So how about the scoreboard idea? Scale rewards by the % if you like (I'd say round up to 1%, so 1 Fleet mark, and 3 dilithium maybe) and then people would learn to participate, but also see how they were actually doing, so they could see why the low reward.
Is that sounding like a possible answer?
Qapla
That would be TERRIBLE. I mean really, what other then DPS do we have for figuring out contribution %? Hull healed maybe? They can't really measure how much a grav well impacted the match. So with that in mind, that means DPS monsters gets more of the rewards. That means DPS becomes a meh, do it if you wanna to MUST DO IT to get anything. It would certainly make cryptic happy as it would push casual players into a pay up to get all these deeps item, doff, ships, boff, etc etc. But such a system would be the death of STO as it would be the death of the casuals.
Not only that, but let's say I decide to jump into a queue, even a normal one, and someone with a 100k dps ship is also there. I can do 5-6 k against the Starbase near new Romulus. So it takes me say 20 seconds to get my bearings and head to where I need to be. Even before my first torpedo hits the target it's gone because the guy in mommies basement has killed it. So am I a leech? Should I be penalized?.
There needs to be a skill gate no other solution will work
OK, I follow your reasoning to a point, but I thought gravity wells etc counted, so I guess I have to admit to a degree of ignorance there.
What would the measuring system for skill be based on? Just level? Dps from the last battle?
Not saying it couldn't work, but curious how you see it working.
Have to be gone for a bit, thanks for the thoughts.
I get the feeling that there is two different arguments going on here because the OP was not very clear that he got AFKed in a 5-60 mission and not the normal 50+ ones until later. Can we all agree (other then sarcasmdetector who seem to think that casuals should be flying like top DPSers) that getting the AFK penalty when you are say, level 10 flying with multiple kemoed TS3 torp boats is not the same as a level 60 player in a scimmy doing 1k DPS in ISA? Can we all also agree that the former is a case of the system failing the player and the second is a player failing the system?
Missions allowing lvl5+, to be mixed with lvl50+ is definitely screwy, but in the vast majority of cases involving this discussion, it always boils down to those under 1% dpsers/leechers who want the afk wall knocked down!
Honestly, I'm uncertain what purpose is actually served by an AFK penalty, as opposed to simply a lack of a reward. If people are attempting to leech missions without doing any work, not receiving a reward should be enough to discourage them from doing it, given that they waste their time and get nothing. If the goal is to punish people from griefing the mission through causing to be short-handed, there are, quite frankly, plenty more effective ways of causing grief. The punishment seems rather disproportionate to the (lack of) action. Especially in the OP's case, where, whether he tried to AFK or not, his actions appear to have passed without notice as his existence hadn't really registered to anyone anyway.
This would be a better solution, but the current system tries to not only reward them with nothing, but punish them for 2hrs. so they don't keep trying for nothing!
However, the system doesn't actually prevent anything IMO, as experienced leechers can get by it easily!
So how about the scoreboard idea? Scale rewards by the % if you like (I'd say round up to 1%, so 1 Fleet mark, and 3 dilithium maybe) and then people would learn to participate, but also see how they were actually doing, so they could see why the low reward.
Is that sounding like a possible answer?
Qapla
That would be TERRIBLE. I mean really, what other then DPS do we have for figuring out contribution %? Hull healed maybe? They can't really measure how much a grav well impacted the match. So with that in mind, that means DPS monsters gets more of the rewards. That means DPS becomes a meh, do it if you wanna to MUST DO IT to get anything. It would certainly make cryptic happy as it would push casual players into a pay up to get all these deeps item, doff, ships, boff, etc etc. But such a system would be the death of STO as it would be the death of the casuals.
Not only that, but let's say I decide to jump into a queue, even a normal one, and someone with a 100k dps ship is also there. I can do 5-6 k against the Starbase near new Romulus. So it takes me say 20 seconds to get my bearings and head to where I need to be. Even before my first torpedo hits the target it's gone because the guy in mommies basement has killed it. So am I a leech? Should I be penalized?.
There needs to be a skill gate no other solution will work
I don't think you understand the true horror of a percentage based reward. Nevermind the leeching aspect. If the reward was percentage based like suggested and you had a decent 20k boat (which can be built up pretty easily). You join a que with 3 100k boats and a sub 10k er. The 100ker will get about 30% of the rewards. You will get about 6% and the 10ker about 3%. vs now, where you all get 20% of the reward. Yeah...this would lead to all sorts of a DPS race.
Actually, my preferred version of a percentage system is different than that. We all tossed around a lot of idea recently, I admit.
My preferred idea is that the top player always gets 100% of the total.
Someone doing 90% of the top gets 90% out of 100% all their very own.
Someone doing 6% of what the top player gets will receive 6% out of 100%
So actually, the reward in your example would be the best three each getting their own 100%, not splitting it at all.
The 20k player gets 20% out of 100% they might have gotten, but not out of anyone else's winnings. They are separate.
The sub 10k er gets 10% or less out of a possible 10% that was available to them had they been a top scorer. Nobody else pays for it.
Each player has their own potential reward of 100%, shared with nobody else, but reduced per that individuals comparative contribution.
Any bonuses for completion may also be reduced, but the top player gets double any team based victory reward for being the most effective.
That is how the % system I kind of liked, might work. Plus I would round up any result to the next whole percentage point so nobody gets zero, unless they contribute exactly zero. Leeches and bots will probably avoid those, and find new ways to aggravate us, but nobody gets punished by more than having a low, or very low reward.
If this sounds better with more explanation, please let us know.
I get the feeling that there is two different arguments going on here because the OP was not very clear that he got AFKed in a 5-60 mission and not the normal 50+ ones until later. Can we all agree (other then sarcasmdetector who seem to think that casuals should be flying like top DPSers) that getting the AFK penalty when you are say, level 10 flying with multiple kemoed TS3 torp boats is not the same as a level 60 player in a scimmy doing 1k DPS in ISA? Can we all also agree that the former is a case of the system failing the player and the second is a player failing the system?
Missions allowing lvl5+, to be mixed with lvl50+ is definitely screwy, but in the vast majority of cases involving this discussion, it always boils down to those under 1% dpsers/leechers who want the afk wall knocked down!
Honestly, I'm uncertain what purpose is actually served by an AFK penalty, as opposed to simply a lack of a reward. If people are attempting to leech missions without doing any work, not receiving a reward should be enough to discourage them from doing it, given that they waste their time and get nothing. If the goal is to punish people from griefing the mission through causing to be short-handed, there are, quite frankly, plenty more effective ways of causing grief. The punishment seems rather disproportionate to the (lack of) action. Especially in the OP's case, where, whether he tried to AFK or not, his actions appear to have passed without notice as his existence hadn't really registered to anyone anyway.
This would be a better solution, but the current system tries to not only reward them with nothing, but punish them for 2hrs. so they don't keep trying for nothing!
However, the system doesn't actually prevent anything IMO, as experienced leechers can get by it easily!
You assume they are trying for nothing? Really? Did I misunderstand you?
It is an AFK penalty, not a 'you don't know how to do it right' penalty. The name of the penalty is fraudulent.
if you want to punish them for getting "nothing" by taking away a place for them to get more experience, I would say you have it backwards. They need more experience, and your sort of trying to justify slowing them down at getting it.
Think about that for a bit, please. if I misunderstood, I'm sorry.
I don't think you understand the true horror of a percentage based reward. Nevermind the leeching aspect. If the reward was percentage based like suggested and you had a decent 20k boat (which can be built up pretty easily). You join a que with 3 100k boats and a sub 10k er. The 100ker will get about 30% of the rewards. You will get about 6% and the 10ker about 3%. vs now, where you all get 20% of the reward. Yeah...this would lead to all sorts of a DPS race.
It shouldnt be just DPS. In CCA, the amount you do heals count as well in terms of avoiding AFK Penalty and winning #1 even if you deal 0 DPS.
Changes should only happen in PuGs. Since there is no reason to change the private matches reward/penalty system.
That is neglible chance of happening in PuGs, 3 100kers doing 100k+ in a PuG. Yes, 100k is possible for one player to do 100k. but 3 people doing 100k in a PuG? Are these players exempted from the DPS cannabilization mechanics?
You assume they are trying for nothing? Really? Did I misunderstand you?
It is an AFK penalty, not a 'you don't know how to do it right' penalty. The name of the penalty is fraudulent.
if you want to punish them for getting "nothing" by taking away a place for them to get more experience, I would say you have it backwards. They need more experience, and your sort of trying to justify slowing them down at getting it.
Think about that for a bit, please. if I misunderstood, I'm sorry.
Qapla
I believe it wouldnt be political for them to say it is an "Incompetent Penalty". Besides the AFK Penalty didnt start as purposely affecting people are totally incompetent and chose to remain incompetent.
Because In order for one to be continuously be affected by the AFK penalty, one must somehow choose to remain incompetent, choose not to improve, and insist to repeat that STF/difficulty continuously.
