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.
I do not believe in the overused argument of no wrong as long as it's implemented this way. Mechanics can be improved, the how is more my concern and which I am open to, just like relogging in Gravitar was fixed. A loophole in the law doesn't mean it should be exploited. I see this more as a loophole. Though that is simply a matter of difference in opinion at this time.
The lack of deterrence makes the clash of interest you noted a canyon to overcome. You say I think one camp is wrong, no, I think there should be a balance. When players make more of an effort to complete an alert together, they may learn better self reliance to better contribute towards a team effort instead, the overall experience or the players themselves for both camps may improve.
I just had an epiphany why punish players for leaving why not take what a leaving player would get as a reward and split it between the players that hang around and complete the alert.
A fair suggestion, but instead of splitting the quitter's, the rewards should instead be increased appropriately for each player that left or scale inversely to the number of players that stayed and completed the alert.
After all, the effort increases significantly when a player drops out. This is also a good motivation/incentive to complete an alert when it is within players' means.
I do not believe in the overused argument of no wrong as long as it's implemented this way. Mechanics can be improved, the how is more my concern and which I am open to, just like relogging in Gravitar was fixed. A loophole in the law doesn't mean it should be exploited. I see this more as a loophole. Though that is simply a matter of difference in opinion at this time.
The lack of deterrence makes the clash of interest you noted a canyon to overcome. You say I think one camp is wrong, no, I think there should be a balance. When players make more of an effort to complete an alert together, they may learn better self reliance to better contribute towards a team effort instead, the overall experience or the players themselves for both camps may improve.
There should not be a deterrence to playing the game. You are not arguing for a general improvement in mechanics, you are arguing that one group's play be taken away from them. This is doubly problematic because it does not provide any inherent benefit to anyone. Its just a penalty for not playing the game the way you want them to.
Telling player A, who has decided that he doesn't want to continue with a particular alert run, that he will be punished for choosing to depart doesn't create a desire to complete the alert.
If it is an alert that can be failed it encourages him to cause it to fail as quickly as possible. If it cannot be failed it may very well encourage him to just go afk to get a drik, use the restroom, alt-tab for a couple of minutes, etc.
Again, the problem is the alert system, punishing one portion of those being negatively affected by the system in the hope that it might benefit a different group that is being negatively affected by the system is way off.
i think a tier or grouping levels 10-20, 20-30 & 31-40 whould be fair enough, strong players tend to leave from weak player groups because the alert is lost from the begin...penaltys are reason for not participate alerts....
There should not be a deterrence to playing the game. You are not arguing for a general improvement in mechanics, you are arguing that one group's play be taken away from them. This is doubly problematic because it does not provide any inherent benefit to anyone. Its just a penalty for not playing the game the way you want them to.
Telling player A, who has decided that he doesn't want to continue with a particular alert run, that he will be punished for choosing to depart doesn't create a desire to complete the alert.
If it is an alert that can be failed it encourages him to cause it to fail as quickly as possible. If it cannot be failed it may very well encourage him to just go afk to get a drik, use the restroom, alt-tab for a couple of minutes, etc.
Again, the problem is the alert system, punishing one portion of those being negatively affected by the system in the hope that it might benefit a different group that is being negatively affected by the system is way off.
^THIS^ is the issue. I agree with this post so hard. (And it has nothing to do with "malice," wingnut...)
If someone wants to leave an alert, it's because they don't want to participate for whatever reason.
Forcing them to stay or be penalized isn't going to make them participate.
Next you're going to want some game mechanic to enforce participation. It will be as screwed up and buggy as the open mission scoring and legit players will get screwed.
A game mechanic to punish a behavior that is caused by poor game mechanics in the first place is coming at the problem from the wrong angle.
Rather than a stick, there should be a carrot. Some way to keep people in alerts regardless of the outcome.
Now consider my proposal again, you incur penalty for leaving an alert 3 times in a 10 mins span. Three 2 mins smashes is all there is time for in 10 mins. Essentially that's abandoning every single alert the player joins. The odd leaver that leaves never has to incur penalty, even if he leaves every 6 mins or twice in a row in 5 mins.
