test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
I think we need a much more severe "leaver penalty" for STFs.
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
I started STFs only a few months ago and in all that time I have never had a game as bad as the one I did last night. One player started ranting and whining because some part of the mission didn't go directly as scripted so instead of dealing with it, they wanted to yell and blame everyone but themselves for causing the problem...then, they left. A man down, we were still able to complete the mission most of the way but then another guy dropped out and it was just a mess.
I think A) there should be NO leaver penalty if you are the LAST person in a STF and,
the leaver penalty needs to be far more severe...like having ALL STFs go on a 2hr cool down. Dereliction of duty should really be punished by hanging...courts martial, or being pelted with eggs and tomatoes...but something more should be done to stop quitters from quitting.
That's just my view...
I think A) there should be NO leaver penalty if you are the LAST person in a STF and,
the leaver penalty needs to be far more severe...like having ALL STFs go on a 2hr cool down. Dereliction of duty should really be punished by hanging...courts martial, or being pelted with eggs and tomatoes...but something more should be done to stop quitters from quitting.That's just my view...
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I mean there IS a forum after all, report players who do these kind of childish things on the forums in a blacklist so other players can avoid the troublemakers.
Do you actually think whomever caused your problem last night has never before, and will never again, cause another problem?
And how would you make sure that there wouldn't be any sort of grieving with this "public blacklist"?
O.o
I see what you did there :rolleyes:
But to answer your question: I have to leave an STF because the house started on fire or because my kid hurt himself somehow, I think that would hardly make me a miscreant. But I suppose it's easier to sling the cat-o-stereotypes to get people riled up
Not that I've ever attempted an STF before, just pointing out the false induction.
Do you know how easily abused this will be?
There shoud be no penalty at all in my books. I get diconnected sometimes, and so have other teammates in past STF's....so b/c of that it would count as a leaver penalty by itself. The whole STF structure has been bad sinse the begining, nothing should be update...the entire thing should be redone.
Preferably, I would have no leaver penalty, and a boot system
I don't see why the penalty's there to begin with, but like I said, some people are jerks and need a boot. People who leave voluntarily makes no sense to penalize to me.
And ya know what, you have no idea if it could be abused. Your assuming with no evidence. WoW had a good system imo. You could boot jerks, and replenish a team that's lost members. That's not really possible in STO
I have to say potentially undershooting the issue has a bit more merit to it then overshooting the problem up until such point in time as we can fine-tune the system to prevent such occurances, and even then, as other people have stated, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to have to bail. Getting smacked with an incredibly harsh penalty for that seems like a great way to lose customers.
EDIT: Also haven't had any real issues with people leaving anything but Ground STFs, and even in those, recovery was a very realistic option for the 4 people remaining and replacements were generally easy to come by. That could entirely just be luck, though with some of the groups I've had in Space Normals, I'm not entirely sure I'd call it luck.
You see it's "jerks." How will the system know who a "jerk" is? Is a jerk someone who messed up and then out of rage everyone kicks him or her? Is the "jerk" just a ranter? Is the "jerk" just someone who isn;t fast enough to be on your dream team? IS the "jerk" ...you get the idea.
Actually, a "jerk" is somebody who specifically goes AGAINST the best practices of successfully completing the STF after being told exactly what to do and how to do it. A "jerk" is essentially a griefer who is trying to make everyone's life miserable by doing the opposite of what is being directed of them to do. People who encounter these "jerks" want to rage-quit because they're frustrated with somebody who would do this.
Proposed FIX: Create a voting system so that after "X" many BAD votes from teammates in STF's in a set "Y" amount of time, that person is barred from the entire PvE queue (public and private). After they continue to do this type of behavior and even more votes occur, then their account will be suspended for a week. If even further, then their account will be suspended for a month. If even further, then 6 months. If even further, then a per-ma-ban on their account would be in order.
For instance, after 5 separate matches of 4/5 of the team all voting a particular person being a griefer, then they would barred from the queue for 24 hours. After coming back and continuing to being a jerk by having them being barred from the queue a second time, it constitutes a clear pattern of their behavior. After all, that's 40 different people voting the same person as a griefer. Getting 40 people to agree on one thing is next to impossible unless that one thing is incredibly obvious (i.e. the sky's blue). If 20 more people think that person is being a griefer, then the entire account should be banned for a week.
Essentially after many, many, many attempts to curb bad behavior, people should have the privileged of taking their ability to play the game away altogether. If you're not going to be making the community a better place for everyone, then you're not going to be part of the community.
Furthermore, if you're banned in game, then you should also be banned on the forums. Obviously, this voting system should only be a part of the PvE experience and NOT the PvP experience. You wouldn't ever want your enemies in a PvP match to vote negatively towards you based solely on the fact that they're on the other side than you.