It shouldnt be just DPS. In CCA, the amount you do heals count as well in terms of avoiding AFK Penalty and winning #1 even if you deal 0 DPS.
The difference between CCA and some of the solutions proposed here is that CCA doesn't penalize lower performing players. It rewards players that performed better. I am for additional rewards based on performance, but against lower rewards for less contribution on level 50+ queues.
A pretty good compromise to the problem of this thread is to remove the AFK penalty for queues open to level 5 players. Instead of getting a 2-hour AFK ban, just give them a message that they did not contribute enough to the team and don't give them the mission rewards. Maybe even add a message that they need to either deal more damage or heal other players more to gain the reward.
It shouldnt be just DPS. In CCA, the amount you do heals count as well in terms of avoiding AFK Penalty and winning #1 even if you deal 0 DPS.
The difference between CCA and some of the solutions proposed here is that CCA doesn't penalize lower performing players. It rewards players that performed better. I am for additional rewards based on performance, but against lower rewards for less contribution on level 50+ queues.
A pretty good compromise to the problem of this thread is to remove the AFK penalty for queues open to level 5 players. Instead of getting a 2-hour AFK ban, just give them a message that they did not contribute enough to the team and don't give them the mission rewards. Maybe even add a message that they need to either deal more damage or heal other players more to gain the reward.
this actually sounds reasonable... even if it mean there will be thread asking what that means.
if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
I get the feeling that there is two different arguments going on here because the OP was not very clear that he got AFKed in a 5-60 mission and not the normal 50+ ones until later. Can we all agree (other then sarcasmdetector who seem to think that casuals should be flying like top DPSers) that getting the AFK penalty when you are say, level 10 flying with multiple kemoed TS3 torp boats is not the same as a level 60 player in a scimmy doing 1k DPS in ISA? Can we all also agree that the former is a case of the system failing the player and the second is a player failing the system?
Missions allowing lvl5+, to be mixed with lvl50+ is definitely screwy, but in the vast majority of cases involving this discussion, it always boils down to those under 1% dpsers/leechers who want the afk wall knocked down!
Honestly, I'm uncertain what purpose is actually served by an AFK penalty, as opposed to simply a lack of a reward. If people are attempting to leech missions without doing any work, not receiving a reward should be enough to discourage them from doing it, given that they waste their time and get nothing. If the goal is to punish people from griefing the mission through causing to be short-handed, there are, quite frankly, plenty more effective ways of causing grief. The punishment seems rather disproportionate to the (lack of) action. Especially in the OP's case, where, whether he tried to AFK or not, his actions appear to have passed without notice as his existence hadn't really registered to anyone anyway.
This would be a better solution, but the current system tries to not only reward them with nothing, but punish them for 2hrs. so they don't keep trying for nothing!
However, the system doesn't actually prevent anything IMO, as experienced leechers can get by it easily!
You assume they are trying for nothing? Really? Did I misunderstand you?
It is an AFK penalty, not a 'you don't know how to do it right' penalty. The name of the penalty is fraudulent.
if you want to punish them for getting "nothing" by taking away a place for them to get more experience, I would say you have it backwards. They need more experience, and your sort of trying to justify slowing them down at getting it.
Think about that for a bit, please. if I misunderstood, I'm sorry.
Qapla
There was a time when insta-fail, was a means to try and get people to up their game, it was shot down horribly to what we have currently.
And, yet people still cannot grasp the concept any better, than with or without the insta-fail system.
So, learning is something some people can obviously do easy, while others are slow/too slow/never going to learn/refuse to learn/refuse to actually help is all that is left!
Those listed above, are usually the top people trying to rid the game of ALL forms of penalty systems, for reasons that are not necessary enough to warant it, due to such limited numbers of them to warrant such a change!
I'm kind of shocked at how many responses there were to this post. An example: The character who I was running before (a level 12) is now a level 57 and honored by Starfleet for great service and accomplishment (like all characters eventually are).
Fleet Admiral Duane Gundrum, U.S.S. Merrimack
Fleet Admiral Ventaxa Proxmire, U.S.S. Shaka Walls Fell
Blog: http://www.sarbonn.com/?page_id=1990
Foundry series: Bob From Accounting & For the Sake of the Empire
I don't think you understand the true horror of a percentage based reward. Nevermind the leeching aspect. If the reward was percentage based like suggested and you had a decent 20k boat (which can be built up pretty easily). You join a que with 3 100k boats and a sub 10k er. The 100ker will get about 30% of the rewards. You will get about 6% and the 10ker about 3%. vs now, where you all get 20% of the reward. Yeah...this would lead to all sorts of a DPS race.
It shouldnt be just DPS. In CCA, the amount you do heals count as well in terms of avoiding AFK Penalty and winning #1 even if you deal 0 DPS.
Changes should only happen in PuGs. Since there is no reason to change the private matches reward/penalty system.
That is neglible chance of happening in PuGs, 3 100kers doing 100k+ in a PuG. Yes, 100k is possible for one player to do 100k. but 3 people doing 100k in a PuG? Are these players exempted from the DPS cannabilization mechanics?
You assume they are trying for nothing? Really? Did I misunderstand you?
It is an AFK penalty, not a 'you don't know how to do it right' penalty. The name of the penalty is fraudulent.
if you want to punish them for getting "nothing" by taking away a place for them to get more experience, I would say you have it backwards. They need more experience, and your sort of trying to justify slowing them down at getting it.
Think about that for a bit, please. if I misunderstood, I'm sorry.
Qapla
I believe it wouldnt be political for them to say it is an "Incompetent Penalty". Besides the AFK Penalty didnt start as purposely affecting people are totally incompetent and chose to remain incompetent.
Because In order for one to be continuously be affected by the AFK penalty, one must somehow choose to remain incompetent, choose not to improve, and insist to repeat that STF/difficulty continuously.
I expect anyone would want to improve. I am not worried for them if they stay in the game,and can put up with early game BS.
Lets suppose though that we are looking at a newcomer who hasn't become jaded yet with all of STOs little issues. They are new to the game and have one or more early (and to them) obviously unfair penalties applied just for playing. Playing where the game system has invited them to play.
So maybe they uninstall STO ? Maybe they go play 'Tera' instead? I know we are losing people because I know some of the people who have left, and I know that sometimes it was boredom with grinding to get anywhere. But sometimes it was the PVE environment. I had two players in particular who mentioned PVE in STO specifically as motivating them find more fun things to do.
This was an experienced PVPr and her husband who had come over from WOW because WOW was "to addicting". That same couple had an adult daughter who was a guild leader for 2-3 years, and is also in STO, but now inactive as well. In all three people who I encouraged to try STO. They were not MMO noobs, but only noobs regarding STO.
PVE was not fun, or engaging, and felt like a grind to them. Mostly they said that things were over to fast, to many people killing stuff before you could shoot, and sometimes they got locked out afterwards. I had never gotten an AFK, so I didn't quite understand. To me it was a simple matter of doing some sparring in private PVP, seeing if there were any obvious flaws in their builds, or if they were at least fair, then going on a mission with them. I got to do a little of that with them at first.
Unfortunately there was a gap in my presence on STO (work and stuff), during that time whatever wasn't working for them, burned into them, that STO was not the game to play, with so many other options. I dragged two of them back into it for a few days when I was able to spend some time, but I couldn't make the sale, even though we did have some fun.
I finally got an AFK penalty while flying a new level 10 character, and the whole picture came into focus for me. It is what my Fleet mates had been talking about, and now I could see it. I also felt like I had failed them as a leader and as a team mate for not understanding the power drift, and the AFK mechanic earlier. It had never occurred to me that either would be a problem for MY Fleet members, since MY Fleet members were not idiots. I could not imagine five months ago any player doing 100k dps, let alone some of the higher numbers mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
I didn't understand their complaint properly, and they are not playing now. The game is diminished, we are ALL diminished
Other new players drop off the radar with little or no explanation and I see quite often they are low level also. I have to assume that they didn't get in far enough invested to want to stay in spite of the games failings, and there were enough failings that hit them at low level that it got settled for them very early. They are gone. Inactive at least. We all lose.
One thing that can't help but hit a new player is the power difference they will experience when taking a T1-2 ship, and a level 5-10 toon into a PVE set for 5-60, and which has well established dps ers. We need to stop doing crappy things to the new people! Treating them like thieves, or complete idiots should not be possible in areas where we know people who are still learning the game, are going to find themselves. PVE queues at low level.
I am not sure if the influx of new is cancelling out the outflow. We should worry. What if word of mouth reduces the influx? My players mentioned above are trying to get me to play Tera instead. Actually I was given a presentation of several game options when I visited their home recently. STO warranted a 'meh' reaction. The daughter was there, and she said 'maybe' but not in anything like an excited tone.
The purpose of any recreational game is to have fun. The attraction for all players of such games is that they WILL have fun playing. If we want STO to survive, and keep the Devs employed, then we need STO to be able to compete in terms of providing more fun, for more people.
