Im starting to think that the few people here vigorously posting messages against any type of system that prevents or henders AFK and Leaching are people that vigorously AFK or Leach. They dont want anyting to chage or prevent them from continuing their behaviour and actions.
Are you sure you didn't mean Cure, Infected or Into the Hive? KA is still the only one that's has easily puggable optional even on elite.
I'm talking about how it's not a matter of "walk into room, shoot everything, move to next room" ad infinitum. Aside from the difficulty level, the other two are things you could do with a team of BOFFs. It'd take a while but it could be done relatively easily.
My ignore list is very short.... VERY short, I don't think it's possible for it to be shorter.
I'm a Klink and usually I'm the only KDF ship while the rest are FEDs on an STF. I very rarely get any help when I'm taking damage but I'm used to it. There are AFKers around but most of them are usually new and are not sure what to do, but I have a good memory and have found myself teamed with previously considered AFKers but who have transformed themselves into players who contribute. I am sure that there are still those who want you to do all the work for them and take the credits.
However, what I hate are quitters. They really bug me. I hate to find myself with just one other player because the others just quit. I don't mind 'respawning' as everyday is a good day to die. I have many times found myself destroying a whole gate system just to realize that I had to leave the mission because half of the team just QUIT. FED Pussies is what I call them. What a waste of my time and effort.
But what can one do as we have no control as to whom we will be teamed up with unless it's a private STF. Luckily my Fleet has progressed to the point of training members who are eager to learn the finer points of doing STFs and thereby giving me a good chance of doing STFs with my fleet mates.
they don't have to rely on anything. if you can't do a private match clearly you don't have the time to be wasting a game in the first place.
This is an excellent point.
People like myself are opposed to this NOT because we are AKFers or leechers. Believe that we are if it makes you feel better.
We are opposed to adding unnecessary things to the game that, for one thing, would likely cause more bugs and be a waste of developer time/resources because you can easily circumvent them with a minimal effort. Not to mention the high potential for abuse of the system by the very same types of folks you are striving to avoid.
Also, consider this: If I ignore someone, it doesn't mean I don't want them in my STF group ever. I just don't want to read their chat. What DO 'I' do in that case?
Pete Rose is a total d-bag. I would not want to talk to him. But the man COULD play baseball. I would play baseball with him. See what I am saying?
This proposal is no kind of solution. I am inclined to believe this is many posters first MMO. Griefers, trolls, leeches, AFKers, etc. are going to happen. No dev has ever come up with a fair and balanced solution to filter them out sever-side and they never will. It falls to the player to be responsible. You have the tools at your disposal right now to render this a non-issue. I have, and I am not smart enough to work out a super-secret formula.
Done with this topic now. Talk amongst yourselves.
I too am very curious as to what sort of abuse or grief can come of a ignore. It isn't like you can harass someone you are not even communicating with. I too have come to the conclusion that it would seem that if the devs are not going to take action against players with bots [like banning them]. They should in the very least give players the choice of being able to avoid playing with these violaters of the terms of service.
And in case you haven't noticed not everyone is in a fleet with hundreds or thousands of players. Private teamup may not always be viable I hate getting random invites to join a game only to find out someone is actually attempting to form a fleet. That happens all the time on ESD.
For those who do not believe this Enhanced Ignore System works try it it is active on X-Box live and if they can do it and not have problems with server stability then so could CRYPTIC.
Okay explain how a private ignore could be abused or grief others.
Apparently the entire community will collectively put someone on ignore if that person performs poorly in even one STF.
Nevermind how preposterous that sounds, or that many players effectively already do that through chat channels and private queues.
It's a bad idea because it can seriously burden the queue system, not because of any perceived threat of elitism. Just how problematic it would be for the queues to handle such a mechanic I can't say, but with each added team member you're further restricting available players to fill out the team. This could lead to slow queues (or dead queues, in the case of the Klingons), or a worst case of entirely destabilizing the queue system.
