BECAUSE THE GAME SETS IT UP THAT WAY AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WAYS TO FIX THAT. Yes that level 5 has to CHOOSE to play in the PUG...but NOWHERE in the queue does it say that you can be matched with a level 50+ toon and you will suffer for it MUWHAHAHAHAHA. New players and casual players have to be TOLD how these things work. And yes, while storied missions are the superior way to level up a toon, it's NOT ALWAYS ABOUT LEVELING UP A TOON. My first play through, I played in those queue before realize what they did because I CAN. For a new player, those new options that open up at level 5 is a form of exploration (you know, the thing that most trek fans ACTUAL like about trek...and I would guess that a VAST majority of the player base here are explorer type gamers). Now my other toons since the first...yeah efficency all the way...but seriously, these players are TOLD THEY CAN DO IT.
But should a new player keep doing it? The reason you get AFK and affected by AFK is you do it unprepared, choose to do it and keep on repeating it.
Why in hell will a new player, casual player, keep repeating a PuG mission, with lower repeat value than a storied mission at all? Why in the world will the casual player even have a time to repeat multiple PuGs when they were doing AFK penalty performance? They already spent hours doing 1 STF.
It destroys the logic of casual, and your logic of exploration. Sure they do it one time. But multiple times?
Why shouldnt a player not level? This is an MMO, wherein level matters. Expect others to carry your load for you?
So the ONLY options are we fix the AFK penalty in those few queues or we get rid of them. I don't like the idea of getting rid of them...so we talk about fixing them. Kogar has a pretty decent plan for a fix, skull is still a moron, you need to drop you DPS goggles and that is about as far as I am getting into this thread for now...more game playing to be done...we have a new season after all.
No it is not the only way. Sure it is the only way if your intent is to leech. No way for the AFK Penalty performance players to complete STF missions without leeching. Remove AFK Penalty, those AFK penalty performance players can now keep on leeching without penalty.
No I am not dropping my stance on player improvement nor my stance on standards. You improve player performance, you improve a players gaming experience. Sure you hate DPS. But it is DPS what makes you get those rewards. That is part of the mechanics of the game. Absent of DPS, no one will complete anything.
Removing AFK penalty wont help players improve their gaming experience. Nor is it assured that new and casual players get AFK penalty.
It is a subset of those subset of those players who get AFK Penalty. Non of it is dependent of being in new or casual.
Like I keep on saying, this is a Leechers complaint thread.
No it is not the only way. Sure it is the only way if your intent is to leech. No way for the AFK Penalty performance players to complete STF missions without leeching.
HOLY JESUS F*ING CHRIST. We ain't talking about STFs...or any other 50+ queues. We haven't been since like page 2 or 3. We are talking about queues that the GAME says that level 5s can play in. So once again, you wanna get rid of it? Because to expect a level 5 toon to not AFK vs a 60+ 200k dps toon is hard enough when you are the TOP DPSers...for the other 99.9999999% of us...yeah...no. We at this point all pretty much agree that the AFK penalty for any of the 50+ queues, like STFs are fine the way it is and should stay. We are talking about just the 9 that they introduce to lowbies.
Sheez man. Way to bloat the population for propaganda and nosense. Are you in drugs or something?
No player can do 200k+ DPS when they are team in a PuG with AFK Penalty performance players.
Going back to reality, the best players can do in a PuG is most likely 130k, based on the highest Solo DPS recorded. That single 130k DPS player cannot AFK 99.9999999% of the playerbase nor this any proof that 99.9999999% of the playerbase does 1.3k DPS.
ISA AFK penalty range would be roughly around 1.3k and below. And NO data shows that 99.9999999% of the playerbase belongs to that DPS range.
Just a quick question for my own clarification: How do we know that 1% of top dps'er is the standard for the afk penalty? Or is it 1% of all npc's shield and hull points? Or just hull points? I'm not sure that I've ever really noticed what those qualifications are. If the afk penalty is based on the npc shield and hull points,the standard might be higher,and thus cause the penalty.