The purpose of an AFK mechanic is to punish someone for doing nothing, and to prevent them from getting a reward. The current one also punishes people who come here to have fun, not quite knowing what shape that fun may take. Punishing those people (the innocent ones) seems to only serve a small minority of the game community, while having broad reaching negative effects on the community as a whole. For this reason it needs to stop.
We need to "really take a look at" the AFK mechanic, and change or if necessary eliminate it. I'm fine with scaled rewards, as I see them to be more encouraging than the mindlessly destructive penalty is. A reward will always attract, a small one attracts less, but it still attracts. A penalty, especially an undeserved on can drive people off. we want people to be attracted to the game, not driven off.
I'm kind of shocked at how many responses there were to this post. An example: The character who I was running before (a level 12) is now a level 57 and honored by Starfleet for great service and accomplishment (like all characters eventually are).
It's a worthy discussion. Injustice should be met with the resolve to do something about it.
If I really were a Klingon, would I shy away from an honorable fight? Nope!
If I really were a Vulcan, would I look for a more logical alternative to a system that can punish an innocent person? Yes!
If I were a Romulan, would I be looking at the long term survival of my community? Yes!
If I were a Tellerite ... Actually, lets not ... I really don't like arguing but it needs done.
On another note, have you had any more trouble with AFK?
The way I figure it you have not, but your an experienced STO player who knows the game sometimes shoots you in the face witha wide dispersal barrage of stupid! You seem to have plugged away in spite of it, and I salute you.
You are probably what I would call an 'invested player' and so your going to put up with stuff because you are in so deep that pulling out would hurt worse.
Thank you for confirming that you were using a level 12 toon. Even if you are experienced with previous toons, this supports many of my concerns about the current system. Even experienced players with new toons can get an unfair penalty, so noobs are even more vulnerable.
New players have less reason to not just delete STO and move on. New players are also the ones we need to encourage most.
So how about the scoreboard idea? Scale rewards by the % if you like (I'd say round up to 1%, so 1 Fleet mark, and 3 dilithium maybe) and then people would learn to participate, but also see how they were actually doing, so they could see why the low reward.
Is that sounding like a possible answer?
Qapla
That would be TERRIBLE. I mean really, what other then DPS do we have for figuring out contribution %? Hull healed maybe? They can't really measure how much a grav well impacted the match. So with that in mind, that means DPS monsters gets more of the rewards. That means DPS becomes a meh, do it if you wanna to MUST DO IT to get anything. It would certainly make cryptic happy as it would push casual players into a pay up to get all these deeps item, doff, ships, boff, etc etc. But such a system would be the death of STO as it would be the death of the casuals.
Not only that, but let's say I decide to jump into a queue, even a normal one, and someone with a 100k dps ship is also there. I can do 5-6 k against the Starbase near new Romulus. So it takes me say 20 seconds to get my bearings and head to where I need to be. Even before my first torpedo hits the target it's gone because the guy in mommies basement has killed it. So am I a leech? Should I be penalized?.
There needs to be a skill gate no other solution will work
I don't think you understand the true horror of a percentage based reward. Nevermind the leeching aspect. If the reward was percentage based like suggested and you had a decent 20k boat (which can be built up pretty easily). You join a que with 3 100k boats and a sub 10k er. The 100ker will get about 30% of the rewards. You will get about 6% and the 10ker about 3%. vs now, where you all get 20% of the reward. Yeah...this would lead to all sorts of a DPS race.
Actually, my preferred version of a percentage system is different than that. We all tossed around a lot of idea recently, I admit.
My preferred idea is that the top player always gets 100% of the total.
Someone doing 90% of the top gets 90% out of 100% all their very own.
Someone doing 6% of what the top player gets will receive 6% out of 100%
So actually, the reward in your example would be the best three each getting their own 100%, not splitting it at all.
The 20k player gets 20% out of 100% they might have gotten, but not out of anyone else's winnings. They are separate.
The sub 10k er gets 10% or less out of a possible 10% that was available to them had they been a top scorer. Nobody else pays for it.
Each player has their own potential reward of 100%, shared with nobody else, but reduced per that individuals comparative contribution.
Any bonuses for completion may also be reduced, but the top player gets double any team based victory reward for being the most effective.
That is how the % system I kind of liked, might work. Plus I would round up any result to the next whole percentage point so nobody gets zero, unless they contribute exactly zero. Leeches and bots will probably avoid those, and find new ways to aggravate us, but nobody gets punished by more than having a low, or very low reward.
If this sounds better with more explanation, please let us know.
Qapla
That sounds pretty dang bad still. So lets keep with ISA. If you have a 100k player in the que with your 20k boat, instead of getting 760 dil you get 152 dil. You don't think that will push DPSing to new insanity? It will make kemo sell for hundreds of million of EC more then it is now? Push for lock box key sales to get more kemo and the best DPS ships? Like I said, good for cryptic...bad for us.
OK, point taken, but what about averaging time with dps, with healing, so all three are considered?
Make the AFK penalty just equate to "no reward", but don't bar someone from trying to go back and do better, so they can keep learning, find out why no reward, etc.
I'm kind of shocked at how many responses there were to this post. An example: The character who I was running before (a level 12) is now a level 57 and honored by Starfleet for great service and accomplishment (like all characters eventually are).
It may be irony. I was leveling a toon when I got my AFK, which in turn made me research how it could happen, which also lead me here. I need to use this week to finish minimum goals.
It shouldnt be just DPS. In CCA, the amount you do heals count as well in terms of avoiding AFK Penalty and winning #1 even if you deal 0 DPS.
The difference between CCA and some of the solutions proposed here is that CCA doesn't penalize lower performing players. It rewards players that performed better. I am for additional rewards based on performance, but against lower rewards for less contribution on level 50+ queues.
A pretty good compromise to the problem of this thread is to remove the AFK penalty for queues open to level 5 players. Instead of getting a 2-hour AFK ban, just give them a message that they did not contribute enough to the team and don't give them the mission rewards. Maybe even add a message that they need to either deal more damage or heal other players more to gain the reward.
this actually sounds reasonable... even if it mean there will be thread asking what that means.
OK, so eliminate the penalty for level 5+ queues, but if you would have gotten the penalty, you get no reward, and a message+explanation of what to try next time (damage+healing). In exchange, and so the big dps ers are more willing to compromise, grant an extra reward for doing the most (or enough more) dps so elite builds get something for both their efforts at making those builds, helping the team, and for being willing to share space with noobs.
The higher entry level queues remain as they are, right? Sounds good to me.
I'm not sure if new threads would be good, or bad, or if it would matter much. I like the idea that people will come looking for answers. If they complain after we fix this, well, they may also complain about Orions who aren't the "correct" color, and we can't expect the forums to be free from all dumb questions, nuisance threads, and purposeful trolling. It's a forum.
How many people here think e30ernest's compromise (open previous quotes) would be acceptable? Not perfect, but acceptable?
I don't think you understand the true horror of a percentage based reward. Nevermind the leeching aspect. If the reward was percentage based like suggested and you had a decent 20k boat (which can be built up pretty easily). You join a que with 3 100k boats and a sub 10k er. The 100ker will get about 30% of the rewards. You will get about 6% and the 10ker about 3%. vs now, where you all get 20% of the reward. Yeah...this would lead to all sorts of a DPS race.
It shouldnt be just DPS. In CCA, the amount you do heals count as well in terms of avoiding AFK Penalty and winning #1 even if you deal 0 DPS.
Changes should only happen in PuGs. Since there is no reason to change the private matches reward/penalty system.
That is neglible chance of happening in PuGs, 3 100kers doing 100k+ in a PuG. Yes, 100k is possible for one player to do 100k. but 3 people doing 100k in a PuG? Are these players exempted from the DPS cannabilization mechanics?
You assume they are trying for nothing? Really? Did I misunderstand you?
It is an AFK penalty, not a 'you don't know how to do it right' penalty. The name of the penalty is fraudulent.
if you want to punish them for getting "nothing" by taking away a place for them to get more experience, I would say you have it backwards. They need more experience, and your sort of trying to justify slowing them down at getting it.
Think about that for a bit, please. if I misunderstood, I'm sorry.
Qapla
I believe it wouldnt be political for them to say it is an "Incompetent Penalty". Besides the AFK Penalty didnt start as purposely affecting people are totally incompetent and chose to remain incompetent.
Because In order for one to be continuously be affected by the AFK penalty, one must somehow choose to remain incompetent, choose not to improve, and insist to repeat that STF/difficulty continuously.
Yes you can have 3 100k DPS because while there is a certain number of damage you can do, you just finish the map FASTER...and faster = more DPS. I have been in ques with 3 100kers...it's scary how fast we mow through the maps.
And yes, we can even have healing be one of the metrics...I mentioned that...but unless you SUPER heavily weight healing over damage, it will be a small factor since even the massive DPS folks have some healing (and NOBODY in the history of this game has gotten first in CCA with 0 DPS and all healing). And if we DO weight healing that much, do we really want to switch the meta to be if you want full rewards, make the map last for 2 hours because you all have zero DPS and all heal boats? It's not a good game design to do that.