This solution to AFKers has been brought up in many MMOs I've played, but I don't know a single case where it's been implemented at all, let alone successfully.
Better solutions seem to be prorating rewards based on contribution, or as I've found here in STO, incorporating sufficient difficulty and optional objectives to promote more active gameplay. The former needs to be sufficiently robust a mechanic to include a ceiling on contribution, but not a floor (a floor just becomes a target for AFKers/botters); this may marginalize some weaker players trying to engage in eSTFs, but that merely serves to remind them that they're better off in normal queues until better geared or more experienced. Unfortunately, the latter system isn't a cure-all, as we see with griefers who purposely effect failed optional objectives, but it's worth noting that the bulk of AFKers I've seen haven't been in eSTFs.
And in case you haven't noticed not everyone is in a fleet with hundreds or thousands of players.
The fleet I'm in regularly has fewer than five members on during the hours I'm logged in. Unfortunately, the odious fleet system leaves me feeling obliged to remain in the fleet, at least until I feel I've sufficiently recompensed them for the resources I've taken (one ship provision and seven engineering provisions; I don't even know where to begin valuing that).
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
Apparently the entire community will collectively put someone on ignore if that person performs poorly in even one STF.
Nevermind how preposterous that sounds, or that many players effectively already do that through chat channels and private queues.
Preposterous is a good choice of words. See the hole in your theory is EVERYBODY will blacklist a AFK'er. That simply cannot happen. What will happen is the four other players in that queque will each make up thier minds about putting the offender on the ignore list. There are literally tens of thousands of STO players. One side effect is that it helps to bring a sense of responsibility to one's teammates. If your behavior is enough to anger other players then there needs to be consequences. Obviously a GM will not review the situation. So we need the ability to police ourselves.
Preposterous is a good choice of words. See the hole in your theory is EVERYBODY will blacklist a AFK'er. That simply cannot happen. What will happen is the four other players in that queque will each make up thier minds about putting the offender on the ignore list. There are literally tens of thousands of STO players. One side effect is that it helps to bring a sense of responsibility to one's teammates. If your behavior is enough to anger other players then there needs to be consequences. Obviously a GM will not review the situation. So we need the ability to police ourselves.
You have me mistaken. I'm not opposed to the system because I think it would be abused; I agree that such a mechanic would be a helpful tool for the playerbase to police itself. But there are technical and practical limitations which may or may not make it impossible to implement.
Can anyone even point to an example of where its been tried?
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
The technical limitations are going to be things such as queries to check if anyone going into a queued event with you are on your ignore list. Multiply this by all players each time you queue up for an event. That is potentially a lot of overhead adding to the queue time for everyone. Also, the code would need to decide who gets removed - you or the person you are ignoring.
That's exactly my point. Even if they can solve the technical issues and get it running bug-free without killing the servers, there are still the practical issues such as increased queue times (I pointed out earlier in the thread that this mechanic could potentially kill Klingon queues entirely).
I assume they'd use LIFO as a general principle for determining who gets removed, but it's possible that overcoming the technical issues involves benching players with the largest ignore lists. That just creates even more mess, given some of the absolute garbage players will spout in-game and the very real benefit associated with being able to ignore them.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
Sorry guys not buying the increased queque time. As fast as the processors are and you are talking only 5 players at a time. It would take microseconds to determine if the 5 are compatabile. As far as who gets booted the FIFO [First in First Out] principal would apply. First one to queque up would have priority then the next players would be checked against his list then the second then the remainders would be checked against the list. Till you had 5 compatible players. As a matter of fact this type of sorting already exsists in Kerrat to determine if you get into the upper or lower tier of that warzone.
One other thing to point out is the servers will only be sorting 5 players for each queque not randomly going through thousands of players to find a potential match. At the very most say there are 10 players who attempt to queque up for the same mission. As it stands now once the first five are selected then another queque pops up. This idea could easily be modified to fit the format suggested in this forum.