Considering the randomness of alerts, now is that really so much the fault of mechanics for that player or is it the player himself? Discouraging poor behaviour isn't exactly the same as punishing the general player community who leaves alerts every now and then for some reason, which they aren't. There is no forced participation. And I agree encouragement can be a better alternative if it is a good implementation, otherwise, the problem is it can be easily outweighed by a need or want.
Consider the trade scam, ashensnow's earlier post suggest they are not playing the game wrong because they are in perfect accordance with how trading is implemented. But they are, unless the intention was to support scamming. Likewise in this case, the 'leave current instance' though is for convenience or bugged instances but in my perspective not poor behaviour.
I am still hoping to arrive at a solution that discourages alert jumping and encourage participation, not just staying with an alert but avoid the leeching attitude (perhaps percentage rewards bonus through scoring but that's where healing needs to be accounted; added to first post). But the thing is there is no single fix, it may require multiple discourage/encourage mechanism.
Now consider my proposal again, you incur penalty for leaving an alert 3 times in a 10 mins span. Three 2 mins smashes is all there is time for in 10 mins. Essentially that's abandoning every single alert the player joins. The odd leaver that leaves never has to incur penalty, even if he leaves every 6 mins or twice in a row in 5 mins.
Punishing someone inappropriately doesn't become more acceptable because you don't do it as often as you could.
Considering the randomness of alerts, now is that really so much the fault of mechanics for that player or is it the player himself?
Yes it is the fault of the mechanics. If you were talking about a specific player, or a very few specific players, who were choosing to grief people using the current implementation, it might be different. But then again if it were so few it would most likely not be of sufficient impact to merit changing the game for everyone else.
Discouraging poor behaviour isn't exactly the same as punishing the general player community
Correct, but then again we are not speaking of punishing poor behavior, we are speaking of taking access to part of the game away from people because they don't play the way you want them to.
who leaves alerts every now and then for some reason, which they aren't. There is no forced participation. And I agree encouragement can be a better alternative if it is a good implementation, otherwise, the problem is it can be easily outweighed by a need or want.
Consider the trade scam, ashensnow's earlier post suggest they are not playing the game wrong because they are in perfect accordance with how trading is implemented. But they are, unless the intention was to support scamming.
My previous post suggests nothing of the sort. A leave instance button that does exactly what it says it will do...allow you to leave an instance, is very different than the trade scam. By definition trade involves the exchange of goods from both parties. The trade scam bypasses this.
Likewise in this case, the 'leave current instance' though is for convenience or bugged instances but in my perspective not poor behaviour.
Agreed for convenience, such as not having to play through an alert that inconveniences you. I'm not sure what your point is about poor behavior since leaving a flawed or inconvenient instance is not poor behavior, and seems to be what you consider the button for anyway.
I am still hoping to arrive at a solution that discourages alert jumping and encourage participation, not just staying with an alert but avoid the leeching attitude (perhaps percentage rewards bonus through scoring but that's where healing needs to be accounted; added to first post). But the thing is there is no single fix, it may require multiple discourage/encourage mechanism.
Fixing the problem means focusing on the Alerts themselves. So long as attention is directed at the players who are just as negatively affected by the problem (they have to waste just as much, or possibly more, time bouncing from alert to alert trying to find a game that they enjoy as you lose to people leaving alerts) rather than at the source of the problem, the solution will never come.
So long as the response to the situation is, "hey we are both suffering under the current flawed implementation of the Alerts, so I think that we should take access to the game away from you so that I can have it all my way," rather than, "hey we are both suffering under the current implementation of the Alerts, so I think that we should try to fix the flaws in the alerts that are the root cause of the problems," we will never see a solution.
If someone leaves the alert, which makes the alert guaranteed to fail in your eyes.... then just leave and que again. It's what... a minute out of your day?
Do you really want them to implement an elaborate, and potentially very buggy and problem-causing, punishment system so you can save a minute?
Priorities people. Priorities.
Champions Online: Be the hero you wish you could be in a better game.
If someone leaves the alert, which makes the alert guaranteed to fail in your eyes.... then just leave and que again. It's what... a minute out of your day?