The problem at hand with the AFK penalty in the 5-60 ques is that it's not even an incompetent penalty. It's a we group you new player with new ship with people like sarcasmdetector penalty. And when you get penalized for basically NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT because you wanted to try out a part of the game that is offered to you...well...yes you can get better by playing the game more and getting more levels...but in many cases you don't...because you STOP PLAYING a game with such stupid systems. I played swordman for a while. It was a fun game. Until I learned that you can be PKed while getting quests and turning them in...and there was nothing really stopping high level asshats from ganking newer players as they try to do quests and gain levels. That is a HORRIBLE system...so I stopped playing an otherwise pretty good game. Systems...especially ones that affect new players matter...it matters A LOT.
Diablo 2' was my first online gaming experience. I remember just having gotten high level (9 If I recall) to be a pvp target. I had installed the game something like two hours earlier. I'm doing great. No enemies that good tactics can't beat, and I hadn't died at all. Suddenly my character is dying while fighting minor mobs, and I never see where it is coming from. I try to get back to my body eight times, before I can get to my toons body, get my stuff, and make it back to camp. Short story, a level 60 was killing me, for whatever reason.
I stayed in camp for awhile, and there was a level 80+ (again, it's been awhile) who started calling out the level 60, saying if he wanted to do PVP then bring it. Well I stayed in camp, the level 60 stayed in camp, and the level 80 kept badgering the 60, calling him out, and calling him a coward, till he left, and the level 80 gave me some potions and left also. He didn't have any reason to stay after the PKer left, I guess. The level 80 could have been on any map in the game, and I still don't know why he came into mine. But he helped make the game right, and rode into the sunset. Just like that.
All in all it was very educational, and probably formed a lot of my early behavior for online gaming. You can be a villain to people, or you can be a champion for them. I chose the path of trying to help, to be more like a champion.
I also didn't let that PVP experience kill Diablo 2' for me. I found the ways to avoid nuisance players, I found ways to improve, and I looked a lot up online. I have to wonder though, if I hadn't gotten consideration and kindness from another player, what I might have done besides staying with it. Would the ability of a single high level player to totally ruin the map I was on, have done it for me? Maybe ...
I have played games that just weren't for me, and it usually involves finding out I would have had more fun digging an irrigation ditch, than playing. Multiple instances of that jerk pk er with no positive examples, might have gotten Diablo 2' on that list.
I still play Diablo 2' and I logged on three weeks ago in fact. It's pretty quiet, but still there. Can STO last that long? Maybe, if we are accepting, and inclusive, and considerate. Especially if the game mechanics don't favor abuse of newcomers. I totally get what coldnapalm is saying.
That sounds pretty dang bad still. So lets keep with ISA. If you have a 100k player in the que with your 20k boat, instead of getting 760 dil you get 152 dil. You don't think that will push DPSing to new insanity? It will make kemo sell for hundreds of million of EC more then it is now? Push for lock box key sales to get more kemo and the best DPS ships? Like I said, good for cryptic...bad for us.
OK, point taken, but what about averaging time with dps, with healing, so all three are considered?
Make the AFK penalty just equate to "no reward", but don't bar someone from trying to go back and do better, so they can keep learning, find out why no reward, etc.
How does that sound?
Qapla
Sounds fine...for the 50+ ques if you want to help the clueless playerbase at that level not get a false AFK penalty. For the 5-60 ones...not so much. Your DPS will still be bad. You healing will be bad as well. The only thing that is helping you at this point would be active time...and if you can't press that space bar fast enough, even that might be a bit low. Weighting the DPS of the lowbies really is the KISS solution I think. As for getting rid of the 2 hour penalty...I am fine for that if you are under 50. Once you start doing the actual ques however, think it should still stay. I think you all are forgotting how bad it was before they started to do this. Yes, there are leechers still...but it's honestly a LOT better then before.
OK, so eliminate the penalty for level 5+ queues OR if the toon is below level 50? Or both? Then, we use some scale to determine effectiveness (whether we use damage+healing+time/3, or weighted dps?) But do we apply the measuring system across all queue content, or only to specific content? If a toon would have gotten the penalty, is there a reward anyway? Or do they get no reward along with a message+explanation of what to try next time?
Do we grant an extra reward for doing the most (or enough more) dps ? Will a larger top reward placate the big dps ers for being willing to share space with noobs.
By 'actual queues' you mean the ones with a gate requiring level 50+. Am I correct? If so, I wouldn't change anything at that level either except maybe (maybe) the possibility of factoring in time, for a time+dps+healing/3 standard. (maybe, and I see your KISS reference as valid)
By level 50 even a noob had to play a bit to get there, so they have more powerful gear, better ships, and have re-spawned a bunch by then, so I feel they are both time invested, and broke in enough to face a possible penalty. They can take the hit better even if it was factually an unfair penalty in some cases, they should know it is a possibility by then, and be braced for it.
A false positive at that point isn't such a shock, and by factoring in time, if we did, then maybe that would take care of 99% of it. We could hope.
I think we are getting closer to a fix that would be better. If we tighten this up we may have a suggestion worth showing to the Devs.
Yes you can have 3 100k DPS because while there is a certain number of damage you can do, you just finish the map FASTER...and faster = more DPS. I have been in ques with 3 100kers...it's scary how fast we mow through the maps.
You can be with 3 100kers. It doesnt equate 3 people doing 100k DPS in ISA. Since you mentioned multiple maps, this is already planned and more likely a private match. 4 players knowing each other. Private match/Planned matches should never have AFK problems. Nor should private matches mechanics be change. AFK penalty is a PuG problem, meaning 5 PUG problem.
Besides those 3 100kers will just eat each others DPS in standard Left to right PuG ISA run.
The problem at hand with the AFK penalty in the 5-60 ques is that it's not even an incompetent penalty. It's a we group you new player with new ship with people like sarcasmdetector penalty. And when you get penalized for basically NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT because you wanted to try out a part of the game that is offered to you...well...yes you can get better by playing the game more and getting more levels...but in many cases you don't...because you STOP PLAYING a game with such stupid systems. I played swordman for a while. It was a fun game. Until I learned that you can be PKed while getting quests and turning them in...and there was nothing really stopping high level asshats from ganking newer players as they try to do quests and gain levels. That is a HORRIBLE system...so I stopped playing an otherwise pretty good game. Systems...especially ones that affect new players matter...it matters A LOT.
Assuming the new player actually is incompetent. New player doesnt equate incompentence. Not all players are like what admiralkogar assumes.
Better remove lower level players trying to impose going in to public queues. Because if that player is an AFK level ability, it is faster for them to get rewards by teaming up because someone will do the work for them. If you they do solo missions, it will be impossible for them to complete the mission assuming same HP, level mobs, and DPS mobs since they dont have the DPS nor survivability capability.
Essentially they are leeching even if they 100% active combat time if they go to public queues.
I expect anyone would want to improve. I am not worried for them if they stay in the game,and can put up with early game BS.
Assuming all player are like incompetent new and old. Not all players are arrogant enough to charging maps/queues with level 50+ mobs when they are lower level.
Lets suppose though that we are looking at a newcomer who hasn't become jaded yet with all of STOs little issues. They are new to the game and have one or more early (and to them) obviously unfair penalties applied just for playing. Playing where the game system has invited them to play.
Assuming again that new player does the same actions as those who get AFK Penalty.
I finally got an AFK penalty while flying a new level 10 character, and the whole picture came into focus for me. It is what my Fleet mates had been talking about, and now I could see it. I also felt like I had failed them as a leader and as a team mate for not understanding the power drift, and the AFK mechanic earlier. It had never occurred to me that either would be a problem for MY Fleet members, since MY Fleet members were not idiots. I could not imagine five months ago any player doing 100k dps, let alone some of the higher numbers mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
But that is the thing, why in the world are you in level public queue with NPCs that are level 50+?
A lot of players have been doing 100k+ DPS 5 months ago. Being high DPS doesnt equate they can replicate it in a PuG in any map.
Here is the thing, you all went into a map wherein players dps is less than innate regeneration of HPs. And HPS of players lower than the DPS of NPCs. Absent of those carrying your team, AFK penalty level players/toon are not capable of completing that mission assuming the same performance/capabilities/gear when got AFK penalty with no one carrying.
I didn't understand their complaint properly, and they are not playing now. The game is diminished, we are ALL diminished
Other new players drop off the radar with little or no explanation and I see quite often they are low level also. I have to assume that they didn't get in far enough invested to want to stay in spite of the games failings, and there were enough failings that hit them at low level that it got settled for them very early. They are gone. Inactive at least. We all lose.
One thing that can't help but hit a new player is the power difference they will experience when taking a T1-2 ship, and a level 5-10 toon into a PVE set for 5-60, and which has well established dps ers. We need to stop doing crappy things to the new people! Treating them like thieves, or complete idiots should not be possible in areas where we know people who are still learning the game, are going to find themselves. PVE queues at low level.