As I stated earlier "Disney" has a working model in place in the MMO "Pirates Of The Caribbean" and so does X-Box Live. This concept isn't new it is just CRYPTIC will need to adopt this format for handling griefers.
You're assuming (incorrectly) that there are only 5 people waiting int the queue at any given time, and there is only ever 1 queued event running.
Actually the most that can be in a queque wait is 10, then another queque starts up so that there is a pepetual queque running all the time. Not all players are considered for the same queque it is the first five who get matched together after the queque has given priority to people teamed together. So it already sorts teams then fills the open slots. So in essence the queque already does this "Sorting"necessary to implement the Enhance Ignore button.
the queque has given priority to people teamed together. So it already sorts teams then fills the open slots. So in essence the queque already does this "Sorting"necessary to implement the Enhance Ignore button.
This does seem to answer the waiting in queque answer it already makes you wait till the teamed people can be together on the same team. So how long does that take? Milliseconds right? So this doesn't interfere with the stability of a server or create noticible delays in quequeing up. So it is reasonable to think that a similar piece of code would take the same time to execute.The more we dissect this queque business the more applicable this idea is and it seems most of the code is already written to preform the tasks.
I don't need the devs to waste time programming this because there's no real need for it from my perspective.
Right there, from your perspective. Not everyone has a fleet or a bunch of friends they can team with all the time. Most people still use pugs. So you don't have these problems? Great, good for you, be happy you don't.
There are other games that have this feature implemented and it does not cause problems when it comes to queue times. Is it abused? Of course, show me one mmo where people don't abuse one feature or another. But it's not abused anymore then the way people currently use the system or take advantage of other people work.
It is not a bad idea. Another possibility is to make afk timeout very aggressive in fleet actions. I am thinking a couple of minutes. Then you get a debuff for like 24hrs ( can't queue).
No. Just no. Say you have to sign for a delivery, or go to the toilet, or have a asthma attack, then you are banned from going into fleet actions for 24 hours?! If you do that, then it will make queues take much longer due to people being banned for 24 hours, and everything else, as a lot of people will quit due to it.
dunno why anyone bothers coming up with ideas to stop afk'ers, if the devs felt it necessary to stop afk'ers they would have something suitably ready. any and all ideas i have seen thus far always had some sort of flaw in the grand master plan they propose.
i once did the same, so im on the same boat wanting afk'ers eliminated, but it has to be fool proof.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
so im on the same boat wanting afk'ers eliminated, but it has to be fool proof.
This idea is fool proof. For example the engine would search for compatible players. If someone has been ignored enough he will only end up with other AFK or Leechers because they haven't ignored each other.
So is teaming with people you know and there is no new development time required for it.
You have stated your opion and it has been noted several times. You feel like you have all the answers. Well the rest of the community does not share your opinion and they probably don't have the time to play like you do either. I don't add every Tom, ****, or Harry to my friend list. My fleet is fairly small comprised of US Military Servicemen who are for the most part deployed overseas. Therefore, our scheduals conflict most of the time. So a PUG is usually the best option for running a few STFs before time for work.
Also you seem to believe STO DEVS are working on STO projects. For the most part DEV teams have been pulled to work on Neverwinternights. The content we get is a far cry from what Mr.Stahl promised us. I can only think of actually seeing 3 different DEVS in zone chat in the three plus years I have been on STO. We still have exploration missions and warzones that were broken 3 years ago and they haven't garnered any attention. My point is if they wanted to fix them they would have already. It isn't like they have anything pressing other than turning out new lockboxes.
FYI a good programer could copy the friend page rename it to Ignore and insert a piece of code to sort players [Just like it does already with the people coming into the queque already on a team] . The programming could be done in about an hour if that. It would take .07 seconds to do the scan and boom the sorted players are ready.
Also you seem to believe STO DEVS are working on STO projects. For the most part DEV teams have been pulled to work on Neverwinternights.
And you know this how?