Do you really want them to implement an elaborate, and potentially very buggy and problem-causing, punishment system so you can save a minute?
I don't want something like this unless we get teamed with players of the same level tier system that PvP gets. No one should feel the least bit ashamed or be punished for leaving a group of 7s in a 2 minute Smash.
I don't want something like this unless we get teamed with players of the same level tier system that PvP gets. No one should feel the least bit ashamed or be punished for leaving a group of 7s in a 2 minute Smash.
I don't want something like this unless we get teamed with players of the same level tier system that PvP gets. No one should feel the least bit ashamed or be punished for leaving a group of 7s in a 2 minute Smash.
For me, its not even about the levels. Sure, sometimes you check who you're with and do a small face palm when you find your level 25 character is twice as high as next highest level in the group. But i've had successful missions with lower levels provided they stick it out and avoid the stupid.
My pet peeve are the ones that can not avoid the stupid. For example, ran with one the other day. Despite having several melee's and at least one tank. We had to content with "super ranged laser blaster" who instantly grabbed aggro and proceeded to kite the boss around the docks like he was on a mission. I'm not talking tight circles here, oh no. I'm talking around the ENTIRE dock area. Tried lunges, roots, anything possible to nail the boss long enough for melees to get aggro. The tank, honestly tried to get aggro, it just wasn't doable. Comments where made but failed to impress. Mission was a win, but with seconds to spare.
The very next mission. Same guy. and same tactics. Again comments where made. But this time. "super ranged blaster dude" decides the group needs to be punished. So he stops, refuses to block, dies, lays there for the rest of the mission. While informing the group that this is what happens to complainers who question his system
This is just one example of a person that will cause me to drop from a team the next time I see them. There are countless others.
Its not about not trying, or not wanting to hang with the kiddies. Its really about players who play in groups but totally for themselves. Those are not folks I will group with. and should not be punished for it.
For me, its not even about the levels. Sure, sometimes you check who you're with and do a small face palm when you find your level 25 character is twice as high as next highest level in the group. But i've had successful missions with lower levels provided they stick it out and avoid the stupid.
That works except on the timed missions during which most low levels just can't put out enough DPS no matter what powers they have.
__________________________________________________ Our society has traded responsibility for entitlement. It's time for a change.
For me, its not even about the levels. Sure, sometimes you check who you're with and do a small face palm when you find your level 25 character is twice as high as next highest level in the group. But i've had successful missions with lower levels provided they stick it out and avoid the stupid.
My pet peeve are the ones that can not avoid the stupid. For example, ran with one the other day. Despite having several melee's and at least one tank. We had to content with "super ranged laser blaster" who instantly grabbed aggro and proceeded to kite the boss around the docks like he was on a mission. I'm not talking tight circles here, oh no. I'm talking around the ENTIRE dock area. Tried lunges, roots, anything possible to nail the boss long enough for melees to get aggro. The tank, honestly tried to get aggro, it just wasn't doable. Comments where made but failed to impress. Mission was a win, but with seconds to spare.
The very next mission. Same guy. and same tactics. Again comments where made. But this time. "super ranged blaster dude" decides the group needs to be punished. So he stops, refuses to block, dies, lays there for the rest of the mission. While informing the group that this is what happens to complainers who question his system
This is just one example of a person that will cause me to drop from a team the next time I see them. There are countless others.
Its not about not trying, or not wanting to hang with the kiddies. Its really about players who play in groups but totally for themselves. Those are not folks I will group with. and should not be punished for it.
So in your example, the problem lies with the various tanks and melees who couldn't keep aggro - what do you want the ranged guy to do? Sit there and die? How about those tanks and melees hold aggro so the ranged guy doesn't get squashed?
Unless there's a healer or someone who can keep aggro off of the squishies, I don't fault them for trying to stay away.
Now, yes, he probably could have been a bit "tighter" with his evasion, but it's really more about the tanks and melees failing at keeping aggro...
<::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::)xxxxxxxx(:::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> "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
There is a wide difference between a ranged fighter who takes aggro, often by mistake and has to turtle up till the tanks come and take the mob off him. And one that takes aggro simply because they can.
