Can't give "Freddy the Freeloaders" the boot...

12346

Comments

  • adamantineangel
    adamantineangel Member Posts: 55 Arc User
    edited February 2018
    chidion said:

    As regular players we don't even have a way to know if a disconnected person disconnected intentionally or through no fault of their own - if they are actually AFK or if they have lag or again having connectivity issues. So I certainly don't think we should suggest another player be "punished" for something that for all intent and purposes may be beyond their control or unintentional.

    Also to consider kicking a person out of a party because that player is not progressing, participating, geared, or inflicting sufficient damage on mobs – I have a problem with that… I don't believe that we as players should suggest anyone be "punished" for their choice of play style whether it be their choice of gear or enchantments or how much damage they deal.

    A lot of what I keep seeing is a few players saying they object to how other players aren't inflicting enough damage, don’t have the proper gear, aren’t wearing the appropriately slotted enchantments and because they disagree with how a player is equipped, moving, enhanced or dealing damage, someone suggests that player is a "freeloader", "leech" or "not participating effectively".

    All of those things are judgment calls... one player trying to determine if another player is moving, fighting, or equipped to their personal satisfaction.

    As far as I’m concerned the only legitimate reason to consider kicking out another player, is if they remain disconnected or appear to be away from the key board for a specific period of time – and that feature is already available and appears to be functioning now.

    No arguments there. All of what you have said is true.

    For the record, I'm not complaining about gearing or damage output. That is not even the point of this thread.

    What I'm complaining about is somebody constantly entering the dungeon and is observed immediately heading to the campfire and disconnecting. In other words:

    1.) a deliberate and intentional act on the part of the player to either avoid a random dungeon they don't want to do, or...
    2.) a deliberate and intentional act on the part of the player to let others fight through the dungeon for them without any participation on their part.

    For example, I was in a Random Dungeon of the Caverns of Karrundax. One player had level appropriate gear and could have successfully run it. The other had poor gear more of Cloaktower quality. Both team-mates headed to the campfire and disconnected immediately leaving me stranded and unable to finish the dungeon.

    I am not adverse to new players or undergeared players. Far from it! You could be an undergeared newbie to the game with the poorest dps going, but I will gladly still run the dungeon with you. However, regardless of my level and gearing, I have no intentions of running the dungeon for you while you sit waiting offline for the team to reach the dungeon's end so you can suddenly reconnect and claim your AD.

    A simple in-game rule or mission objective forcing unscriptable interaction could put a stop to Freddy the Freeloaders, Bots, Leechers and the like.

    Require all players who queue for random dungeons to play through that random dungeon and then interact with an npc conversation in the Protector's Enclave to claim the AD, but only upon the successful completion of that dungeon. (You must meet all dungeon objectives and kill each boss.)

    No play - no pay.
  • chidion
    chidion Member Posts: 422 Arc User
    People have mentioned there is a "leaver's penalty" for anyone intentionally leaving a dungeon... as to whether or not that's true I have no idea since I've never done it... but I do agree when another player intentionally bails on their party at the beginning of a dungeon it does make it more difficult, unless and until another player pops in to take their place.

    I like the idea of each player having to engage in dialogue with a NPC at sometime while running the dungeon and no one being able to progress until a response is received from each character running the dungeon and even though it won’t completely eliminate the problem (the laggard could participate to the NPC then just go AFK after that point).

    I doubt any proposed solution is going to be perfect – but I do like that one.
  • greywynd
    greywynd Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 6,462 Arc User
    There is a 30-minute lockout from the queue system if you bail out.
    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.
  • trinity706#8838
    trinity706#8838 Member Posts: 643 Arc User

    What I'm complaining about is somebody constantly entering the dungeon and is observed immediately heading to the campfire and disconnecting. In other words:

    1.) a deliberate and intentional act on the part of the player to either avoid a random dungeon they don't want to do, or...
    2.) a deliberate and intentional act on the part of the player to let others fight through the dungeon for them without any participation on their part.

    For example, I was in a Random Dungeon of the Caverns of Karrundax. One player had level appropriate gear and could have successfully run it. The other had poor gear more of Cloaktower quality. Both team-mates headed to the campfire and disconnected immediately leaving me stranded and unable to finish the dungeon.

    I am not adverse to new players or undergeared players. Far from it! You could be an undergeared newbie to the game with the poorest dps going, but I will gladly still run the dungeon with you. However, regardless of my level and gearing, I have no intentions of running the dungeon for you while you sit waiting offline for the team to reach the dungeon's end so you can suddenly reconnect and claim your AD.

    No play - no pay.

    Right on.

    Intentionally avoiding participation is a no go.

    --+-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ General Statement +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+--

    Would anyone expect: A body builder to struggle carrying light loads? A mathematician at a math competition? A mechanic performing routine maintenance on a vehicle? A healthy person about two blocks from their job to consistently be late for work?

    Those examples are people with the credentials to effective perform within a particular realm. Same with Neverwinter, once a player reaches particular level ranges others would normally expect them to reasonably perform at those levels. A HLC with basic equipment in skirmishes is quite and reasonably questionable. A 14k+ DPS character with high rank bondings, etc. being flattened by a 7k with no bondings at all is considerably ridiculous. LLC's disconnecting at the start of content, etc. If those things happen sparingly, the benefit of the doubt can be given here and there though when they happen consistently, coming to the logical conclusion of intentionally under-performing is not farfetched. If not then it is being implied that seemingly all/the majority of the cases are a result of bad internet connections, really?