Cryptic has flat out told us that they have staffed up and that there are developers who are dedicated to STO.
I'm not saying (and Cryptic is not saying) that they don't share certain resources between games. There is a team for the Core Engine, for example.
It seems to me that you are assuming that because one game is in development that they are pulling all of the resources off every other game.
The fact is that unless you are a Cryptic or PWE employee or related to one, you have no more than a vague idea how they handle work assignments and scheduling resources. No more than they've publicly told us.
And I know that we have been told that they have NOT pulled the STO team to work on Neverwinter. If that were true, they would not have been able to produce Legacy of Romulus. The changes we've been told about would have required a full Dev team (Programmers, Systems, Artists, etc). So please do not suggest otherwise.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I have either forfeited my mission, loot & possible temp ban for leaving due to people just joining to get credit, loot & do not work or not listening to their team causing us to lose anyways.
You may think I screwed my team by doing so, however it was not I who was abusing the system nor was it me who screwed us; it was the other team player whom was not playing at all nor being a team player.
*rant*
One person 3 nights ago someone in a recluse was 180+km from the borg attack we ALL q'd up for & all of us but them were fighting.
They ignored me many times, after 20 mins we already failed the optional. I was fed up with people like him.
I told my team we should all ditch the person since they ditched us & I sent a gm report then split because you auto lose when you do that. *shrug* The AFK guy lost too. *end rant*
FYI the name was meant as a joke. I honestly don't know the persons name nor do I care. I am sorry if offended someone.
My two cent's take em or leave em......
Officer of Fed side - Borg Syndicate: Isulaya (FED Sci) & Isu'laya (ROM Eng) . Admin/Head Officer of KDF side - Blood Empire: A'Nari (KDF Tac). Both have 400+ (usually 500) active fleet members in each of the fleets = I is one busy woman.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Implement a system for teams to vote to kick a player like they do in WoW!
My two cent's take em or leave em......
Officer of Fed side - Borg Syndicate: Isulaya (FED Sci) & Isu'laya (ROM Eng) . Admin/Head Officer of KDF side - Blood Empire: A'Nari (KDF Tac). Both have 400+ (usually 500) active fleet members in each of the fleets = I is one busy woman.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
A vote to kick option would be nice but has is has already been stated it could be abused.
When you think about it there are not many teaming based options that could not be abused.
How about an option to leave a team?
To explain the above:
Let's say that you have an AFK player in your group and you and the other members of your team disband the group and reassemble it without the AFK player and after 1 minute any player that's in a team based instance that is not teamed would be removed from the instance and the missing team member would be replaced by someone who has be waiting in the que for that mission.
A plan old vote to kick option would be much better :P
AFKers are a pain. They leech off others to get benefits they dont do anything to help earn.
Solution? Ignore list = no group? No... because then ANYONE you ignore wont get grouped, even chat jerks you don't want to listen to, but who actually pull their weight in STFs...
My suggestion:
Step 1: In an STF if someone does not move for 30 seconds THEN other players can select an option to "Report AFK" (which does not even appear until 30 seconds of inactivity). This report can be done by any of the other players in the STF. When one person reports him, the option disappears for the others.
Step 2: "Report AFK" gives the AFK player a 30 second chat notice that they will be kicked, then a 15 second warning, then a 5 second warning. If within the alotted time the AFKer moves then they cancel the warning. If they do not move then they are removed from the STF and a slot opens in the STF which allows a new player to join and help.
Step 3: If this person moved to cancel the AFK/kick notice but then goes AFK again, then after 20 seconds of inactivity they may be reported again by anyone in the STF. This time the report triggers a 15 second warning/timer to be removed.
Step 4: If this person moved to cancel the AFK/kick notice but then goes yet AFK again, then after 15 seconds of inactivity they may be reported again by anyone in the STF. This time the report triggers a 10 second warning/timer to be removed.
Step 5: If this person is reported AFK 4 times in a 5 man STF or 9 times in a 10 man STF they are removed automatically.