This guy was clearly the later group. He never even tried. He engaged before the melee's even got into lunge range. He ran far enough to even make the other ranged players chase him. It was his game, and the rest of the team really didn't matter one tiny bit to him. He was a solo player in a group.
Quitter penalty for Alerts without a mention of penalty for leechers is such a ridiculously bad idea that it is practically funny. Not denying the fact that such quitters are annoying, however punishing quitters without punishing leechers would mean that players would be punished for refusing to "serve" leechers.
So in your example, the problem lies with the various tanks and melees who couldn't keep aggro - what do you want the ranged guy to do? Sit there and die? How about those tanks and melees hold aggro so the ranged guy doesn't get squashed?
Unless there's a healer or someone who can keep aggro off of the squishies, I don't fault them for trying to stay away.
Now, yes, he probably could have been a bit "tighter" with his evasion, but it's really more about the tanks and melees failing at keeping aggro...
Yes, he should die. If he can't kite correctly, then the better option is to let the boss drop him so he can respawn with a free aggro wipe. If he does his little kiting thing, he dramaticly lowers the dps of everyone else in the group. If he dies, he lowers his own dps for a few seconds while he runs back into the fight.
After all... it's not like dieing is a big deal in this game, so why should we feel bad for suggesting it?
Champions Online: Be the hero you wish you could be in a better game.
Comments
I do not believe in the overused argument of no wrong as long as it's implemented this way. Mechanics can be improved, the how is more my concern and which I am open to, just like relogging in Gravitar was fixed. A loophole in the law doesn't mean it should be exploited. I see this more as a loophole. Though that is simply a matter of difference in opinion at this time.
The lack of deterrence makes the clash of interest you noted a canyon to overcome. You say I think one camp is wrong, no, I think there should be a balance. When players make more of an effort to complete an alert together, they may learn better self reliance to better contribute towards a team effort instead, the overall experience or the players themselves for both camps may improve.
A fair suggestion, but instead of splitting the quitter's, the rewards should instead be increased appropriately for each player that left or scale inversely to the number of players that stayed and completed the alert.
After all, the effort increases significantly when a player drops out. This is also a good motivation/incentive to complete an alert when it is within players' means.
I am very much in support of this idea.
There should not be a deterrence to playing the game. You are not arguing for a general improvement in mechanics, you are arguing that one group's play be taken away from them. This is doubly problematic because it does not provide any inherent benefit to anyone. Its just a penalty for not playing the game the way you want them to.
Telling player A, who has decided that he doesn't want to continue with a particular alert run, that he will be punished for choosing to depart doesn't create a desire to complete the alert.
If it is an alert that can be failed it encourages him to cause it to fail as quickly as possible. If it cannot be failed it may very well encourage him to just go afk to get a drik, use the restroom, alt-tab for a couple of minutes, etc.
Again, the problem is the alert system, punishing one portion of those being negatively affected by the system in the hope that it might benefit a different group that is being negatively affected by the system is way off.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
^THIS^ is the issue. I agree with this post so hard. (And it has nothing to do with "malice," wingnut...)
If someone wants to leave an alert, it's because they don't want to participate for whatever reason.
Forcing them to stay or be penalized isn't going to make them participate.
Next you're going to want some game mechanic to enforce participation. It will be as screwed up and buggy as the open mission scoring and legit players will get screwed.
A game mechanic to punish a behavior that is caused by poor game mechanics in the first place is coming at the problem from the wrong angle.
Rather than a stick, there should be a carrot. Some way to keep people in alerts regardless of the outcome.
Considering the randomness of alerts, now is that really so much the fault of mechanics for that player or is it the player himself? Discouraging poor behaviour isn't exactly the same as punishing the general player community who leaves alerts every now and then for some reason, which they aren't. There is no forced participation. And I agree encouragement can be a better alternative if it is a good implementation, otherwise, the problem is it can be easily outweighed by a need or want.
Consider the trade scam, ashensnow's earlier post suggest they are not playing the game wrong because they are in perfect accordance with how trading is implemented. But they are, unless the intention was to support scamming. Likewise in this case, the 'leave current instance' though is for convenience or bugged instances but in my perspective not poor behaviour.