I do think that if someone leaves the rest of the party should be able to "request replacement" from the queue or end the mission without taking the penalty.
Of course I also think that the devs need to get a little proactive and set up filters (unselectable of course) to prevent some stupid stuff from happening at all, little things like low tier level ships/shuttles.
this will be abused. 4 greifers will queue together, and they will all vote that the Pug is a jerk to get him banned. Maybe after a player leaves a message "Did this player have a valid reason to leave" Yes no, if 100% of the team votes no there is a 2 hour penalty. And there has to be a minimum of 3 ppl in the team for this box to pop up. if u want someone banned, 5 reports for a player on the same thing will get looked at by a GM, i also think u shouldnt randomqueue with peole ur on ignore with. Maybe a message "someone on your ignore list is on this team, join anyway?"
And the option if 100% of the team wishes to end the STF they should be able to without penalty.
Looks like someone answered you ;p
A. I have the right to free association. If your being a d-bag, I don't have to play with you, and if 3 other members have the same feeling, I see no reason why us 4 should have to suffer with 1 trolling d-bag. We choose to not associate with said player by booting them off the team, and out of the mission.
B. Since the vote would require a majority opinion, its not a team leader dictatorship.
C. Your response leads me to believe maybe people may not want you on their team, so a move like this may directly effect you. Is that why your so worried about something like that? O.o
I was in a ground STF (Cure Elite) before the server went down today and we had one German and one French player, plus (one English speaking player that had never run this mission before), which by the looks of their actions had no idea what they needed to do.
What does one do in a situation like this? We (the 3 of us) were stuck with them constantly turning on the transformer after every failed attempt and with workers still left on the field.
With the mountain of workers and the turrets firing at everyone and seeing your team mates go down one by one, again and again from all the shooting and the rooting, it was like Hell on Vorn.
Well as you can all probably guess, we lost one due to frustration and the other guy that had never done it before, well he asked me why he just couldnt explain how to do it.
I then began to put up my large wall of text explaining to him what needed to be done and what items that were needed to get the job done.
He was surprised of the amount of information I gave him. He thought that it could be explained in 2 or 3 sentences.
In the end he thanked me for the info and left.
Now I just sat and watched as the French and German players try has hard as they could to try and complete the mission on their own.
It was too sad to watch so I left.
And to this day, I wonder, did they ever complete the mission?
The world may never know.
In this case who should get the leaver penalty?
The first person that knew we were stuck in a no win situation and jumped ship.
Or the second person, after knowing what needed to be done now realizes that he is in a sinking ship.
Or maybe I for not staying after the first 2 had left.
How will the game know who to penalize?
Any time you put any control, at all, in the hands of other players over whether someone is banned or otherwise inconvenienced, it will be abused. No matter what you do to attempt to curtail this behavior, it will happen anyway.
Even if there isn't any call for it (because the system is only set up to punish the worst offenders), the perception will be that it is being abused whether or not this is the case.
Case in point: You can get a 24hr chat ban in CO if 'enough' players report you for spamming (even if your only offense is disagreeing with someone once), and get a (0 point) infraction for it. It's fully player-centric, and it's being used to effectively silence people for no real reason (of the 'report X person for Y' sort, whether or not Y ever really happened).
Further, there's an entire system in League of Legends (the Tribunal) that's setup by the developers there specifically for the community to pardon/punish only the worst, habitual offenders in teams. They even state that it takes a habit of being reported (and even shows the worst 4-6 games by that person prior to them getting flagged to be sent for judgment), and people still don't get that not everyone ends up there. It also requires a significant amount more work to get set up, and any and all cases that get 'punished' (majority of 10 people voting to punish) still get reviewed to by someone in the GM department to make absolutely sure that person deserved it (96.05% of the people in the Tribunal fully deserve to be banned as of the last figure, but only ~4% or something of the actual game community ever ends up there). And people still claim they're unjustly banned, or that just one game is all it takes to get up to a 2-week ban (it's not).
Summary/TLDR: I don't think any player should be given any control whatsoever over the fate of what happens to other players, because the grand majority of people playing online games* are likely to abuse any and all privledges they're likely to get. Let's not change a system radically without being fully aware of exactly what the net consequences of it are.
(*DISCLAIMER: This is a generalization. If you are unaware of how these work, then be aware that attempting to apply anything at all relating to specific individuals or even small groups of individuals [ie: your friends, your fleet, people you know] doesn't really matter given the extremely broad stroke that this statement is made to take. If 60% of the people in the world are petty jerks, it doesn't matter or change the fact that the other 40% are nice people. The majority is still TRIBBLE.)
This is exactly the thing I'm talking about. You both should be punished severely for leaving an active game.