This allows a balance.
(1) It allows players to ONLY report people who are actually inactive (for 30+ seconds the first time, 20 seconds the next, then 15 seconds each time thereafter).
(2) Avoids trolling (i.e. abusive spamming to remove people "for fun" or chat warning annoy people) since the option will not even be available unless they are inactive for the designated time.
(3) And if the AFKer returns to AFK he risks being reported again with a shorter timer & ultimately kicked without a timer if enough people report him enough times.
I have played other games with various report, timer, kick approaches to AFKers. You have to have something to discourage actual AFKers, but not something that can be easily abused/spammed. This will make AFKing less common & more difficult.
Gee valoreah it sure seems you want to grief arnthebard because he has a differing opinion. Several other players as well as myself think this his proposed solution will solve the problem. You act as if this is going to hinder your gameplay style.
Perhaps this will clear things up a bit... things happen doorbells,phone,kids whatever... as a common courtesy if you need to be AFK blurb it in the chat. Chances are nobody will put you on ignore if you attempt to communicate.On the other hand the moron who fails to listen and charges into battle and gives his team the finger needs to be ignored.
Personally I don't have a gazillion friends online at any given time. Each chat channel has special lingo or ways to request stuff and if you don't know what the protocol is for each channel you get ignored or kicked from a team when they don't know you. So his arguement is a valid one despite your personal experience.
The problem with ignoreing AFKers as the OP suggested is that not everyone is nice enough to handle such power kindly & properly.
Elsewhere a thread existsts on the absolute abuse of the report spam/ignore issue that silences people for 24 hours and eventually leads to an account ban. What we DONT need is another way to terrorize people while trying to solve the AFK problem.
The problem with ignoreing AFKers as the OP suggested is that not everyone is nice enough to handle such power kindly & properly.
Elsewhere a thread existsts on the absolute abuse of the report spam/ignore issue that silences people for 24 hours and eventually leads to an account ban. What we DONT need is another way to terrorize people while trying to solve the AFK problem.
Totally agree the silencing people for 24 hours is crazy. That needs to be totally removed. That"CAN"be abused and has no place in the soultions offered here.
Kind of like you're trying to do to me? These forums are here to share ideas and discuss them. I'm not trying to grief anyone, just offer a second opinion, just as you and everyone else is able to express a differing point of view.
This wouldn't hinder my gameplay at all. It would, however, take development time -regardless of how easy those who know nothing of how the engine is built think it would be. That impacts everyone and it's a feature that isn't really necessary. All that's required to solve the AFK problem now is minimal effort on your part.
This thread needs to die.
Where is a moderator?
This thread moved past meaningful and constructive conversation some pages ago.
Valoreah, you are making too much sense and it appears you are arguing with walls.
Comments
I have to agree
system Lord Baal is dead
My ignore list is very short.... VERY short, I don't think it's possible for it to be shorter.
My character Tsin'xing
However, what I hate are quitters. They really bug me. I hate to find myself with just one other player because the others just quit. I don't mind 'respawning' as everyday is a good day to die. I have many times found myself destroying a whole gate system just to realize that I had to leave the mission because half of the team just QUIT. FED Pussies is what I call them. What a waste of my time and effort.
But what can one do as we have no control as to whom we will be teamed up with unless it's a private STF. Luckily my Fleet has progressed to the point of training members who are eager to learn the finer points of doing STFs and thereby giving me a good chance of doing STFs with my fleet mates.
This is an excellent point.
People like myself are opposed to this NOT because we are AKFers or leechers. Believe that we are if it makes you feel better.
We are opposed to adding unnecessary things to the game that, for one thing, would likely cause more bugs and be a waste of developer time/resources because you can easily circumvent them with a minimal effort. Not to mention the high potential for abuse of the system by the very same types of folks you are striving to avoid.
Also, consider this: If I ignore someone, it doesn't mean I don't want them in my STF group ever. I just don't want to read their chat. What DO 'I' do in that case?
