers and leavers, but I doubt we'd get anything close to what they have in LoL, and even then they still require a "tribunal".
How, exactly are folks leeching....if they are leaving?
They are leeching nothing.
And if I spend an entire alert dealing with some other player's shenanigans, and I end up stuck with them in the very next alert, I reserve the right to say "Not again" and leave.
You are proposing a punishment for that choice. You are suggesting I do something that isn't fun instead.
Your suggestion gains no points.
That can be true. But if Cryptic can do what it did for STO, in my personal experience, disconnections and relogs have put me back into STFs successfully.
The pitfall I do foresee that makes leaver penalty unfeasible is the short duration of smash alerts where recovering from a dc may mean the alert is already over. Hence my ideal is penalise voluntary leavers (who leave alerts through in game options) as a start.
It's the using of the mechanism to benefit from leeching, to be clear.
And you punish 3 other (possibly good) players with 1 man short, while knowingly leaving them with an undesirable teammate, making you an undesirable player as well. By penalising the 1st leaver, you at least exempt them from quitting the alert you abandoned them with no penalty.
Foremostly, if you PUG, you do not reserve the right to choose your teammates at the expense of other players.
Don't like that player X is running a build that you don't like ? Give him a 30 minute ban.
Don't like that player X's costume is garish ? Give him a 30 minute ban.
Don't like that player X attacked the mob that you wanted to defeat ? 30 minute ban him.
etc.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
Again, if you PUG, you do not reserve the right to choose your teammates at the expense of other players.
I wasn't being sarcastic.
If players are going to be able to influence the banning of others, then it should be universal. If player X is going to be allowed to purposefully act in a fashion that makes the Alert unpalatable to player Y, knowing that if player Y leaves it is Y that will be punished, not the griefer, then the temporary ban system needs to be universal.
A player ALWAYS has the right to decide to not play with someone. If person X is acting in a fashion to prevent the team from winning then player Y can leave. If person X is behaving/messaging in an insulting or offensive manner then player Y can leave.
If you PUG you do not reserve the right to force people to play with you.
The person leaving isnt choosing his teammates, he is choosing not to play the current situation.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
May I suggest a penalty system with benefit of the doubt given, i.e. leavers have their alert bonuses removed on the 1st quit. Furthermore, they take a stacking penalty appropriate to the type of alert they abandon subsequently for repeat offenders.
For example, a player using the ingame option to leave a Smash has his XP bonus removed. No penalty on the 2nd quit, but subsequently suffers a -10% XP deficit on the 3rd quit which stacks up to 3 times and each stack lasts for 10 or 15 mins. The strikes have a timer of 5 minutes before they reset eg. if you haven't quit the same type of alert for 5 mins after your 2nd strike, the counter resets to 0. If you quit the same type of alert after 5 mins after your 3rd strike, you won't get the next stack of penalty. Though your counter resets, the penalty from your 3rd strike remains till it times out. Repeated quits after the 3rd stack before the 5 mins to reset the counter refreshes the most recent penalty stack. Each successful Smash after incurring a penalty stack can negate the ill effects of a single penalty stack, but the penalty timer remains and the XP bonus from the Smash will not kick in until the timer expires.
The penalty to Grabs can be similar where you get decreasing resources with penalty stacks, and Bursts can simply reduce the number of mod rewards in the alert by 1 for each stack until you get no rewards with 3 stacks.
The problem isnt people leaving the Alerts, that is a symptom. If this were happening only rarely then it wouldn't need a fix. If it is happening with sufficient frequency to be noticeable you should be looking for the reason.
Why are people leaving Alerts prematurely ?
The answer tot hat question is the real problem. Fix it, don't seek to punish people for playing in a fashion that doesn't meet your approval.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
I am currently leveling 2 characters, one lvl 17, the other 30, neither have ever left an alert prematurely, regardless of the PUG I have gotten.
So when someone clicks that 'leave current instance' button, that discounts disconnections or logging off for various reasons. What is it that justifies penalising the other players in the alert then? One may not care for the current alert, the others may not care to play with that player too, but leaving forces a disadvantage on the other players is still true.
So far, the argument of failures being a non-issue due to the short duration of alerts is raised but intolerance of player playstyle have also been cited here. What else do players not care to tolerate to resort to leaving? Lowbies, the general playing community or just running into a particular player? Or simply alert jumping for guaranteed wins? If none of the above, could the lack of deterrence be the reason, simply because players can?