    How convenient would it be for the "majority" of immediate disconnects to be done by LLC's and or the under performing in skirmishes of HLC's to be due to internet connections?

    When a jury is deciding a verdict they do not know for sure if the defendant did whatever they were alleged to have done, they go over the evidence and go by what it suggests. In Neverwinter a judgment call by a player(s) based on reasonable/rational thinking and absent of malicious intent is just, a judgment call based on unreasonable/irrational thinking coupled with malicious intent is not.

    Vote-kicking a disconnected character or one simply standing in the same spot minute after minute is just, vote-kicking
    a character that is moving is not. The only choices are AFK, disconnected and harassment, a moving character cannot be doing the first 2 nor the third if they aren't chatting (unless of course they are moving in and out of the gather your party circle or something like that).

    When a "player's" choice of play style negatively effects the rest of the group due to their own negligence of their character(s) that is a problem. When players choose to utilize multiple characters for group content it is their responsibility to properly equip those characters so that they can effectively participate as best they can.
    chidion said:

    I like the idea of each player having to engage in dialogue with a NPC at sometime while running the dungeon and no one being able to progress until a response is received from each character running the dungeon

    That is NOT what was suggested. It was suggested to happen AFTER the content has been completed, not during...
    “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
    Community Project: Neverwinter "RNG" Database

    Suggestions: Allow Guilds More Administrative Options \/\/ "Auto" Identify Items/"Auto-Load"/Refinement Sorting+ (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen \/\/ Character - "Legacy" Items
  • chidion
    chidion Member Posts: 422 Arc User
    edited February 2018
    greywynd said:

    There is a 30-minute lockout from the queue system if you bail out.

    That's per character isn't it?

    Easily circumvented for players with multiple characters I'm thinking... Just temporaraly abandon one character, run an alt and come back to the previous character after 30 minutes.

    Now a 30 minute lockout for all of the characters on a player's account, I bet that would discourage a lot of people from intentionally bailing in a dungeon or skirmish.


    chidion said:

    I like the idea of each player having to engage in dialogue with a NPC at sometime while running the dungeon and no one being able to progress until a response is received from each character running the dungeon

    That is NOT what was suggested. It was suggested to happen AFTER the content has been completed, not during...
    During a run or at the end, it seems to make little difference, except implementing it at the end seems a little redundant since all party members have to be at the final boss gate before it activates anyway... but it might solve the "bot" problem if the player is required to give a correct response, instead of a random response since a random response is also programmable.

    "NPC: What is 1+1?" or "3-1"...
    "Player: (the correct response is) "2", just have the responses (between 1-3) in random order.
  • greywynd
    greywynd Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 6,462 Arc User
    chidion said:



    That's per character isn't it?

    Easily circumvented for players with multiple characters I'm thinking... Just temporaraly abandon one character, run an alt and come back to the previous character after 30 minutes.

    Now a 30 minute lockout for all of the characters on a player's account, I bet that would discourage a lot of people from intentionally bailing in a dungeon or skirmish.

    Which was why I suggested elsewhere a 24-hour leaver penalty on the account.
    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.
  • trinity706#8838
    trinity706#8838 Member Posts: 643 Arc User
    After the dungeon makes the difference being that doing so within the dungeon before completion artificially halts progress. If all players have to respond before continuing and one or more are AFK/disconnected then further progress cannot be made, at least with a legitimate vote-kick, the rest of the group can be at the end then continue, forcing the rest of the group to suffer causes more problems than alleviation.

    "Bad internet" is too convenient of an excuse because it can be claimed by anyone at anytime whether it is actually the case or not.

    Accounts with repeat legitimate vote kicks (and those that continually illegitimately vote-kick players) and or reports of botting, etc. separated from the positive players in regard to queues would help remove that many negative accounts from affecting positive ones.

    Once the account is flagged and multiple vote kicks confirmed it's queues would search for other "lower ranked" accounts first then if nothing else after a few iterations to search for similarly ranked accounts the system would then try the positive player pool.

    No hoops for legitimate to jump through, no extra tasks that can be botted/scripted causing the extra effort of creating to go to waste.

    With a system such as that it will utilize CS whose responsibility includes investigating reports anyway...
    “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
    Community Project: Neverwinter "RNG" Database

    Suggestions: Allow Guilds More Administrative Options \/\/ "Auto" Identify Items/"Auto-Load"/Refinement Sorting+ (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen \/\/ Character - "Legacy" Items
  • greywynd
    greywynd Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 6,462 Arc User
    There is a prompt; all the check boxes for all random content is locked.
    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.
  • armadeonx
    armadeonx Member Posts: 4,952 Arc User
    The new system obviously does encourage bots & leechers and the penalty system is the thing that really enforces it. Players wouldn't have nearly as big an issue if they were able to simply quit the run and re-queue. This is the part that holds legitimate players hostage to these tactics.

    However, for me the core of the problem is the serious disincentive for geared players to queue for Epic Dungeons. Previously I would arrange guild runs using private queue, where we'd take anyone who wanted to come along.

    I have a 17k pally and a 15k cleric so I am up to the task of being the only support class in a 5 man team and would grab 4 willing guildies (of any class) and run 2x dungeons and 2x skirmishes as a mini 'guild event' that not only allowed our members to get their daily AD but also get onto their mics and do something together.

    Now it is generally faster and more profitable to run multiple alts in random teams. We have lost a communal activity as well as a form of freedom of choice. People now only form 5 man dungeon runs after they've done their dailies - which means that those with less time never get to participate in guild runs.