I am not sure if the influx of new is cancelling out the outflow. We should worry. What if word of mouth reduces the influx? My players mentioned above are trying to get me to play Tera instead. Actually I was given a presentation of several game options when I visited their home recently. STO warranted a 'meh' reaction. The daughter was there, and she said 'maybe' but not in anything like an excited tone.
The purpose of any recreational game is to have fun. The attraction for all players of such games is that they WILL have fun playing. If we want STO to survive, and keep the Devs employed, then we need STO to be able to compete in terms of providing more fun, for more people.
The purpose of an AFK mechanic is to punish someone for doing nothing, and to prevent them from getting a reward. The current one also punishes people who come here to have fun, not quite knowing what shape that fun may take. Punishing those people (the innocent ones) seems to only serve a small minority of the game community, while having broad reaching negative effects on the community as a whole. For this reason it needs to stop.
We need to "really take a look at" the AFK mechanic, and change or if necessary eliminate it. I'm fine with scaled rewards, as I see them to be more encouraging than the mindlessly destructive penalty is. A reward will always attract, a small one attracts less, but it still attracts. A penalty, especially an undeserved on can drive people off. we want people to be attracted to the game, not driven off.
Qapla.
Because what you are insisting is a subset of players insisting their playstyle including choices/mistakes by playing at level 50 public queues while they are below level 50. It is a normal queue, with level 50+ NPCs with them no way of doing minimum mission requirements since they are doing AFK Penalty performance.
That in itself is leeching. Players who dont belong trying to insist they belong. Level 10 going to level 50+ mobs with no way of contributing that much to team. In any game you insist on competing a higher level map when you are a lower level, you will get frustrated for penalty or lack of getting rewards because they went in over their heads. That means if they go solo on the same level npc mobs with the same HP, they will get rewards lower and slower than going to a queue wherein other players can carry them. that means you transfer them to another game they will still be frustrated because they went in over their heads and kept insisting/demanding they should have the right repeating those without penalty, without improve performance.
The current players being affected by the AFK penalty are leechers one way or another regardless if they have 100% active combat time.
We are not even talking about minimum mission requirement contribution per player. We are talking lower than that, which is AFK penalty, which way below standards of the map/STF/queue.\
Like I said in my previous posts, removing AFK Penalty will just transfer the complain from AFK Penalty complaint - > 0 rewards complaint/ increased combat time complaint. Because what will happen if you pair a group of AFK penalty performance players to one another with no way of killing and surpassing the NPCs innate heal regeneration. Because it doesnt solve the problem of players who are not performing well actually improving.
Yes you can have 3 100k DPS because while there is a certain number of damage you can do, you just finish the map FASTER...and faster = more DPS. I have been in ques with 3 100kers...it's scary how fast we mow through the maps.
You can be with 3 100kers. It doesnt equate 3 people doing 100k DPS in ISA. Since you mentioned multiple maps, this is already planned and more likely a private match. 4 players knowing each other. Private match/Planned matches should never have AFK problems. Nor should private matches mechanics be change. AFK penalty is a PuG problem, meaning 5 PUG problem.
Besides those 3 100kers will just eat each others DPS in standard Left to right PuG ISA run.
The problem at hand with the AFK penalty in the 5-60 ques is that it's not even an incompetent penalty. It's a we group you new player with new ship with people like sarcasmdetector penalty. And when you get penalized for basically NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT because you wanted to try out a part of the game that is offered to you...well...yes you can get better by playing the game more and getting more levels...but in many cases you don't...because you STOP PLAYING a game with such stupid systems. I played swordman for a while. It was a fun game. Until I learned that you can be PKed while getting quests and turning them in...and there was nothing really stopping high level asshats from ganking newer players as they try to do quests and gain levels. That is a HORRIBLE system...so I stopped playing an otherwise pretty good game. Systems...especially ones that affect new players matter...it matters A LOT.
Assuming the new player actually is incompetent. New player doesnt equate incompentence. Not all players are like what admiralkogar assumes.
Better remove lower level players trying to impose going in to public queues. Because if that player is an AFK level ability, it is faster for them to get rewards by teaming up because someone will do the work for them. If you they do solo missions, it will be impossible for them to complete the mission assuming same HP, level mobs, and DPS mobs since they dont have the DPS nor survivability capability.
Essentially they are leeching even if they 100% active combat time if they go to public queues.
I expect anyone would want to improve. I am not worried for them if they stay in the game,and can put up with early game BS.
Assuming all player are like incompetent new and old. Not all players are arrogant enough to charging maps/queues with level 50+ mobs when they are lower level.
Lets suppose though that we are looking at a newcomer who hasn't become jaded yet with all of STOs little issues. They are new to the game and have one or more early (and to them) obviously unfair penalties applied just for playing. Playing where the game system has invited them to play.
Assuming again that new player does the same actions as those who get AFK Penalty.
I finally got an AFK penalty while flying a new level 10 character, and the whole picture came into focus for me. It is what my Fleet mates had been talking about, and now I could see it. I also felt like I had failed them as a leader and as a team mate for not understanding the power drift, and the AFK mechanic earlier. It had never occurred to me that either would be a problem for MY Fleet members, since MY Fleet members were not idiots. I could not imagine five months ago any player doing 100k dps, let alone some of the higher numbers mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
But that is the thing, why in the world are you in level public queue with NPCs that are level 50+?
A lot of players have been doing 100k+ DPS 5 months ago. Being high DPS doesnt equate they can replicate it in a PuG in any map.
Here is the thing, you all went into a map wherein players dps is less than innate regeneration of HPs. And HPS of players lower than the DPS of NPCs. Absent of those carrying your team, AFK penalty level players/toon are not capable of completing that mission assuming the same performance/capabilities/gear when got AFK penalty with no one carrying.
I didn't understand their complaint properly, and they are not playing now. The game is diminished, we are ALL diminished
Other new players drop off the radar with little or no explanation and I see quite often they are low level also. I have to assume that they didn't get in far enough invested to want to stay in spite of the games failings, and there were enough failings that hit them at low level that it got settled for them very early. They are gone. Inactive at least. We all lose.
One thing that can't help but hit a new player is the power difference they will experience when taking a T1-2 ship, and a level 5-10 toon into a PVE set for 5-60, and which has well established dps ers. We need to stop doing crappy things to the new people! Treating them like thieves, or complete idiots should not be possible in areas where we know people who are still learning the game, are going to find themselves. PVE queues at low level.
I am not sure if the influx of new is cancelling out the outflow. We should worry. What if word of mouth reduces the influx? My players mentioned above are trying to get me to play Tera instead. Actually I was given a presentation of several game options when I visited their home recently. STO warranted a 'meh' reaction. The daughter was there, and she said 'maybe' but not in anything like an excited tone.
The purpose of any recreational game is to have fun. The attraction for all players of such games is that they WILL have fun playing. If we want STO to survive, and keep the Devs employed, then we need STO to be able to compete in terms of providing more fun, for more people.
The purpose of an AFK mechanic is to punish someone for doing nothing, and to prevent them from getting a reward. The current one also punishes people who come here to have fun, not quite knowing what shape that fun may take. Punishing those people (the innocent ones) seems to only serve a small minority of the game community, while having broad reaching negative effects on the community as a whole. For this reason it needs to stop.
We need to "really take a look at" the AFK mechanic, and change or if necessary eliminate it. I'm fine with scaled rewards, as I see them to be more encouraging than the mindlessly destructive penalty is. A reward will always attract, a small one attracts less, but it still attracts. A penalty, especially an undeserved on can drive people off. we want people to be attracted to the game, not driven off.
Qapla.
Because what you are insisting is a subset of players insisting their playstyle including choices/mistakes by playing at level 50 public queues while they are below level 50. It is a normal queue, with level 50+ NPCs with them no way of doing minimum mission requirements since they are doing AFK Penalty performance.
That in itself is leeching. Players who dont belong trying to insist they belong. Level 10 going to level 50+ mobs with no way of contributing that much to team. In any game you insist on competing a higher level map when you are a lower level, you will get frustrated for penalty or lack of getting rewards because they went in over their heads. That means if they go solo on the same level npc mobs with the same HP, they will get rewards lower and slower than going to a queue wherein other players can carry them. that means you transfer them to another game they will still be frustrated because they went in over their heads and kept insisting/demanding they should have the right repeating those without penalty, without improve performance.
The current players being affected by the AFK penalty are leechers one way or another regardless if they have 100% active combat time.
We are not even talking about minimum mission requirement contribution per player. We are talking lower than that, which is AFK penalty, which way below standards of the map/STF/queue.\
Like I said in my previous posts, removing AFK Penalty will just transfer the complain from AFK Penalty complaint - > 0 rewards complaint/ increased combat time complaint. Because what will happen if you pair a group of AFK penalty performance players to one another with no way of killing and surpassing the NPCs innate heal regeneration. Because it doesnt solve the problem of players who are not performing well actually improving.