Also,aren't players below level 50 buffed to level 50 and 51 and above nerfed to level 50? Now I'm only talking about FFA and the low level entrance queues. If this is the case, the argument that level 50+ toons are causing higher level mobs to spawn is in fact, a wrong conclusion. So, even if you're level 5 and join, you're going to get level 50 mobs anyway but you get the buff to help mitigate the much higher level mob spawn. If this is wrong, I apologize for the post but I'm hoping the correct info will help clear up things for me a bit. Thanks in advance for any pertinent information regarding my questions.
Thanks for the clarification, coldnapalm. So the argument about level 50+ toons causing higher level mobs to spawn is, in fact, wrong. Even if 5 level 5 players go in, they get buffed to level 50 and have to deal with level 50 mobs. Is this a correct statement? If so, then given that a level 5 player has a ship with 2 fore weapons and 1 aft, probably only 1 boff power and maybe 3 consoles(and I'm not sure of that. Haven't leveled a toon in a while) then they are definitely overmatched still, even with the buff.
I understand that when something new opens up for them, most players are going to jump right in, even though it seems Cryptic has made this a no-win situation for low level toons. I will roll a new toon and test this for myself, just to get an idea of what is actually happening. I will post my results later and maybe we can all figure out a solution to the problem(if Cryptic will even acknowledge there is one).
Well, I couldn't do FFA since it's down for bug repair. I did,however do Federation Blockade. At level 5, as a tactical officer, all skill points put into energy weapons and flow caps(since tachyon beam was one of my starting boff powers). I was equipped with what the game gave me as rewards, green Mk II phaser beam array, green Mk II photon torpedo launcher and a green Mk I phaser array in back. Boff powers(as is,didn't change them) high yield torpedo,emergency power to shields and tachyon beam.
Team consisted of a level 60, 2 level 59's and a level 57(and me at level 5). We didn't rescue any transports, and I did run a parse,which I realize is not optimal. Top parser at 3,258k(level 60 guy), a level 59 at 1k, a level 59 at 487, me at 345 and the level 57 at 105 dps. At level 5 I actually out dps'ed a level 57(didn't happen to notice what ship he was flying). I did not get an afk penalty but I'm guessing the level 57 did.
You can draw your own conclusions from this, but I was able to use evasive maneuvers and full impulse to get around just fine, and engage mobs before they were killed(or killed the transport and warped out). Now, granted, I'm a veteran player and know how to run the stf, but after this run I'm not sure the issue is with the afk penalty, but possibly due to either: new or inexperienced player or a leecher, just out to get the reward without actually contributing. I was way outclassed by all the players and ships, but still managed to hold my own and not get an afk penalty(even against level 50 mobs).
I will run more tests with the same toon(and won't level up anymore) and wait for FFA to be fixed and put back in. I didn't screenshot the parse(because of privacy issues and I can't figure out how to scratch out the other names). Only one test, but it's certainly got me thinking.
Very easy to check if mobs scale down or up or constant. No need to jump to conclusions.
-> Go and do a private match with same low level group.
Now, In order for one to be affected by AFK, 1) one needs to go decide or be advise to do a PuG, 2)one needs to do lower than what is expected of the team, 3) That player needs to repeat constantly PuGs.
Those are 3 conditions to be affected by AFK. Those 3 conditions are already conditional on their own. Why?
1) Not all low level will do a PuG straight from a low level. It is a wild assumption based from some personal experience that everyone jumps to a PuG straight from low level or some "fake expert" advised them to go do PuGs.
2) Not all low level have the same effort, same access to information, same discipline, same attitude. That means that new/casual player will not experience the same performance as the other. E.g. new players getting advice from admiralkogar vs getting advice from sarcasmdetector would have different information be given to that new player. Or if that player made an effort to research while the other mismanage time, just lazy(spent the time chatting at ESD rather than researching) even though total time spent for STO game related is the same. That is why I insist new/casual doesnt equate AFK penalty performance. Not everyone is lazy, stubborn or needs to be spoonfed.
3) Not all of these low level chooses to keep on repeating PuGs. I see no value for new/casual to keep repeating PuGs in the current mechanics except to leech.
This is a very specific subset of players we are talking about who gets affected by AFK.
Just a quick question for my own clarification: How do we know that 1% of top dps'er is the standard for the afk penalty? Or is it 1% of all npc's shield and hull points? Or just hull points? I'm not sure that I've ever really noticed what those qualifications are. If the afk penalty is based on the npc shield and hull points,the standard might be higher,and thus cause the penalty.