    The real cap on this is the high probability of getting a T3 dungeon. This is a serious disincentive for players to queue for REQ. I would love to see the participation report that shows the number of players now queuing for epics compared to before the change, I would bet real money that the numbers have plummeted.

    I cannot see how this is a win for either Cryptic or the players.
    Please Do Not Feed The Trolls

    Xael De Armadeon: DC
    Xane De Armadeon: CW
    Zen De Armadeon: OP
    Zohar De Armadeon: TR
    Chrion De Armadeon: SW
    Gosti Big Belly: GWF
    Barney McRustbucket: GF
    Lt. Thackeray: HR
    Lucius De Armadeon: BD


    Member of Casual Dailies - XBox
  • chidion
    chidion Member Posts: 422 Arc User
    I've seen 24 hour and 48 hour leaver penalties suggested and even though I myself am in favor of lever penalties tend to think that may be a little excessive...

    I was thinking something along the lines of 2-4 hours myself, as long as the ban was account wide and didn’t only apply to one character in a player’s account.

    To address the kick issue, personally I think the mechanics we currently have in place for a group to kick a player is adequate (not perfect, but I doubt anything ever will be), however I think allowing a character – or possibly account wide 2-3 ‘kicks’ in a 24 hour period limit, is a good idea…

    Any player can initiate a vote to kick for reasons they believe necessitates it, but they can only do so two or three times before they have to wait a full day cycle to initiate any more kick votes.

    This in my mind would address the ‘serial kicker’, anyone who thinks it’s a good idea to kick another player out of a dungeon simply for not moving fast enough or not wearing gear to meet another player’s standards, etc. as most players will probably want to save their kick votes for what I consider more legitimate reasons like another player being disconnected or appearing to be AFK, something that is actually disrupts game play – not just the expediency with which a player is able to collect their AD’s.

    There appear to be a lot of ideas for suggested improvements and in the end I suspect if the Developers are going to do anything they will have to sift through a bunch of them to try to come up with something they believe is fair and workable for the majority of players.
  • dafrca#4810
    dafrca#4810 Member Posts: 469 Arc User
    edited February 2018
    chidion said:

    Considering there are several thousands of players and even if one player experiences multiple disconnects, unless they are repeatedly or "consistently" from the same players, what's to understand - that more than a few players might be experiencing "legitimate" disconnect problems?

    The key reason I do not believe most are legit server/internet issues is a simple one. Pre-RQ I saw/ran with maybe a dozen disconnects over several months. The few disconnects happened at various locations in the dungeon. Some at the start, but most were somewhere in the middle of the dungeon. In some cases I would get a "Sorry" note later.

    Now with the RQ it is about 1 in three RQs and 99% are within the first 30 seconds of the RQ and always at the first opening camp fire. It is the pattern and % increase that drives my opinion. Can I prove that these are folks side stepping the leaver punishment or as others have said, come back in later? No I can't prove it. But what I do know is the change in RQ should not impact the location and timing of real disconnects.

    I respect that you are trying to defend the one or two real folks, but this is so far out of control that to do nothing is worse.

  • chidion
    chidion Member Posts: 422 Arc User
    edited February 2018

    chidion said:

    Considering there are several thousands of players and even if one player experiences multiple disconnects, unless they are repeatedly or "consistently" from the same players, what's to understand - that more than a few players might be experiencing "legitimate" disconnect problems?

    The key reason I do not believe most are legit server/internet issues is a simple one. Pre-RQ I saw/ran with maybe a dozen disconnects over several months. The few disconnects happened at various locations in the dungeon. Some at the start, but most were somewhere in the middle of the dungeon. In some cases I would get a "Sorry" note later.

    Now with the RQ it is about 1 in three RQs and 99% are within the first 30 seconds of the RQ and always at the first opening camp fire. It is the pattern and % increase that drives my opinion. Can I prove that these are folks side stepping the leaver punishment or as others have said, come back in later? No I can't prove it. But what I do know is the change in RQ should not impact the location and timing of real disconnects.

    I respect that you are trying to defend the one or two real folks, but this is so far out of control that to do nothing is worse.

    Yes the disconnect problem does seem to be more prevalent recently, however I'm not just attempting to protect players who are disconnected through no fault of their own but other players who are subjected to players who intentionally disconnect then try to reconnect to the same instance and queue, that is why I proposed not allowing any disconnected player to reenter the same queue they disconnected from - regardless of their reason for disconnecting.

    For players who have been legitimately disconnected through no fault of their own it will be at worse an inconvenience - for players who intentionally disconnect with the intention or reconnecting later after most of the heavy lifting is done it completely negates the possibility they rejoin a queue they didn't participate in and thus their reason for intentionally disconnecting in the first place.

    chidion said:

    I've seen 24 hour and 48 hour leaver penalties suggested and even though I myself am in favor of lever penalties tend to think that may be a little excessive...

    I was thinking something along the lines of 2-4 hours myself, as long as the ban was account wide and didn’t only apply to one character in a player’s account.

    To address the kick issue, personally I think the mechanics we currently have in place for a group to kick a player is adequate (not perfect, but I doubt anything ever will be), however I think allowing a character – or possibly account wide 2-3 ‘kicks’ in a 24 hour period limit, is a good idea…

    Again, any attempt to punish leavers excessively or punish them account wide will just make them stay and this will punish legit players more.