Pete Rose is a total d-bag. I would not want to talk to him. But the man COULD play baseball. I would play baseball with him. See what I am saying?
This proposal is no kind of solution. I am inclined to believe this is many posters first MMO. Griefers, trolls, leeches, AFKers, etc. are going to happen. No dev has ever come up with a fair and balanced solution to filter them out sever-side and they never will. It falls to the player to be responsible. You have the tools at your disposal right now to render this a non-issue. I have, and I am not smart enough to work out a super-secret formula.
Done with this topic now. Talk amongst yourselves.
Okay explain how a private ignore could be abused or grief others.
And in case you haven't noticed not everyone is in a fleet with hundreds or thousands of players. Private teamup may not always be viable I hate getting random invites to join a game only to find out someone is actually attempting to form a fleet. That happens all the time on ESD.
For those who do not believe this Enhanced Ignore System works try it it is active on X-Box live and if they can do it and not have problems with server stability then so could CRYPTIC.
Nevermind how preposterous that sounds, or that many players effectively already do that through chat channels and private queues.
It's a bad idea because it can seriously burden the queue system, not because of any perceived threat of elitism. Just how problematic it would be for the queues to handle such a mechanic I can't say, but with each added team member you're further restricting available players to fill out the team. This could lead to slow queues (or dead queues, in the case of the Klingons), or a worst case of entirely destabilizing the queue system.
This solution to AFKers has been brought up in many MMOs I've played, but I don't know a single case where it's been implemented at all, let alone successfully.
Better solutions seem to be prorating rewards based on contribution, or as I've found here in STO, incorporating sufficient difficulty and optional objectives to promote more active gameplay. The former needs to be sufficiently robust a mechanic to include a ceiling on contribution, but not a floor (a floor just becomes a target for AFKers/botters); this may marginalize some weaker players trying to engage in eSTFs, but that merely serves to remind them that they're better off in normal queues until better geared or more experienced. Unfortunately, the latter system isn't a cure-all, as we see with griefers who purposely effect failed optional objectives, but it's worth noting that the bulk of AFKers I've seen haven't been in eSTFs.
The fleet I'm in regularly has fewer than five members on during the hours I'm logged in. Unfortunately, the odious fleet system leaves me feeling obliged to remain in the fleet, at least until I feel I've sufficiently recompensed them for the resources I've taken (one ship provision and seven engineering provisions; I don't even know where to begin valuing that).
Preposterous is a good choice of words. See the hole in your theory is EVERYBODY will blacklist a AFK'er. That simply cannot happen. What will happen is the four other players in that queque will each make up thier minds about putting the offender on the ignore list. There are literally tens of thousands of STO players. One side effect is that it helps to bring a sense of responsibility to one's teammates. If your behavior is enough to anger other players then there needs to be consequences. Obviously a GM will not review the situation. So we need the ability to police ourselves.
Can anyone even point to an example of where its been tried?
I assume they'd use LIFO as a general principle for determining who gets removed, but it's possible that overcoming the technical issues involves benching players with the largest ignore lists. That just creates even more mess, given some of the absolute garbage players will spout in-game and the very real benefit associated with being able to ignore them.
One other thing to point out is the servers will only be sorting 5 players for each queque not randomly going through thousands of players to find a potential match. At the very most say there are 10 players who attempt to queque up for the same mission. As it stands now once the first five are selected then another queque pops up. This idea could easily be modified to fit the format suggested in this forum.
As I stated earlier "Disney" has a working model in place in the MMO "Pirates Of The Caribbean" and so does X-Box Live. This concept isn't new it is just CRYPTIC will need to adopt this format for handling griefers.
Actually the most that can be in a queque wait is 10, then another queque starts up so that there is a pepetual queque running all the time. Not all players are considered for the same queque it is the first five who get matched together after the queque has given priority to people teamed together. So it already sorts teams then fills the open slots. So in essence the queque already does this "Sorting"necessary to implement the Enhance Ignore button.