I have a simple question for you. At what level are Fleet Action Missions available to a toon?
More questions;
What is the difference between a' Fleet Action', an 'Event', and a 'Special Task Force' type mission?
What is the lowest level a toon is allowed to take a Fleet Alert at?
What is the lowest level a toon is allowed to take a Special Task Force mission at?
When can a level three toon enter a level 3 to 60 queue assuming you can still find one?
If a mission has a minimum level of Five to enter, can it be a Special Task Force (S.T.F.) mission? How do you know?
When can a level five toon enter a level 5 to 60 queue assuming you can find one?
Are there any (S.T.F.) missions that start at lower than level 50, and if so, what are they?
How many level 50+ S.T.F. and event missions are there, give or take a few?
How many S.T.F. and event missions are there for toons who are below level 50, give or take a few?
About how many missions, counting only S.T.F.s, Events, and F.A.s are there total?
How many of the missions counted in the previous question, allow for a level five toon to enter?
How many DO NOT allow a level five toon to enter?
Can a level five toon get into an S.T.F. mission? Can a level ten get into an S.T.F. mission?
What is the highest level toon that can enter a level 3 to 60 queue? Is it an S.T.F. queue? How do you know?
Can a level three, five, or ten, toon keep level 50 or 60 toons out of the level 5 to 60 queues?
What does a level 50 to 60 toon have to do to keep level 3, 5, or 10, toons out of the level 50+ S.T.F.s and other missions?
If a level three toon is playing in a F.A. How much Mk XII gear can the toon equip and use on a ship?
If a level three toon is playing in a F.A. can they have a T-5 or T-6 ship?
How many level five toons do you know of, that have T-5 or T-6 ships?
How many doffs can a level five toon equip on a T-1 ship?
How many doffs can a level TEN toon equip on a T-2 ship?
How many Lt. Cmdr, or Cmdr. Boff stations can reasonably be expected on a T-1 or T-2 ship?
How many Boffs is a level five toon supposed to have?
How high can a level Five toon promote Boffs to?
How many Boffs is a level ten toon supposed to have?
How high can a level ten promote Boffs to assuming all necessary expertise is available?
How many abilities can be active on a single Boff commanded by a level five toon?
How many abilities can be active on a Boff commanded by a level ten toon who had plenty of expertise somehow?
If a level ten toon somehow has a T-6 ship, how many Boff stations can be equipped by that toon, with Boffs?
How many skill points does it take for a toon to get to level three?
How many skill points does it take for a toon to get to level Ten?
How many skill points does it take for a toon to get to level 50?
What is 366,000 divided by 33,000? What is 366,000 divided by 13,000? What are those ratios?
How much difference do you estimate a third of a million skill points makes between two toons? Your opinion?
How many traits does a level five toon have?
How many traits does a level ten toon have?
How many traits does a level 50 toon or a level 60 toon have have?
Does a level five toon have the same number of abilities as a level 50, or 60 toon?
What would a level five or ten toon who was in a Fleet, want with Fleet marks or dilithium? Why should they even play an F.A. ?
I could spoon feed you some of the answers, but I know you hate that sort of thing on principle, so here, I'm only showing you where to find the information most of us already have. If you want to wander, I suggest the main page, but what you need is actually mostly on the other two listings below that, and you can find the rest pretty easy by using your head.
Admittedly, it is sometimes a little bit dated in spots, but it's about as good as we get.
Please, anyone feel free to look at these. Browse around.
One thing should be very, very clear. Level five toons are not casually jumping into level 50 + public queues. Any such statement that they are is insane, or a blatant deceit. You pick.
It should also be clear that the power difference is huge between low, and high levels. A skilled player can only do so much. Can anyone provide real real information for what level matching does besides modify a few basic numbers with little impact?
It should also be crystal clear that low level toons can't avoid the high level toons except by not playing at all!
However the high level toons have a three to one majority of missions they can run, where the low level toons are not allowed, meaning they have all the barriers necessary to avoid low level players, that they could ever need.
More interestingly, we have seen players of high level toons blaming the low level players for mixing with them, when the power to choose belongs exclusively to the higher level players. It seems to be a case of some high level players wanting to play in the beginners areas, because it is a quick, and easy way to get marks and dith. Not because it is a good challenge, but because to them, it is a cakewalk. So what if the power they bring to a low level queue is unbalancing? Everyone else who was queueing the level five gated F.A. must be a leech! Can't be any other explanation, can there?
Anyway ... let me know if any of the questions are to hard for anyone, but I have told you where to look for answers, so it should be easy to see what the blazes I am getting at here.
You do realize that you have ZERO option of who you end up with when you click on a public queue...right? And it's the GAME that sets up a level 10 player with level 50+ players which then generated level 50 mobs. And the reason they don't have a seperate match maker for 5-9, 10-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49 is that there is not enough players to even REMOTELY support this. So basically what you are saying is that it is the NEW player's fault for choosing to PLAY THE FRAKING GAME. So since the GAME causes this situation to happen, what is YOUR solution then? Remove queues until you are level 50? That is a solution...I will grant you that...but not one I would consider to be a GOOD one.
Funny actually, I think I tried to say the same thing, but made it so much more complicated than you did.
I think it can be proven that the ones who have the power in deciding to mix crowds are the high level players, since they have a way to avoid mixing, that doesn't stop them from playing. Low levels don't have that option.
Comments
OK, I follow your reasoning to a point, but I thought gravity wells etc counted, so I guess I have to admit to a degree of ignorance there.
What would the measuring system for skill be based on? Just level? Dps from the last battle?
Not saying it couldn't work, but curious how you see it working.
Have to be gone for a bit, thanks for the thoughts.
Qapla.
Missions allowing lvl5+, to be mixed with lvl50+ is definitely screwy, but in the vast majority of cases involving this discussion, it always boils down to those under 1% dpsers/leechers who want the afk wall knocked down!
This would be a better solution, but the current system tries to not only reward them with nothing, but punish them for 2hrs. so they don't keep trying for nothing!
However, the system doesn't actually prevent anything IMO, as experienced leechers can get by it easily!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Actually, my preferred version of a percentage system is different than that. We all tossed around a lot of idea recently, I admit.
My preferred idea is that the top player always gets 100% of the total.
Someone doing 90% of the top gets 90% out of 100% all their very own.
Someone doing 6% of what the top player gets will receive 6% out of 100%
So actually, the reward in your example would be the best three each getting their own 100%, not splitting it at all.
The 20k player gets 20% out of 100% they might have gotten, but not out of anyone else's winnings. They are separate.
The sub 10k er gets 10% or less out of a possible 10% that was available to them had they been a top scorer. Nobody else pays for it.
Each player has their own potential reward of 100%, shared with nobody else, but reduced per that individuals comparative contribution.
Any bonuses for completion may also be reduced, but the top player gets double any team based victory reward for being the most effective.
That is how the % system I kind of liked, might work. Plus I would round up any result to the next whole percentage point so nobody gets zero, unless they contribute exactly zero. Leeches and bots will probably avoid those, and find new ways to aggravate us, but nobody gets punished by more than having a low, or very low reward.
If this sounds better with more explanation, please let us know.
Qapla
You assume they are trying for nothing? Really? Did I misunderstand you?
It is an AFK penalty, not a 'you don't know how to do it right' penalty. The name of the penalty is fraudulent.
if you want to punish them for getting "nothing" by taking away a place for them to get more experience, I would say you have it backwards. They need more experience, and your sort of trying to justify slowing them down at getting it.
Think about that for a bit, please. if I misunderstood, I'm sorry.
Qapla
It shouldnt be just DPS. In CCA, the amount you do heals count as well in terms of avoiding AFK Penalty and winning #1 even if you deal 0 DPS.
Changes should only happen in PuGs. Since there is no reason to change the private matches reward/penalty system.
That is neglible chance of happening in PuGs, 3 100kers doing 100k+ in a PuG. Yes, 100k is possible for one player to do 100k. but 3 people doing 100k in a PuG? Are these players exempted from the DPS cannabilization mechanics?
I believe it wouldnt be political for them to say it is an "Incompetent Penalty". Besides the AFK Penalty didnt start as purposely affecting people are totally incompetent and chose to remain incompetent.
Because In order for one to be continuously be affected by the AFK penalty, one must somehow choose to remain incompetent, choose not to improve, and insist to repeat that STF/difficulty continuously.
A pretty good compromise to the problem of this thread is to remove the AFK penalty for queues open to level 5 players. Instead of getting a 2-hour AFK ban, just give them a message that they did not contribute enough to the team and don't give them the mission rewards. Maybe even add a message that they need to either deal more damage or heal other players more to gain the reward.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
this actually sounds reasonable... even if it mean there will be thread asking what that means.
if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
I think that'll be a good thing. People asking = people learning.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
you seem to have missed my implication...
if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
There was a time when insta-fail, was a means to try and get people to up their game, it was shot down horribly to what we have currently.