I am still hoping to arrive at a solution that discourages alert jumping and encourage participation, not just staying with an alert but avoid the leeching attitude (perhaps percentage rewards bonus through scoring but that's where healing needs to be accounted; added to first post). But the thing is there is no single fix, it may require multiple discourage/encourage mechanism.
Fixing the problem means focusing on the Alerts themselves. So long as attention is directed at the players who are just as negatively affected by the problem (they have to waste just as much, or possibly more, time bouncing from alert to alert trying to find a game that they enjoy as you lose to people leaving alerts) rather than at the source of the problem, the solution will never come.
So long as the response to the situation is, "hey we are both suffering under the current flawed implementation of the Alerts, so I think that we should take access to the game away from you so that I can have it all my way," rather than, "hey we are both suffering under the current implementation of the Alerts, so I think that we should try to fix the flaws in the alerts that are the root cause of the problems," we will never see a solution.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
then there should be no penalty for leaving them there when you care not to deal with them. :rolleyes:
My Characters(Archived Post, will repost when time allows)
Side-kick System Compilation Thread
If someone leaves the alert, which makes the alert guaranteed to fail in your eyes.... then just leave and que again. It's what... a minute out of your day?
Do you really want them to implement an elaborate, and potentially very buggy and problem-causing, punishment system so you can save a minute?
Priorities people. Priorities.
Champions Online: Be the hero you wish you could be in a better game.
And, in addition to my own points, this ^^^^
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
Agreed!! :biggrin:
=^ _ ^= Kitty Lives!
For me, its not even about the levels. Sure, sometimes you check who you're with and do a small face palm when you find your level 25 character is twice as high as next highest level in the group. But i've had successful missions with lower levels provided they stick it out and avoid the stupid.
My pet peeve are the ones that can not avoid the stupid. For example, ran with one the other day. Despite having several melee's and at least one tank. We had to content with "super ranged laser blaster" who instantly grabbed aggro and proceeded to kite the boss around the docks like he was on a mission. I'm not talking tight circles here, oh no. I'm talking around the ENTIRE dock area. Tried lunges, roots, anything possible to nail the boss long enough for melees to get aggro. The tank, honestly tried to get aggro, it just wasn't doable. Comments where made but failed to impress. Mission was a win, but with seconds to spare.
The very next mission. Same guy. and same tactics. Again comments where made. But this time. "super ranged blaster dude" decides the group needs to be punished. So he stops, refuses to block, dies, lays there for the rest of the mission. While informing the group that this is what happens to complainers who question his system
This is just one example of a person that will cause me to drop from a team the next time I see them. There are countless others.
Its not about not trying, or not wanting to hang with the kiddies. Its really about players who play in groups but totally for themselves. Those are not folks I will group with. and should not be punished for it.
That works except on the timed missions during which most low levels just can't put out enough DPS no matter what powers they have.
Our society has traded responsibility for entitlement. It's time for a change.
So in your example, the problem lies with the various tanks and melees who couldn't keep aggro - what do you want the ranged guy to do? Sit there and die? How about those tanks and melees hold aggro so the ranged guy doesn't get squashed?
Unless there's a healer or someone who can keep aggro off of the squishies, I don't fault them for trying to stay away.
Now, yes, he probably could have been a bit "tighter" with his evasion, but it's really more about the tanks and melees failing at keeping aggro...
"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
This guy was clearly the later group. He never even tried. He engaged before the melee's even got into lunge range. He ran far enough to even make the other ranged players chase him. It was his game, and the rest of the team really didn't matter one tiny bit to him. He was a solo player in a group.
Yes, he should die. If he can't kite correctly, then the better option is to let the boss drop him so he can respawn with a free aggro wipe. If he does his little kiting thing, he dramaticly lowers the dps of everyone else in the group. If he dies, he lowers his own dps for a few seconds while he runs back into the fight.
After all... it's not like dieing is a big deal in this game, so why should we feel bad for suggesting it?
Champions Online: Be the hero you wish you could be in a better game.