You mean you would not be willing to wait the .07 secdonds it would take to avoid griefers?
This does seem to answer the waiting in queque answer it already makes you wait till the teamed people can be together on the same team. So how long does that take? Milliseconds right? So this doesn't interfere with the stability of a server or create noticible delays in quequeing up. So it is reasonable to think that a similar piece of code would take the same time to execute.The more we dissect this queque business the more applicable this idea is and it seems most of the code is already written to preform the tasks.
How is it being abused?
Right there, from your perspective. Not everyone has a fleet or a bunch of friends they can team with all the time. Most people still use pugs. So you don't have these problems? Great, good for you, be happy you don't.
There are other games that have this feature implemented and it does not cause problems when it comes to queue times. Is it abused? Of course, show me one mmo where people don't abuse one feature or another. But it's not abused anymore then the way people currently use the system or take advantage of other people work.
No. Just no. Say you have to sign for a delivery, or go to the toilet, or have a asthma attack, then you are banned from going into fleet actions for 24 hours?! If you do that, then it will make queues take much longer due to people being banned for 24 hours, and everything else, as a lot of people will quit due to it.
I actually like Delta Rising.
i once did the same, so im on the same boat wanting afk'ers eliminated, but it has to be fool proof.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
This idea is fool proof. For example the engine would search for compatible players. If someone has been ignored enough he will only end up with other AFK or Leechers because they haven't ignored each other.
You have stated your opion and it has been noted several times. You feel like you have all the answers. Well the rest of the community does not share your opinion and they probably don't have the time to play like you do either. I don't add every Tom, ****, or Harry to my friend list. My fleet is fairly small comprised of US Military Servicemen who are for the most part deployed overseas. Therefore, our scheduals conflict most of the time. So a PUG is usually the best option for running a few STFs before time for work.
Also you seem to believe STO DEVS are working on STO projects. For the most part DEV teams have been pulled to work on Neverwinternights. The content we get is a far cry from what Mr.Stahl promised us. I can only think of actually seeing 3 different DEVS in zone chat in the three plus years I have been on STO. We still have exploration missions and warzones that were broken 3 years ago and they haven't garnered any attention. My point is if they wanted to fix them they would have already. It isn't like they have anything pressing other than turning out new lockboxes.
FYI a good programer could copy the friend page rename it to Ignore and insert a piece of code to sort players [Just like it does already with the people coming into the queque already on a team] . The programming could be done in about an hour if that. It would take .07 seconds to do the scan and boom the sorted players are ready.
And you know this how?
Cryptic has flat out told us that they have staffed up and that there are developers who are dedicated to STO.
I'm not saying (and Cryptic is not saying) that they don't share certain resources between games. There is a team for the Core Engine, for example.
It seems to me that you are assuming that because one game is in development that they are pulling all of the resources off every other game.
The fact is that unless you are a Cryptic or PWE employee or related to one, you have no more than a vague idea how they handle work assignments and scheduling resources. No more than they've publicly told us.
And I know that we have been told that they have NOT pulled the STO team to work on Neverwinter. If that were true, they would not have been able to produce Legacy of Romulus. The changes we've been told about would have required a full Dev team (Programmers, Systems, Artists, etc). So please do not suggest otherwise.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
You may think I screwed my team by doing so, however it was not I who was abusing the system nor was it me who screwed us; it was the other team player whom was not playing at all nor being a team player.
*rant*
One person 3 nights ago someone in a recluse was 180+km from the borg attack we ALL q'd up for & all of us but them were fighting.
They ignored me many times, after 20 mins we already failed the optional. I was fed up with people like him.
I told my team we should all ditch the person since they ditched us & I sent a gm report then split because you auto lose when you do that. *shrug* The AFK guy lost too.
*end rant*
FYI the name was meant as a joke. I honestly don't know the persons name nor do I care. I am sorry if offended someone.