    Limiting the number of kicks per day to accounts will be completely unfair to people with lots of alts while giving people with just one character a lot more ability to kick than they do now.

    One point on the whole kicking under geared players topic, this is not what happens. If you have alts you dont waste time on dungeons/skirmishes with fail players in them. It is far quicker to leave and start the next dungeon/skirmish than waste your time waiting to kick. My philosophy here is let some one else carry the scummy players as I wont be doing it.
    If a player tries to stay instead of taking a penalty for leaving and they are disrupting the content, they can still be kicked out by other party members following the allotted time to do so… and given the number of legitimate players –vs– those who would I think attempt to leave (or stay but not participate) if the random queue doesn’t meet their expectations, is probably going to result in them being kicked out repeatedly even if there was a limit to how many times an individual player can initiate a kick vote.

    I don’t think a 2-4 hour cooldown period for leaving a queue or limiting a player’s ability to kick someone out to 2-3 times a day, per account excessive, nor punitive to players with multiple character accounts, but it will I believe make players more choosey about their reasons for thinking they should just leave a queue or try kick out another player.

    And there is no great imposition to my way of thinking for most HLP's players to “carry a scummy player” as you put it, especially since most of those players complaining are probably capable of soloing most of the content anyway… Some players just appear to be overly concerned with how others play and too little concerned about how they play.

    Essentially what it seems to me some players have been saying is if they don’t want to do something, like run with other players they consider “scummy” and want to bail on the rest of the party by disconnecting or just not participating – they want to be able to do that without any penalty… I personally hope that never happens.
  • trinity706#8838
    trinity706#8838 Member Posts: 643 Arc User
    edited February 2018
    chidion said:

    Considering there are several thousands of players and even if one player experiences multiple disconnects, unless they are repeatedly or "consistently" from the same players, what's to understand - that more than a few players might be experiencing "legitimate" disconnect problems?

    That both cases are mixed together and the illegitimate ones are protected by the current system. If all disconnects are punished in some way it won't matter who is who and it will discourage doing so intentionally.
    chidion said:

    That's why I suggested a long time ago if a player is disconnected legitimately or not, that player is kept from being able to re-enter the same dungeon because of programmed mechanics which will be the same for everyone, not player's choice based on personal opinion.

    While in part that can work and would be a step in the right direction it doesn't do anything for the players that simply sit AFK until the end. Currently if a character is AFK a player must wait until the kick timer is done and initiate a VK (vote-kick) which they would be unable to do utilize again for 4 hours...
    macjae said:

    The current VK system is also too protective in general, and the minimum time required in an instance is enough to either ruin certain content (AFKing in PvP especially) or allow people to leech without repercussions (many skirmishes) because it'll be over before they can be kicked. There shouldn't be a minimum time required to kick someone. If you are queued for something, that means you should be ready to play and do your part

    Indeed.

    VK'ing in itself isn't the issue (to incur a 4 hour timeout), it is how they are utilized. Legitimate VK's essentially shouldn't be limited as they currently are (if at all) and should also incur some sort of penalty to the kicked as to prevent those that get a queue that they don't want from sabotaging the group trying to force someone to kick them and being able to immediately re-queue. If CS reviewed VK's and discover a player is initiating immoral VK's that pass an increasing VK timeout can be put on the account for each offense (up to 4 hours?).

    Those that abuse VK's shouldn't be able to use it as much as those that do not (if at all) while those that morally utilize the VK system should be able to continue to do so without having to strategize when and where to initiate a VK and risk being be out of ammo when they come across another negative player or just suffering through the presence of a negative player.

    The key reason I do not believe most are legit server/internet issues is a simple one. Pre-RQ I saw/ran with maybe a dozen disconnects over several months. The few disconnects happened at various locations in the dungeon. Some at the start, but most were somewhere in the middle of the dungeon.

    Now with the RQ it is about 1 in three RQs and 99% are within the first 30 seconds of the RQ and always at the first opening camp fire. It is the pattern and % increase that drives my opinion.

    I respect that you are trying to defend the one or two real folks, but this is so far out of control that to do nothing is worse.

    The difference between frequency before and after RQ's is night and day.
    macjae said:

    There are clearly legitimate reasons why a player should want to switch to a different character temporarily -- grabbing some enchantments or other gear they need and forgot or left on another character, for example. So instantly kicking someone isn't really an option either.

    Actually it is.

    Preparing a character before RQ'ing is the responsibility of the player, not the rest of the group that is ready to start to wait on them. :smile:
    chidion said:

    Some players just appear to be overly concerned with how others play and too little concerned about how they play.

    Commenting about players AFK'ing/intentionally disconnecting to avoid participating but not to also avoid rewards which they often come back for, seeing max or almost max level characters with basic equipment/empty equipment slots (not referring to missing enchantments), HLP's being outperformed by much, much lower ilvl characters, etc. is not being overly concerned. They are repeat observations of actual/potential abuse of the game.

    As others have mentioned slow characters are not the problem, AFK/disconnected ones are since although sometimes legitimate a lot of the time they are not and that type of behavior currently only comes with a consequence if the character is SUCCESSFULLY VK'ed, even then the initiator of a legitimate VK gets a 4 hour VK timeout...

    A few extra minutes here and there over multiple runs for them to reach the purple circle is acceptable, not being able to continue/start content due to negative behavior isn't. Not all players share the ignorant "hatred" of LLC's simply because they are lower level. A lot of LLP's are actually newer players though they effectively participate within their potential though a number of them are simply HLP's cheesing rewards by intentionally not effectively participating on intentionally under-equipped additional characters, some even have the nerve to cheese rewards on a HLC by not effectively participating.