Humans have spent millions of years learning how to communicate with one another and here, in one online game, you all are so anxious to throw your hands up and say: "its too hard, I want a different one" and leave your fellow teammates to suffer on their own. Where's your fighting spirit? So the odds aren't in your favor - did that ever stop Picard or Kirk or Janeway?
When I had that mission, the one that started this thread, I knew it wasn't going to be easy but I still made it happen. You have to be dynamic and you have to try NEW tactics. Giving up shouldn't be your first option and, if it is, then you should have to wait several hours before you go into another battle and let your teammates down.
I wonder if perhaps your reading comprehension isn't a little off.
I look at it this way - he had one team member that didn't want to communicate with his team at all (and ragequit, the first person that left), two people that he may not have been able to communicate with at all because of the language barrier, and one person that upon finding out how complex the situation was immediately bailed rather then try to stick it out and learn how to do it (the second person that left). When he left, it was only because it was statistically unlikely that 3 people were going to complete that STF, let alone three that were unlikely to be able to communicate, and the chances of getting people into the Elite at that point that were going to be any better were extremely low.
And he ate an hour penalty for it (presumably - as that's currently what happens when you bail out, or that's been my understanding) already for making that decision.
How draconian do we want to get with the punishment measures, here? Should it not matter what the excuse, reasoning, or logic goes into the leave, just punish them all as severely as possible for daring to leave something at all?
That's kind of heartless (nevermind perhaps tainted heavily with bias), and I'm certainly glad the decision isn't realistically up to you or I.
It seems to the OP I was in error for quitting the STF
I did what I could with the player I was able to communicate with.
I would like to know how the OP would have handled the situation.
It seem it is easier to critic someone than to give helpful advice.
Please enlighten us all with your words of wisdom.
Make sure your words of wisdom are in English, French, German, and Spanish
We wouldnt want your words to be missed by anyone.
For starters, if you have four people, the next person in the queue should be routed there.
If you have less than four people for more than a certain time (five minutes I believe) you can leave without a penalty.
One our penalty for leaving is about right. If Cryptic were better at fixing the glitches and put in some safeguards, I might even support a greater penalty (like 24 hours if you leave before 30 minutes of play time have elapsed), but the fact is, with all the glitches, one hour is the maximum that is fair.
Mojo's rightness strikes again!!
Coming from other mmorpgs that have this feature, it is not a good idea.
On paper it sounds great. Some is afk or having connection issues, sure those are legit purposes. But kicking someone because they are "bad" is a very very gray area. If they are trolling and doing on purpose sure but its not that easy to tell, I mean what if it's that persons first time running an STF? Or what if they don't know to use a remodulator? Or carry hypos?
If the person refuses to learn ok then I could lean more towards what you are saying but if the person is trying their best and are having issues that is no reason to exclude them from playing the game. It creates a bubble of the haves versus the have-nots (people who can and who can't be allowed to run STF's)
Or worse you join a pug and it's 3 or 4 Fleet people and they decide to vote kick you right before a boss so you can't roll on loot. You would need some form of checks and balances to keep it more honest, i.e. a uniamous 4 person vote, not 3 or 2. And if it's four buddies or four Fleetmates kicking a pug while they are pugging just to keep the loot, then the kicked player should be allowed to create a ticket to report those players from abusing the kick feature (many other games have this, HoN, certain SC maps, etc).
Sorry to say but from my experiences running Normal STFs, there are lots of just plain impatient and selfish people out there. They have no tolerance for team members who are still learning and make mistakes. As soon as something goes awry a couple times they go off on a rant and quit instead of trying to help.
Imo, the only "voting" that should be allowed is a vote for all remaining team members to call "mission failure" and leave without any penalty. That way, these guys who rant and quit don't cause you to get a leaver penalty too when there's no other choice but to abort.
one game with a bad player doesnt mean every one of them should endure a heavy leaver penalty. nerd rage aside, is there a point beyond this? because as i see it its just a way to vent rather then making a more signifcant point.
Voting system without restrictions is like suicide for the game and cryptic. it wont happen, ever.
you have a blacklist to stop "idiot" players, its called the ignore feature and that is abused like crazy, having a blacklist for people joining stf's would be just as "idiotic". a filter is not needed, just slap a permanent requirement for Tier 5 ships and above and leave it at that.
This system is used in Dota 2, with great effect.
I was on one PUG STF when one of my teams mates, tried to kill the STF they way we do on our fleet, which is riskier, but when it works works well, provided everyone is co-ordinated, which as a PUG we were not, and as he has never played on Elite outside the fleet, he didnt know any different, he wasn't griefing he was just inexperienced...
Similiarly another when a new player, who was actually pretty good, didnt brin any ship heals, again he wasn't griefing just not new, and when I spoke to him he got it.
Booting a bad player wont fix the problem... it will just leave you a "man down"