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~Bluegeek
Officer of Fed side - Borg Syndicate: Isulaya (FED Sci) & Isu'laya (ROM Eng) . Admin/Head Officer of KDF side - Blood Empire: A'Nari (KDF Tac). Both have 400+ (usually 500) active fleet members in each of the fleets = I is one busy woman.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Officer of Fed side - Borg Syndicate: Isulaya (FED Sci) & Isu'laya (ROM Eng) . Admin/Head Officer of KDF side - Blood Empire: A'Nari (KDF Tac). Both have 400+ (usually 500) active fleet members in each of the fleets = I is one busy woman.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
When you think about it there are not many teaming based options that could not be abused.
How about an option to leave a team?
To explain the above:
Let's say that you have an AFK player in your group and you and the other members of your team disband the group and reassemble it without the AFK player and after 1 minute any player that's in a team based instance that is not teamed would be removed from the instance and the missing team member would be replaced by someone who has be waiting in the que for that mission.
A plan old vote to kick option would be much better :P
Solution? Ignore list = no group? No... because then ANYONE you ignore wont get grouped, even chat jerks you don't want to listen to, but who actually pull their weight in STFs...
My suggestion:
Step 1: In an STF if someone does not move for 30 seconds THEN other players can select an option to "Report AFK" (which does not even appear until 30 seconds of inactivity). This report can be done by any of the other players in the STF. When one person reports him, the option disappears for the others.
Step 2: "Report AFK" gives the AFK player a 30 second chat notice that they will be kicked, then a 15 second warning, then a 5 second warning. If within the alotted time the AFKer moves then they cancel the warning. If they do not move then they are removed from the STF and a slot opens in the STF which allows a new player to join and help.
Step 3: If this person moved to cancel the AFK/kick notice but then goes AFK again, then after 20 seconds of inactivity they may be reported again by anyone in the STF. This time the report triggers a 15 second warning/timer to be removed.
Step 4: If this person moved to cancel the AFK/kick notice but then goes yet AFK again, then after 15 seconds of inactivity they may be reported again by anyone in the STF. This time the report triggers a 10 second warning/timer to be removed.
Step 5: If this person is reported AFK 4 times in a 5 man STF or 9 times in a 10 man STF they are removed automatically.
This allows a balance.
(1) It allows players to ONLY report people who are actually inactive (for 30+ seconds the first time, 20 seconds the next, then 15 seconds each time thereafter).
(2) Avoids trolling (i.e. abusive spamming to remove people "for fun" or chat warning annoy people) since the option will not even be available unless they are inactive for the designated time.
(3) And if the AFKer returns to AFK he risks being reported again with a shorter timer & ultimately kicked without a timer if enough people report him enough times.
I have played other games with various report, timer, kick approaches to AFKers. You have to have something to discourage actual AFKers, but not something that can be easily abused/spammed. This will make AFKing less common & more difficult.
Perhaps this will clear things up a bit... things happen doorbells,phone,kids whatever... as a common courtesy if you need to be AFK blurb it in the chat. Chances are nobody will put you on ignore if you attempt to communicate.On the other hand the moron who fails to listen and charges into battle and gives his team the finger needs to be ignored.
Personally I don't have a gazillion friends online at any given time. Each chat channel has special lingo or ways to request stuff and if you don't know what the protocol is for each channel you get ignored or kicked from a team when they don't know you. So his arguement is a valid one despite your personal experience.
Elsewhere a thread existsts on the absolute abuse of the report spam/ignore issue that silences people for 24 hours and eventually leads to an account ban. What we DONT need is another way to terrorize people while trying to solve the AFK problem.
Totally agree the silencing people for 24 hours is crazy. That needs to be totally removed. That"CAN"be abused and has no place in the soultions offered here.
This thread needs to die.
Where is a moderator?
This thread moved past meaningful and constructive conversation some pages ago.
Valoreah, you are making too much sense and it appears you are arguing with walls.