    --+-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ General Statement +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+--

    Players are the ones in game going through the motions and encountering the pitfalls of negative payers therefore positive players need tools to help protect their experience as well as others from negative players while CS keeps a watchful eye out for abuse.

    What sense does it make for the VK timeout to be 8 times longer than the leaver penalty?...
    “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
    Community Project: Neverwinter "RNG" Database

    Suggestions: Allow Guilds More Administrative Options \/\/ "Auto" Identify Items/"Auto-Load"/Refinement Sorting+ (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen \/\/ Character - "Legacy" Items
  • chidion
    chidion Member Posts: 422 Arc User
    edited February 2018
    The AFK issue is already handled with the ability of other party members to vote to kick them for being away from the keyboard after a period of time- so I consider this a non issue.

    I would gladly incur a 24 hour cooldown period for initiating kick for a couple of bona fide AFK or disconnected party member, and since I will likely be queued with other players who don't appreciate AFK or disconnected players chances are I wouldn't even have to use my limit of kick initiation - but what I wouldn't want to do is incur that penalty simply for trying to kick out players who don't appear to be playing the way I think they should.

    Even though the limited to 2 per 24 hour kick limit it is not my idea, I still think it is a very good idea and more importantly a fair one.

    Something to keep in mind is a lot of the people responsible for the operations side of the game are also players... Much of what regular players say they've witnessed, the operational side people have seen as well so their decision to do something - or not - is rarely based on player complaints alone but also their impression of the validity of some of those complaints.
  • asterotg
    asterotg Member Posts: 1,742 Arc User
    chidion said:

    The AFK issue is already handled with the ability of other party members to vote to kick them for being away from the keyboard after a period of time- so I consider this a non issue.

    I would gladly incur a 24 hour cooldown period for initiating kick for a couple of bona fide AFK or disconnected party member, and since I will likely be queued with other players who don't appreciate AFK or disconnected players chances are I wouldn't even have to use my limit of kick initiation - but what I wouldn't want to do is incur that penalty simply for trying to kick out players who don't appear to be playing the way I think they should.

    Even though the limited to 2 per 24 hour kick limit it is not my idea, I still think it is a very good idea and more importantly a fair one.

    Something to keep in mind is a lot of the people responsible for the operations side of the game are also players... Much of what regular players say they've witnessed, the operational side people have seen as well so their decision to do something - or not - is rarely based on player complaints alone but also their impression of the validity of some of those complaints.

    It is not. You might run content on one character and be fine with this, but others have a multitude of geared characters, so they would run out of votes after a few runs.

    A few more words.

    Ppl running private que was no exploit. If I can solo or duo a dungeon, why on gods green earth should I be forced to group up with more players? I know, that this is a social game MMORPG etc, but seriously, it should be my choice, who I want to run with and when I want to run with other players.

    If ppl group up and test in a premade group, if they could exploit the system by changing their character, so they can form a valid opinion, they are not "part of the problem", but trying to gather facts, to validate their suspitions.

    The fact, that I CAN carry a group does not give me the obligation to carry them. This is a game. It should be fun for ALL players. It is no fun, to waste your spare time carrying a buch of RAD farming leechers with 200 IL who cant be bothered to gear up or even pretend to try contribute. If cryptic would try to FORCE me or other players, to stick with these players by handing out account wide 24h penalties or further limiting our ability to kick these players, I would either stop playing at all or stop running random. I know a multitude of geared players, who dont use random que at all, as it is.

    Some players said, that geared players just see things from their perspective. Please elaborate, why a lvl 70 char in random skirmishes has to be able to que with 200 IL. He is allowed,to do so, yes, I know, but if you are not running just to leech RADs from other players (by forcing them, to complete the skirmish for you), there is no reason, to do so. Just spending e few thousand AD and a few minutes would give you better gear and a few thousand IL.
    Chars: CW, DC, GF, GWF, HR and TR.
  • trinity706#8838
    trinity706#8838 Member Posts: 643 Arc User
    asterotg said:

    The fact, that I CAN carry a group does not give me the obligation to carry them. This is a game. It should be fun for ALL players. It is no fun, to waste your spare time carrying a buch of RAD farming leechers with 200 IL who cant be bothered to gear up or even pretend to try contribute.

    Please elaborate, why a lvl 70 char in random skirmishes has to be able to que with 200 IL. He is allowed,to do so, yes, I know, but if you are not running just to leech RADs from other players (by forcing them, to complete the skirmish for you), there is no reason, to do so. Just spending e few thousand AD and a few minutes would give you better gear and a few thousand IL.

    Right on.

    Pretty much agreed with all your points (iffy on one in particular).

    Nonetheles if the developers created a system where for the most part negative players (bots, leeches, AFK farmers, etc.) were much less likely to be grouped with legitimate players do you feel the RQ system would be more acceptable?

    As some have stated, those that are lower ilvl and contribute the best they can aren't the issue, it's the one's cheesing the system for their own benefit by forcing their share of the effort onto the rest of the group.
    “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
    Community Project: Neverwinter "RNG" Database

    Suggestions: Allow Guilds More Administrative Options \/\/ "Auto" Identify Items/"Auto-Load"/Refinement Sorting+ (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen \/\/ Character - "Legacy" Items
  • chidion
    chidion Member Posts: 422 Arc User
    edited February 2018
    In the instances of higher level players being queued with lower level or lesser geared players or instances where level 70 characters were "forced" to carry other players in their party, were those level 70 and higher level players able to collect their AD reward at the end?