And, yet people still cannot grasp the concept any better, than with or without the insta-fail system.
So, learning is something some people can obviously do easy, while others are slow/too slow/never going to learn/refuse to learn/refuse to actually help is all that is left!
Those listed above, are usually the top people trying to rid the game of ALL forms of penalty systems, for reasons that are not necessary enough to warant it, due to such limited numbers of them to warrant such a change!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Fleet Admiral Ventaxa Proxmire, U.S.S. Shaka Walls Fell
Blog: http://www.sarbonn.com/?page_id=1990
Foundry series: Bob From Accounting & For the Sake of the Empire
I expect anyone would want to improve. I am not worried for them if they stay in the game,and can put up with early game BS.
Lets suppose though that we are looking at a newcomer who hasn't become jaded yet with all of STOs little issues. They are new to the game and have one or more early (and to them) obviously unfair penalties applied just for playing. Playing where the game system has invited them to play.
So maybe they uninstall STO ? Maybe they go play 'Tera' instead? I know we are losing people because I know some of the people who have left, and I know that sometimes it was boredom with grinding to get anywhere. But sometimes it was the PVE environment. I had two players in particular who mentioned PVE in STO specifically as motivating them find more fun things to do.
This was an experienced PVPr and her husband who had come over from WOW because WOW was "to addicting". That same couple had an adult daughter who was a guild leader for 2-3 years, and is also in STO, but now inactive as well. In all three people who I encouraged to try STO. They were not MMO noobs, but only noobs regarding STO.
PVE was not fun, or engaging, and felt like a grind to them. Mostly they said that things were over to fast, to many people killing stuff before you could shoot, and sometimes they got locked out afterwards. I had never gotten an AFK, so I didn't quite understand. To me it was a simple matter of doing some sparring in private PVP, seeing if there were any obvious flaws in their builds, or if they were at least fair, then going on a mission with them. I got to do a little of that with them at first.
Unfortunately there was a gap in my presence on STO (work and stuff), during that time whatever wasn't working for them, burned into them, that STO was not the game to play, with so many other options. I dragged two of them back into it for a few days when I was able to spend some time, but I couldn't make the sale, even though we did have some fun.
I finally got an AFK penalty while flying a new level 10 character, and the whole picture came into focus for me. It is what my Fleet mates had been talking about, and now I could see it. I also felt like I had failed them as a leader and as a team mate for not understanding the power drift, and the AFK mechanic earlier. It had never occurred to me that either would be a problem for MY Fleet members, since MY Fleet members were not idiots. I could not imagine five months ago any player doing 100k dps, let alone some of the higher numbers mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
I didn't understand their complaint properly, and they are not playing now. The game is diminished, we are ALL diminished
Other new players drop off the radar with little or no explanation and I see quite often they are low level also. I have to assume that they didn't get in far enough invested to want to stay in spite of the games failings, and there were enough failings that hit them at low level that it got settled for them very early. They are gone. Inactive at least. We all lose.
One thing that can't help but hit a new player is the power difference they will experience when taking a T1-2 ship, and a level 5-10 toon into a PVE set for 5-60, and which has well established dps ers. We need to stop doing crappy things to the new people! Treating them like thieves, or complete idiots should not be possible in areas where we know people who are still learning the game, are going to find themselves. PVE queues at low level.
I am not sure if the influx of new is cancelling out the outflow. We should worry. What if word of mouth reduces the influx? My players mentioned above are trying to get me to play Tera instead. Actually I was given a presentation of several game options when I visited their home recently. STO warranted a 'meh' reaction. The daughter was there, and she said 'maybe' but not in anything like an excited tone.
The purpose of any recreational game is to have fun. The attraction for all players of such games is that they WILL have fun playing. If we want STO to survive, and keep the Devs employed, then we need STO to be able to compete in terms of providing more fun, for more people.
The purpose of an AFK mechanic is to punish someone for doing nothing, and to prevent them from getting a reward. The current one also punishes people who come here to have fun, not quite knowing what shape that fun may take. Punishing those people (the innocent ones) seems to only serve a small minority of the game community, while having broad reaching negative effects on the community as a whole. For this reason it needs to stop.
We need to "really take a look at" the AFK mechanic, and change or if necessary eliminate it. I'm fine with scaled rewards, as I see them to be more encouraging than the mindlessly destructive penalty is. A reward will always attract, a small one attracts less, but it still attracts. A penalty, especially an undeserved on can drive people off. we want people to be attracted to the game, not driven off.
Qapla.
It's a worthy discussion. Injustice should be met with the resolve to do something about it.
If I really were a Klingon, would I shy away from an honorable fight? Nope!
If I really were a Vulcan, would I look for a more logical alternative to a system that can punish an innocent person? Yes!
If I were a Romulan, would I be looking at the long term survival of my community? Yes!
If I were a Tellerite ... Actually, lets not ... I really don't like arguing but it needs done.
On another note, have you had any more trouble with AFK?
The way I figure it you have not, but your an experienced STO player who knows the game sometimes shoots you in the face with a wide dispersal barrage of stupid! You seem to have plugged away in spite of it, and I salute you.
You are probably what I would call an 'invested player' and so your going to put up with stuff because you are in so deep that pulling out would hurt worse.
Thank you for confirming that you were using a level 12 toon. Even if you are experienced with previous toons, this supports many of my concerns about the current system. Even experienced players with new toons can get an unfair penalty, so noobs are even more vulnerable.
New players have less reason to not just delete STO and move on. New players are also the ones we need to encourage most.
Thank you for starting this thread.
Qapla
OK, point taken, but what about averaging time with dps, with healing, so all three are considered?
Make the AFK penalty just equate to "no reward", but don't bar someone from trying to go back and do better, so they can keep learning, find out why no reward, etc.
How does that sound?
Qapla
It may be irony. I was leveling a toon when I got my AFK, which in turn made me research how it could happen, which also lead me here. I need to use this week to finish minimum goals.
Qapla
OK, so eliminate the penalty for level 5+ queues, but if you would have gotten the penalty, you get no reward, and a message+explanation of what to try next time (damage+healing). In exchange, and so the big dps ers are more willing to compromise, grant an extra reward for doing the most (or enough more) dps so elite builds get something for both their efforts at making those builds, helping the team, and for being willing to share space with noobs.
The higher entry level queues remain as they are, right? Sounds good to me.
I'm not sure if new threads would be good, or bad, or if it would matter much. I like the idea that people will come looking for answers. If they complain after we fix this, well, they may also complain about Orions who aren't the "correct" color, and we can't expect the forums to be free from all dumb questions, nuisance threads, and purposeful trolling. It's a forum.
How many people here think e30ernest's compromise (open previous quotes) would be acceptable? Not perfect, but acceptable?
I would vote yes.
Qapla
Diablo 2' was my first online gaming experience. I remember just having gotten high level (9 If I recall) to be a pvp target. I had installed the game something like two hours earlier. I'm doing great. No enemies that good tactics can't beat, and I hadn't died at all. Suddenly my character is dying while fighting minor mobs, and I never see where it is coming from. I try to get back to my body eight times, before I can get to my toons body, get my stuff, and make it back to camp. Short story, a level 60 was killing me, for whatever reason.
I stayed in camp for awhile, and there was a level 80+ (again, it's been awhile) who started calling out the level 60, saying if he wanted to do PVP then bring it. Well I stayed in camp, the level 60 stayed in camp, and the level 80 kept badgering the 60, calling him out, and calling him a coward, till he left, and the level 80 gave me some potions and left also. He didn't have any reason to stay after the PKer left, I guess. The level 80 could have been on any map in the game, and I still don't know why he came into mine. But he helped make the game right, and rode into the sunset. Just like that.
All in all it was very educational, and probably formed a lot of my early behavior for online gaming. You can be a villain to people, or you can be a champion for them. I chose the path of trying to help, to be more like a champion.
I also didn't let that PVP experience kill Diablo 2' for me. I found the ways to avoid nuisance players, I found ways to improve, and I looked a lot up online. I have to wonder though, if I hadn't gotten consideration and kindness from another player, what I might have done besides staying with it. Would the ability of a single high level player to totally ruin the map I was on, have done it for me? Maybe ...
I have played games that just weren't for me, and it usually involves finding out I would have had more fun digging an irrigation ditch, than playing. Multiple instances of that jerk pk er with no positive examples, might have gotten Diablo 2' on that list.
I still play Diablo 2' and I logged on three weeks ago in fact. It's pretty quiet, but still there. Can STO last that long? Maybe, if we are accepting, and inclusive, and considerate. Especially if the game mechanics don't favor abuse of newcomers. I totally get what coldnapalm is saying.
Qapla
OK, so eliminate the penalty for level 5+ queues OR if the toon is below level 50? Or both? Then, we use some scale to determine effectiveness (whether we use damage+healing+time/3, or weighted dps?) But do we apply the measuring system across all queue content, or only to specific content? If a toon would have gotten the penalty, is there a reward anyway? Or do they get no reward along with a message+explanation of what to try next time?