Also,aren't players below level 50 buffed to level 50 and 51 and above nerfed to level 50? Now I'm only talking about FFA and the low level entrance queues. If this is the case, the argument that level 50+ toons are causing higher level mobs to spawn is in fact, a wrong conclusion. So, even if you're level 5 and join, you're going to get level 50 mobs anyway but you get the buff to help mitigate the much higher level mob spawn. If this is wrong, I apologize for the post but I'm hoping the correct info will help clear up things for me a bit. Thanks in advance for any pertinent information regarding my questions.
I was understanding that you had to do 1% of the teams total dps, so if someone is doing 160k dps that is hard for a fiver to compete with. It is even harder if there is a 40k, a 50k, a 100k, and a 160kr along with you. But it could be the npc's (which should be procedurally generated to match the highest players difficulty and so could be very tough) Anyway, that is why you see low level mob stats for missions like Fleet Alerts in the links. If your all level five, the mob is also, (more or less) and you will also see a slightly different mix of ships. Fewer high Tier ships in the mob. Fewer weapons slots shooting at YOU. And so on.
And no as far as I can determine the only thing that gets a buff when you 'fight at higher level' is maybe your base dps but I guess you may get a passive boost to base shields and hull. I suppose a parsing program would confirm that, but it is going to be third party software. The links I provided a while back show that the mobs are leveled to the player (caveat; the information on the wiki is incomplete). When you are flying in some maps, you get a dps boost (you are fighting at... ) which doesn't grant you better consoles more weapon slots, more Boffs, better Boffs, more abilities, better abilities, etc. You still at level 5, have a few boffs, no doffs, and three weapons. Even if they let you fight at level 50.
All the damage difference between a T6 with 60 toon, and a T1 with level 5 toon isn't just how much to boost each weapon. When you think about all the layers that go into a 160k build concept, you would see consoles stacking with boff, and doff abilities and captain abilities each forming a cross supporting network of 'boosts'. A skill for managing ability cooldowns is good to have if your high level with lots of functionality, but if you don't have abilities in the first place, the skill is useless for you. You are mananging the cooldowns for only a few things, and they do not stack very far when they do stack at all.
Being nerfed doesn't eliminate slots on your T6 ship, or eliminate your doffs, or Boff abilities, it mostly seems to only reduce damage by a percentage. I don't know if they take a percentage of your hull, or shield strength, but I never notice it at high levels. All that ability and device stacking more than makes up for it.
Having teamed with others at different levels this problem exists as much for shared story missions as it does for queues, at least where balance is concerned. You don't get an afk for story missions. But to explain, lets suppose your rescuing the Bolian freighter after leveling a bunch. You come back with a level 40 toon, and a T5 ship. Your mob are not the wimps they were when you could have taken the mission earlier. They are leveled to match you. The pushover battleships you beat the TRIBBLE out of at 5th level are gone, and replaced with their higher level cousins.
Now suppose you share the mission with a friend who is just now getting it. You are teaming to have some fun, and run a mission you are both eligible for. Low and behold, matching the team leaders level doesn't work like you expect. If you are the leader, your Friend (fighting at your level) is getting skinned alive. your Friend can't match you in weapons slots, consoles, available Boff powers, and so you are literally having to carry them. It's true. In this regard people like paxdawn are at least partly right. Howeever I recognize that I am the one bringing in the higher level mobs, and making things tough for my friend. He would have better luck if we aborted the mission, and he may have to drop and retake it (don't continue, or the mob may continue also, seen this happen) and take it again from the available missions. Also changing who is leader will not help once the battle is on.
Try this. Next time you go into an FFA take your lowest toon if you have any, and team only with people at about your level. When you engage targets I know you will be busy, but do check the levels of targets. The information is there. You will be above or below a slight bit as mobs are typically varied around a baseline (level 40 base would include roughly maybe 37 to 43?) You can see what the targets level is, and how far above or below you are. Then do it with someone 30+ levels higher than you.