    I think probably they were, so the real problem isn't about not being able to collect the AD reward, but not being able to collect it quikly or easily enought for the few who keep complaining about low level and lesser geared players.

    In one sentence people say they can and have run the content solo in another sentence they complain because lesser geared or lower level players inhibit them from running the contentm when in reality the only thing those players inhibit is their ability to grab their AD's fast enough for their satisfaction.

    The ability to kick a player, is still in place so a bot, leech, AFK'er or whatever can still be Kicked from the party but perhaps not quickly enough to satisfy those in a rush to collect their astral diamonds...

    And since from what I see the primary complaint isn't about other people hampering some players from eventually getting their astral diamonds - but hampering their able to get their astral diamonds fast enough by their estimation - I pretty much consider this a 'non issue' personally.
  • asterotg
    asterotg Member Posts: 1,742 Arc User
    chidion said:

    In the instances of higher level players being queued with lower level or lesser geared players or instances where level 70 characters were "forced" to carry other players in their party, were those level 70 and higher level players able to collect their AD reward at the end?

    I think probably they were, so the real problem isn't about not being able to collect the AD reward, but not being able to collect it quikly or easily enought for the few who keep complaining about low level and lesser geared players.

    In one sentence people say they can and have run the content solo in another sentence they complain because lesser geared or lower level players inhibit them from running the contentm when in reality the only thing those players inhibit is their ability to grab their AD's fast enough for their satisfaction.

    The ability to kick a player, is still in place so a bot, leech, AFK'er or whatever can still be Kicked from the party but perhaps not quickly enough to satisfy those in a rush to collect their astral diamonds...

    And since from what I see the primary complaint isn't about other people hampering some players from eventually getting their astral diamonds - but hampering their able to get their astral diamonds fast enough by their estimation - I pretty much consider this a 'non issue' personally.

    Well, you are wrong in your estimation of the situation. If you have one or two hours to play and you lose half an hour to bots etc its not just an inconvinience.

    Have you ever run EGWD, FBI or MSP? While VT, ELOL etc can more or less be soloed by an geared player these instances are in 99% of the runs a fail, if 4 of the 5 players are barley above min IL. Add TONG in the next Module and you can go for the leavers penalty in one more dungeon.

    While some long time players can take the penalty and change character multiple times, most players have one or maybe two chars they can and want to run random dungeons with. Two unlucky breaks and they can wait for half an hour or start playing another game.

    Chars: CW, DC, GF, GWF, HR and TR.
  • greywynd
    greywynd Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 6,462 Arc User
    And those that disconnect/switch characters are being selfish HAMSTER leaving the other people hanging out to dry. Man up and take the leaver or stay and put in the effort.
    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.
  • chidion
    chidion Member Posts: 422 Arc User
    edited February 2018
    asterotg said:



    Well, you are wrong in your estimation of the situation. If you have one or two hours to play and you lose half an hour to bots etc its not just an inconvinience.

    Have you ever run EGWD, FBI or MSP? While VT, ELOL etc can more or less be soloed by an geared player these instances are in 99% of the runs a fail, if 4 of the 5 players are barley above min IL. Add TONG in the next Module and you can go for the leavers penalty in one more dungeon.

    While some long time players can take the penalty and change character multiple times, most players have one or maybe two chars they can and want to run random dungeons with. Two unlucky breaks and they can wait for half an hour or start playing another game.

    So if a player only has one or two hours to play a game and are not able to do so, that's not an inconvenience?

    First of all, the word "play" and a reminder - this is a still a game, not a life or death or even a real life situation here.

    I don't think I'd try to convince anyone that not being able to run characters through a game dungeon is any thing other than an inconvenience – at least not if I wanted them to take me seriously.

    As you say, "most players have "one or two characters" and most of the random runs I’ve ever been in, lasts no more than five to fifteen minutes on average, even with other players who may not have good gear or enhanced speed (since EGWD, FBI or MSP, VT, and ELOL are not random dungeons, I just ignore those references for the time being) I still don’t see why a player wouldn’t be able to run “one or two characters” through random dungeons in a couple of hours without having to leave or try to kick someone out.

    For people with many alt characters who want to try to run all of their characters through random dungeons as quickly as possible to collect their astral diamond and will try to leave or want to kick out a players because they think that another player’s speed, play style or gear, would keep them from getting their astral diamonds quickly enough, as far as I'm concerned they are exactly the kinds of players that I believe makes the 2 kick per day limit and the 4 hour leaver penalty a good idea.
  • trinity706#8838
    trinity706#8838 Member Posts: 643 Arc User
    chidion said:

    were those level 70 and higher level players able to collect their AD reward at the end?

    If at your job you were to paid at some point on Friday's and you would sometimes get paid on Saturday, the following Monday, etc. because the manager was loafing around instead of distributing the checks would you simply be ok with it because you eventually got paid?

    There are MULTIPLE complaints being made here not just one as you seemingly for some reason are trying to incorrectly boil things down to. You are taking the argument of one/maybe a few people and applying it to everyone else as if they all have made the same argument which clearly is not the case. Address those that have made that particular argument and not apply it to those that haven't.