I'm not suggesting a punishment for leaving, rather a deterrence for repeatedly leaving alerts in a very short time frame.
Can you tell me why you find some one choosing not to take part in a pug or leaving if they perceive failure to be so bad they must be penalised. Why can't you just do as I do and just move on and let that player do what they want.
I have more problems with players running off and aggroing every thing on the map or knocking the villain out of the reach of the melee tank or melee dps. You won't find me saying these people should be punished just move on.
I also find the best way to punish some one who leaves is succeed in the mission then you get rewards and the knowledge that he chickened out and gets nothing. Alerts can be done by smaller teams if they play as a team.
[SIGPIC]http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd175/Fifer71/mandrakesigmark3.jpg[/SIGPIC]
Though I would like to see a deterrence to this behaviour (note my suggestion does not punish the odd leaver), you make sense. It cost me but the extra time and effort to complete an alert.
Anyway, I have salvaged alerts from map aggro failure numerous times by drawing my target away and letting the offending players wipe. Let them respawn so the mobs withdraw and everyone can focus on the main target or smaller mobs without map aggro. Most of the times not possible had players abandoned the alert due to time wasted if there had been a drop in DPS (mainly recruiting drive/trainstopping).
Therein also lies the problem. Map aggro = Quit. When that happens, players in the same scenario as you can end up wasting the time spent on that alert. I may not be far off in assuming map aggro as one of the reasons behind playstyle intolerance for wanting to quit and why many players have issues with that scenario, since it has been raised.
[SIGPIC]http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd175/Fifer71/mandrakesigmark3.jpg[/SIGPIC]
The rewards don't justify the means.
If it gets boring, people will quit and search for another ingame activity. You want them penalized for seeking fun and failing to find it in these alerts; for debuffs that hinder them to follow them out?
This community is so different now, just like this game.
1) You finish the alert successfully anyways. This can and does happen, even in smash, even with 2 people leaving.
2) You fail the alert.
Okay, now let's go over the possible results of nobody quitting the alert.
1) You finish the alert successfully.
2) You fail the alert.
Now, realistically, result #2 can only happen in Smashes, since Grabs and Bursts are untimed, making them guaranteed successes; the only way you can fail them is if you yourself leave. Smashes are fairly short, generally taking 3 minutes or less, so if someone leaves and you fail the Smash... what have you really lost? A few minutes of time that you were wasting playing a video game anyway?
There really is no basis for a penalty system of any sort. If getting questionite or xp/resources/mods through alerts is so frustrating for you that you feel the need to enact some elaborate system of punishment on other players, you should instead try looking into the other methods that exist to aquire all of these things.
Your reward for dealing with the randomness of the que is that you can get these things faster. No risk, no reward.
Champions Online: Be the hero you wish you could be in a better game.
'the odd alert'? It was a rare Warlord Alert where all 5 got to the bossfight. Usually there was at least 1 dropout. Generally after they faced the big rooms first few knockback into other mob moments. And sure there was one where 2 of us took him down but that involved a very very good tank. There were several times that there was just two dps's left in that room struggling with the jumping-castle of death.
While she has been rescued
what diabolical mastermind
was behind the devious brain-napping of
the Volterrific Dr Cerebellum?
This hasn't been my expirience at all. It was rare that anyone would leave at any point in warlord. In fact, in my expirience it's rare that people leave at all in alerts. This is a fairly small issue, and it would be a waste of time implementing any sort of system to remedy it.
Champions Online: Be the hero you wish you could be in a better game.
You want them penalized because of your inconvenience.
What makes you more important?
Ultimately these are people who, supposedly, wanted to do the alert. I could see that on occasion there would be those who just leave because they can, essentially griefing, trying to make others fail the alert (or at least make the alert more time consuming to complete).
But in order for the matter to be affecting people with sufficient frequency to make this matter a serious problem it would need to be more than that.
If it is more than just a desire to grief others, then effort should be put into fixing that reason, not punishing people for being motivated by it.
The reasons are tied to the implementation of the Alert system. This is a game. People, in many cases, pay to play this game. We have a system where people choose to leave an aspect of the system that they chose to enter. That right there is an indication that there is something wrong behind the scenes. Not with the player, with the system.
People paid to be able to run the Alert, and are choosing to leave rather than continue it. Why ? Fix that why and your problem goes away, and player satisfaction goes up.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
They lack confidence in their own abilities. Cryptic can't fix low self esteem.