Do we grant an extra reward for doing the most (or enough more) dps ? Will a larger top reward placate the big dps ers for being willing to share space with noobs.
By 'actual queues' you mean the ones with a gate requiring level 50+. Am I correct? If so, I wouldn't change anything at that level either except maybe (maybe) the possibility of factoring in time, for a time+dps+healing/3 standard. (maybe, and I see your KISS reference as valid)
By level 50 even a noob had to play a bit to get there, so they have more powerful gear, better ships, and have re-spawned a bunch by then, so I feel they are both time invested, and broke in enough to face a possible penalty. They can take the hit better even if it was factually an unfair penalty in some cases, they should know it is a possibility by then, and be braced for it.
A false positive at that point isn't such a shock, and by factoring in time, if we did, then maybe that would take care of 99% of it. We could hope.
I think we are getting closer to a fix that would be better. If we tighten this up we may have a suggestion worth showing to the Devs.
Qapla
You can be with 3 100kers. It doesnt equate 3 people doing 100k DPS in ISA. Since you mentioned multiple maps, this is already planned and more likely a private match. 4 players knowing each other. Private match/Planned matches should never have AFK problems. Nor should private matches mechanics be change. AFK penalty is a PuG problem, meaning 5 PUG problem.
Besides those 3 100kers will just eat each others DPS in standard Left to right PuG ISA run.
Assuming the new player actually is incompetent. New player doesnt equate incompentence. Not all players are like what admiralkogar assumes.
Better remove lower level players trying to impose going in to public queues. Because if that player is an AFK level ability, it is faster for them to get rewards by teaming up because someone will do the work for them. If you they do solo missions, it will be impossible for them to complete the mission assuming same HP, level mobs, and DPS mobs since they dont have the DPS nor survivability capability.
Essentially they are leeching even if they 100% active combat time if they go to public queues.
Assuming all player are like incompetent new and old. Not all players are arrogant enough to charging maps/queues with level 50+ mobs when they are lower level.
Assuming again that new player does the same actions as those who get AFK Penalty.
But that is the thing, why in the world are you in level public queue with NPCs that are level 50+?
A lot of players have been doing 100k+ DPS 5 months ago. Being high DPS doesnt equate they can replicate it in a PuG in any map.
Here is the thing, you all went into a map wherein players dps is less than innate regeneration of HPs. And HPS of players lower than the DPS of NPCs. Absent of those carrying your team, AFK penalty level players/toon are not capable of completing that mission assuming the same performance/capabilities/gear when got AFK penalty with no one carrying.
Because what you are insisting is a subset of players insisting their playstyle including choices/mistakes by playing at level 50 public queues while they are below level 50. It is a normal queue, with level 50+ NPCs with them no way of doing minimum mission requirements since they are doing AFK Penalty performance.
That in itself is leeching. Players who dont belong trying to insist they belong. Level 10 going to level 50+ mobs with no way of contributing that much to team. In any game you insist on competing a higher level map when you are a lower level, you will get frustrated for penalty or lack of getting rewards because they went in over their heads. That means if they go solo on the same level npc mobs with the same HP, they will get rewards lower and slower than going to a queue wherein other players can carry them. that means you transfer them to another game they will still be frustrated because they went in over their heads and kept insisting/demanding they should have the right repeating those without penalty, without improve performance.
The current players being affected by the AFK penalty are leechers one way or another regardless if they have 100% active combat time.
We are not even talking about minimum mission requirement contribution per player. We are talking lower than that, which is AFK penalty, which way below standards of the map/STF/queue.\
Like I said in my previous posts, removing AFK Penalty will just transfer the complain from AFK Penalty complaint - > 0 rewards complaint/ increased combat time complaint. Because what will happen if you pair a group of AFK penalty performance players to one another with no way of killing and surpassing the NPCs innate heal regeneration. Because it doesnt solve the problem of players who are not performing well actually improving.
I have a simple question for you. At what level are Fleet Action Missions available to a toon?
More questions;
What is the difference between a' Fleet Action', an 'Event', and a 'Special Task Force' type mission?
What is the lowest level a toon is allowed to take a Fleet Alert at?
What is the lowest level a toon is allowed to take a Special Task Force mission at?
When can a level three toon enter a level 3 to 60 queue assuming you can still find one?
If a mission has a minimum level of Five to enter, can it be a Special Task Force (S.T.F.) mission? How do you know?
When can a level five toon enter a level 5 to 60 queue assuming you can find one?
Are there any (S.T.F.) missions that start at lower than level 50, and if so, what are they?
How many level 50+ S.T.F. and event missions are there, give or take a few?
How many S.T.F. and event missions are there for toons who are below level 50, give or take a few?
About how many missions, counting only S.T.F.s, Events, and F.A.s are there total?
How many of the missions counted in the previous question, allow for a level five toon to enter?
How many DO NOT allow a level five toon to enter?
Can a level five toon get into an S.T.F. mission? Can a level ten get into an S.T.F. mission?
What is the highest level toon that can enter a level 3 to 60 queue? Is it an S.T.F. queue? How do you know?
Can a level three, five, or ten, toon keep level 50 or 60 toons out of the level 5 to 60 queues?
What does a level 50 to 60 toon have to do to keep level 3, 5, or 10, toons out of the level 50+ S.T.F.s and other missions?
If a level three toon is playing in a F.A. How much Mk XII gear can the toon equip and use on a ship?
If a level three toon is playing in a F.A. can they have a T-5 or T-6 ship?
How many level five toons do you know of, that have T-5 or T-6 ships?
How many doffs can a level five toon equip on a T-1 ship?
How many doffs can a level TEN toon equip on a T-2 ship?
How many Lt. Cmdr, or Cmdr. Boff stations can reasonably be expected on a T-1 or T-2 ship?
How many Boffs is a level five toon supposed to have?
How high can a level Five toon promote Boffs to?
How many Boffs is a level ten toon supposed to have?
How high can a level ten promote Boffs to assuming all necessary expertise is available?
How many abilities can be active on a single Boff commanded by a level five toon?
How many abilities can be active on a Boff commanded by a level ten toon who had plenty of expertise somehow?
If a level ten toon somehow has a T-6 ship, how many Boff stations can be equipped by that toon, with Boffs?
How many skill points does it take for a toon to get to level three?
How many skill points does it take for a toon to get to level Ten?
How many skill points does it take for a toon to get to level 50?
What is 366,000 divided by 33,000? What is 366,000 divided by 13,000? What are those ratios?
How much difference do you estimate a third of a million skill points makes between two toons? Your opinion?
How many traits does a level five toon have?
How many traits does a level ten toon have?
How many traits does a level 50 toon or a level 60 toon have have?
Does a level five toon have the same number of abilities as a level 50, or 60 toon?
What would a level five or ten toon who was in a Fleet, want with Fleet marks or dilithium? Why should they even play an F.A. ?
I could spoon feed you some of the answers, but I know you hate that sort of thing on principle, so here, I'm only showing you where to find the information most of us already have. If you want to wander, I suggest the main page, but what you need is actually mostly on the other two listings below that, and you can find the rest pretty easy by using your head.
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Main_Page
http://sto.gamepedia.com/PvE_queue
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Player_rank#Rank.2FLevel_Progression
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Bridge_Officer
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Personal_traits
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Player_ability
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Playable_starship
Admittedly, it is sometimes a little bit dated in spots, but it's about as good as we get.
Please, anyone feel free to look at these. Browse around.
One thing should be very, very clear. Level five toons are not casually jumping into level 50 + public queues. Any such statement that they are is insane, or a blatant deceit. You pick.
It should also be clear that the power difference is huge between low, and high levels. A skilled player can only do so much. Can anyone provide real real information for what level matching does besides modify a few basic numbers with little impact?
It should also be crystal clear that low level toons can't avoid the high level toons except by not playing at all!
However the high level toons have a three to one majority of missions they can run, where the low level toons are not allowed, meaning they have all the barriers necessary to avoid low level players, that they could ever need.
More interestingly, we have seen players of high level toons blaming the low level players for mixing with them, when the power to choose belongs exclusively to the higher level players. It seems to be a case of some high level players wanting to play in the beginners areas, because it is a quick, and easy way to get marks and dith. Not because it is a good challenge, but because to them, it is a cakewalk. So what if the power they bring to a low level queue is unbalancing? Everyone else who was queueing the level five gated F.A. must be a leech! Can't be any other explanation, can there?
Anyway ... let me know if any of the questions are to hard for anyone, but I have told you where to look for answers, so it should be easy to see what the blazes I am getting at here.
Qapla
P.S. my spelling may be off today, sorry.
Funny actually, I think I tried to say the same thing, but made it so much more complicated than you did.
I think it can be proven that the ones who have the power in deciding to mix crowds are the high level players, since they have a way to avoid mixing, that doesn't stop them from playing. Low levels don't have that option.
Qapla.