    That argument is essentially "to hell with LLP's". Granted if that argument is based on repeat offenses by LLC's then it is in part warranted, in part being that the argument simply didn't come from thin air (granted that this does NOT excuse any prejudice against LLP's simply because they are LLP') though simply treating LLP's negatively even though they have not exhibited negative behavior isn't. Simply being prejudice against LLP's is a totally different monster.

    You are also agreeing with/suggesting something(s) that while would help prevent prejudice against LLP's it would more so prevent the effective displacement of negative players (2-3 kick/day account limit).
    chidion said:

    so the real problem isn't about not being able to collect the AD reward, but not being able to collect it quikly or easily enought for the few who keep complaining about low level and lesser geared players.

    A number of people here have in so many words clearly stated slower characters and longer runs due to them are NOT a problem and that is those that intentionally sabotage the group so that they can be VK'ed and not receive the leaver penalty and or run under equipped characters or are AFK/disconnected and the rest of the group does the work while they can later come and collect the rewards that ARE the problem.

    When you can't complete content not because a character is moving slower but because they are AFK for whatever reason(s) that is a problem plain and simple. Also players having to spend it waiting on negative players is also a problem (especially for those with more limited play time).
    chidion said:

    in another sentence they complain because lesser geared or lower level players inhibit them from running the contentm when in reality the only thing those players inhibit is their ability to grab their AD's fast enough for their satisfaction.

    IG, PoM, TotDG and MPF can NOT be started if a character is sitting there AFK until they either abandon, enter the circle or someone VK's them while whether they are lesser geared or not doesn't matter at that time.
    chidion said:

    The ability to kick a player, is still in place so a bot, leech, AFK'er or whatever can still be Kicked from the party but perhaps not quickly enough to satisfy those in a rush to collect their astral diamonds...

    AFTER the kick timer expires which still means waiting on negative players...

    In MotH and DL the content is pretty much over before the timer expires making the VK option useless there...
    “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
    Community Project: Neverwinter "RNG" Database

    Suggestions: Allow Guilds More Administrative Options \/\/ "Auto" Identify Items/"Auto-Load"/Refinement Sorting+ (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen \/\/ Character - "Legacy" Items
  • chidion
    chidion Member Posts: 422 Arc User
    Trying to say my beef is against all HLP’s is inaccurate, aside from most of my characters being level 70+, I always try to mention the behavior I disagree with is only evident in “some” or “a few” players. Even the portion of my post you quoted mentions “for the few who keep complaining”, not HLP’s in general… but yes, I suppose I do choose to advocate for new and lesser experienced players who don’t run dungeons the way some HLP’s think they should – particularly in dungeons and content that is level appropriate for those new and low level players.

    I have a hard time figuring out what "offensive behavior" or "offenses" lower level players are displaying in dungeons that are level appropriate for them.

    In skirmishes like Master of the Hunt, if as you say the “content is pretty much over before the kick timer expires”, your complaint doesn’t seem to be about not being able to kick players out, but not being able to kick players out quickly enough to your satisfaction. Why would anyone even consider trying to kick someone out of the party “after the content is pretty much over” anyway?

    Obviously defeating the content was able to be accomplished without their assistance, so just collect your reward and leave. According to what I’ve been told if a player is disconnected and everyone else leaves the instance upon completion, the disconnected player will not be able to re-enter that instance to collect the reward.

    Staying on the MotH skirmish as an example, most players who have already run that content just take off to confront the first mob. For new or less experienced players they may not have a clue where they are supposed to go or what they are supposed to do and wind up staying at the assembly point a little longer than some players think they should.

    That is one of the reasons, according to the developer’s post, for the implementation of the random dungeons and skirmishes in the first place, so lower level and less experienced players will be able to learn from higher level and more experienced players what they need to do… of course a little actual guidance and vocal encouragement would probably help along those lines, but anyone who has run dungeons or skirmishes recently knows, that rarely happens.

    For AFK players I suppose a couple of players who are really interested in punishing someone for being AFK or not participating, can stay in the instance until the timer runs down and they are able to kick that player out, but I personally don’t see any reason for decreasing the kick timer to allow them to punish a character more quickly… If it is important to them to kick a player out after the content has been completed they will stay and make that happen – if it really isn’t that important to them they will collect their reward and complain that they weren’t able to kick another character out like they wanted.
  • asterotg
    asterotg Member Posts: 1,742 Arc User
    chidion said:

    Trying to say my beef is against all HLP’s is inaccurate, aside from most of my characters being level 70+, I always try to mention the behavior I disagree with is only evident in “some” or “a few” players. Even the portion of my post you quoted mentions “for the few who keep complaining”, not HLP’s in general… but yes, I suppose I do choose to advocate for new and lesser experienced players who don’t run dungeons the way some HLP’s think they should – particularly in dungeons and content that is level appropriate for those new and low level players.

    I have a hard time figuring out what "offensive behavior" or "offenses" lower level players are displaying in dungeons that are level appropriate for them.

    In skirmishes like Master of the Hunt, if as you say the “content is pretty much over before the kick timer expires”, your complaint doesn’t seem to be about not being able to kick players out, but not being able to kick players out quickly enough to your satisfaction. Why would anyone even consider trying to kick someone out of the party “after the content is pretty much over” anyway?

    Obviously defeating the content was able to be accomplished without their assistance, so just collect your reward and leave. According to what I’ve been told if a player is disconnected and everyone else leaves the instance upon completion, the disconnected player will not be able to re-enter that instance to collect the reward.