Champions Online: Be the hero you wish you could be in a better game.
I think the problem consists of several smaller issues, that when combined, make for a rather unpleasant experience:
1. Large ranges in the levels of players: Yes, the sidekicking boosts lower level players, but it doesn't make up for the lack of better gear or the smaller selection of (sometimes vital) powers. I think the Alerts should be tiered by level, with their difficulty and rewards adjusted accordingly.
2. Confusion about certain key game mechanics, which players may not have been informed about, since they can start doing alerts right after character creation - there could be a mandatory "Alerts tutorial" that one must play through once per account, like how the tutorial is. Some better documentation regarding what the exact victory conditions for each alert type, would also be helpful.
3. Related to #1, setup a tier for, say, 30-40 players, and rework the reward for Smash Alerts if you're level 40 - perhaps have them give 1 R5 mod or something. More importantly, have this tier set the SK level to 40, so level 40's don't lose effectiveness.
4. Revisit the open world scoring system and have the rewards one gets for doing an alert take each player's contribution into account. The key here would be to properly evaluate someone who genuinely contributes via heals and shields, instead of going straight by damage.
"Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
Nah, each and every one of them is a 1337 pwnzor who knows that the rest of us are n00bs that need to L2P.
Joking aside,
I really do not think that the problem is at the player end (with room for the inevitable exceptions).
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
Excellent points.
I think that part of the problem is excessive reliance on rewards as motivation for completing the content. So long as doing Alerts is, to some (perhaps even many ?) at least, a means to an end rather than an end in itself (to some extent) you will have this problem.
Some people are approaching Alerts as a content to enjoy, others as something they have to do to get what they want.
That dichotomy exists in every game that I have played, but never to the raw in your face degree that the Alert system implementation fosters (all opinion of course).
That element combined with the elements you mention make the OP's problem inevitable. The OP's solution suggests his belief that the, "in it for the money," crowd are playing wrong...but their playstyle is in perfect accord with Cryptic's implementation here. Deciding to target one group for playing as they see fit (and as the game is designed) while allowing others to go unpunished is way off.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
The only problem I have with the "enjoying alerts for what they are" vantage point is the time pressure they place on the team doesn't lend itself toward actually being able to take in the experience.
The only exception are the grab alerts, but those all take place in environments we already have access to, so there's nothing new to see there.
I mean, I'm not a huge fan of Demonflame, but there are points where you can just kinda of travel around in the Qliphothic and take it all in.
"Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
It doesn't have to be about stopping and smelling the roses, or "taking it all in." Quick and dirty access to comic book baddies to beat up. Not so much about story and more about action. The time pressure plays into this.
On one hand you have the Silver player trying to farm enough Questionite to buy a FF slot, and on the other you have someone like Smackwell who just likes beating up bad guys.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
A lvl 15 freeform can solo grabs and bursts with ease, even complete Smashes with the counter (not timer) with just 1 or 2 other players. This is however untrue for ATs.
I now come to the realization since a large portion of the vocal community on the forums is or have been subs, our point of view may be slightly biased, or perhaps unmoved by what doesn't affect us.
What then can we do to lessen these inconveniences to (or at least motivate) players so they can have higher success or more pleasant experiences in general?
Since I'm trying to move a discussion to curb repeat offenders and not punish the odd leaver, join in or take your malice elsewhere. Attack the proposal, not the proposer.
Biostem raised good points. Some notes I would add:
To point 1: I have noticed in alerts my characters having higher damage under lvl 30 compared to after. This is consistent across 7 characters I have leveled through alerts. Hence it was always easier to output more DPS or get aggro for me before lvl 30 over high or lvl 40 players. This inherent boost to damage may be a side effect of the mechanics within sidekicking or heirloom gear I'm using. Knowing this, I never discounted any low levels in alerts. This I want to share because I feel many blame in alerts or discount lowbies right off the bat.
2: May help, but honestly, the learning curve should not last long, unless the player deliberately refuse to learn or work with the team (eg. alert jumping to avoid difficult alerts).
3. This I am for, a separate tier for capped or near capped players. This is because I've seen capped players abandon alerts readily when PUGed with low levels or inexperienced players. When you've already capped, there is less tolerance to struggle as if you were a lowbie, or perhaps an inconvenience even to some. And it will bring a more enjoyable experience to players in this tier. I am pro gravitar, 35-40 as a separate tier.
4. For. Hasn't happened. Needs to. But for.