    Staying on the MotH skirmish as an example, most players who have already run that content just take off to confront the first mob. For new or less experienced players they may not have a clue where they are supposed to go or what they are supposed to do and wind up staying at the assembly point a little longer than some players think they should.

    That is one of the reasons, according to the developer’s post, for the implementation of the random dungeons and skirmishes in the first place, so lower level and less experienced players will be able to learn from higher level and more experienced players what they need to do… of course a little actual guidance and vocal encouragement would probably help along those lines, but anyone who has run dungeons or skirmishes recently knows, that rarely happens.

    For AFK players I suppose a couple of players who are really interested in punishing someone for being AFK or not participating, can stay in the instance until the timer runs down and they are able to kick that player out, but I personally don’t see any reason for decreasing the kick timer to allow them to punish a character more quickly… If it is important to them to kick a player out after the content has been completed they will stay and make that happen – if it really isn’t that important to them they will collect their reward and complain that they weren’t able to kick another character out like they wanted.

    You know, that the problem of freeloders is not limited to random dungeons. Your own examples are from random skirmishes. I saw multiple times ppl 'disconnecting' at the start of a random epic dungeon or a random epic skirmish. I dont run random dungeons. If they 'disconnect' and I can send them a personal message, they dont have a connection problem, they switched character.

    If they reenter after 4 minutes and 30 seconds, so the kick timer did not run out, they are abusing the system and wasting other players time, mine included. As a matter of fact, I do explain in a random group, that I pmed the 'disconnected player', so he had just switched characters. Then I will start a kick vote, but for reasons I cant quite follow, 3 of 4 votes get declined.

    I did report these players in the begining, but due to the fact, that this kind of behavior spred like a wildfire I am quite sure, that there was no action the side of cryptic beside a email telling me, that they take the matter seriously.

    The only thing I can do is, putting them all on ignore, so I will never make the mistake, to invite them into a group on purpose.

    Chars: CW, DC, GF, GWF, HR and TR.
  • chidion
    chidion Member Posts: 422 Arc User
    edited February 2018
    asterotg said:



    You know, that the problem of freeloders is not limited to random dungeons. Your own examples are from random skirmishes. I saw multiple times ppl 'disconnecting' at the start of a random epic dungeon or a random epic skirmish. I dont run random dungeons. If they 'disconnect' and I can send them a personal message, they dont have a connection problem, they switched character.

    If they reenter after 4 minutes and 30 seconds, so the kick timer did not run out, they are abusing the system and wasting other players time, mine included. As a matter of fact, I do explain in a random group, that I pmed the 'disconnected player', so he had just switched characters. Then I will start a kick vote, but for reasons I cant quite follow, 3 of 4 votes get declined.

    I did report these players in the begining, but due to the fact, that this kind of behavior spred like a wildfire I am quite sure, that there was no action the side of cryptic beside a email telling me, that they take the matter seriously.

    The only thing I can do is, putting them all on ignore, so I will never make the mistake, to invite them into a group on purpose.

    Actually I was responding to the references @trinity706#8838 made in the previous post when I used the Master of the Hunt for examples, but yes I know freeloaders aren’t restricted to dungeons. I even saw a few of them in the last CTA event.

    Also yes, I think we’ve already established there are some players that intentionally disconnect from dungeon, skirmish and other runs… which is why I proposed the solution that there should be a in game programmed response for any player who is disconnected to immediately be dropped from what ever content they were queued for and have to go through the random queue process from the beginning - not simply reconnect. No countdown timer or vote needed to remove that player.

    Of course the unfortunate part of that is players who have been disconnected through no fault of their own will have to re-queue also but as I stated in a previous post having a disconnected player automatically removed would most effectively address the people attempting to scam the content.

    I can’t speak for anyone else but I have a tendency to decline kick votes for disconnected players (but not for AFK players or harassment) up until the final gate to the boss, if we cannot enter without all party members being present I feel that is an adequate point for considering a kick option… my reasoning is simple, I have no way of telling if a player is disconnected through no fault of their own, or if they are intentionally disconnected and as such I prefer to give a disconnected player the benefit of the doubt.
  • trinity706#8838
    trinity706#8838 Member Posts: 643 Arc User
    chidion said:

    I suppose I do choose to advocate for new and lesser experienced players who don’t run dungeons the way some HLP’s think they should – particularly in dungeons and content that is level appropriate for those new and low level players.

    I have a hard time figuring out what "offensive behavior" or "offenses" lower level players are displaying in dungeons that are level appropriate for them.

    In skirmishes like Master of the Hunt, if as you say the “content is pretty much over before the kick timer expires”, your complaint doesn’t seem to be about not being able to kick players out, but not being able to kick players out quickly enough to your satisfaction.

    Obviously defeating the content was able to be accomplished without their assistance, so just collect your reward and leave.

    of course a little actual guidance and vocal encouragement would probably help along those lines, but anyone who has run dungeons or skirmishes recently knows, that rarely happens.

    Seemingly you think every/the majority of LLC's belong to a new/inexperienced player and or don't mind carrying players whose intent is to be carried and cheese rewards.

    The more "benefit of the doubt" players are given in an MMO the more abuse that will occur.
    “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
    Community Project: Neverwinter "RNG" Database

    Suggestions: Allow Guilds More Administrative Options \/\/ "Auto" Identify Items/"Auto-Load"/Refinement Sorting+ (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen \/\/ Character - "Legacy" Items
  • dionchi
    dionchi Member Posts: 907 Arc User
    edited March 2018
    Reply deleted...
    DD~