I think that will make the point that mobs level to match. There are no bad questions. Sometimes there are bad answers. For all that I have just typed, please allow I am uncertain about some things, and would not try to mislead you on purpose. The main point I am sure of is that mobs level also, and that leveling doesn't make up for shortfalls in gear, or available abilities, and their boosts.
Thanks for the clarification, coldnapalm. So the argument about level 50+ toons causing higher level mobs to spawn is, in fact, wrong. Even if 5 level 5 players go in, they get buffed to level 50 and have to deal with level 50 mobs. Is this a correct statement? If so, then given that a level 5 player has a ship with 2 fore weapons and 1 aft, probably only 1 boff power and maybe 3 consoles(and I'm not sure of that. Haven't leveled a toon in a while) then they are definitely overmatched still, even with the buff.
I understand that when something new opens up for them, most players are going to jump right in, even though it seems Cryptic has made this a no-win situation for low level toons. I will roll a new toon and test this for myself, just to get an idea of what is actually happening. I will post my results later and maybe we can all figure out a solution to the problem(if Cryptic will even acknowledge there is one).
Well...no. IF everyone is 5-9 for example, level 9 mobs spawn. If it's a mix and nobody is 60, it does some sort of averagy thingy and some middle mobs spawn and it gets wonky on adjustments. If a 60 joins, it gets set to 50...as far as I can tell anyways. But please do test this since I am curious as to if what I see is what actually happens
What you just said! The mix is always weighted to reflect the presence of a higher level ship, except it seems to top 50 +or - about 5. Then the level 60 gets some nerfing going in, but the mob is set.
Well, I couldn't do FFA since it's down for bug repair. I did,however do Federation Blockade. At level 5, as a tactical officer, all skill points put into energy weapons and flow caps(since tachyon beam was one of my starting boff powers). I was equipped with what the game gave me as rewards, green Mk II phaser beam array, green Mk II photon torpedo launcher and a green Mk I phaser array in back. Boff powers(as is,didn't change them) high yield torpedo,emergency power to shields and tachyon beam.
Team consisted of a level 60, 2 level 59's and a level 57(and me at level 5). We didn't rescue any transports, and I did run a parse,which I realize is not optimal. Top parser at 3,258k(level 60 guy), a level 59 at 1k, a level 59 at 487, me at 345 and the level 57 at 105 dps. At level 5 I actually out dps'ed a level 57(didn't happen to notice what ship he was flying). I did not get an afk penalty but I'm guessing the level 57 did.
You can draw your own conclusions from this, but I was able to use evasive maneuvers and full impulse to get around just fine, and engage mobs before they were killed(or killed the transport and warped out). Now, granted, I'm a veteran player and know how to run the stf, but after this run I'm not sure the issue is with the afk penalty, but possibly due to either: new or inexperienced player or a leecher, just out to get the reward without actually contributing. I was way outclassed by all the players and ships, but still managed to hold my own and not get an afk penalty(even against level 50 mobs).
I will run more tests with the same toon(and won't level up anymore) and wait for FFA to be fixed and put back in. I didn't screenshot the parse(because of privacy issues and I can't figure out how to scratch out the other names). Only one test, but it's certainly got me thinking.
Good! I am all for what you did there. I have only had a problem with this once myself, so I am feeling like what you did would be more like what I would expect from previous experiences. The build you flew in this example is almost exactly the sort I have been running for my new Fed toons. My queues have been fine. I don't parse (probably will get on that bandwagon eventually) but I do check the chat window and eyeball things there.
It's important to me, so I'll ask. Did you have fun?
Some observations. According to some people you should not even try to queue that mission with a level five toon. You did, so I presume you got it offered as you hit 3-5th level. As you say, many aren't veterans, and especially not at level 5. But they will get offered the mission. Not saving any transports ... that is sort of the thing that some of the other 'vets' are complaining about, and those ones blame low level players for missing mission goals, or holding them back.
Oddly enough, I am going to suggest that you may have been the most experienced player in the team. We don't know how the players you ran with got to be the levels they were at, or how many queues they have done, or how well thought out their builds are. I can tell for sure, that they are not running the 50k-220k dps builds we have heard about here, and I think if they were you would have been afk'd.
The numbers you tracked for them are like I might expect from ordinary players reaching level 55+ with 'salvage' builds, where they just plugged in the best of what they had earned on the way up to level 55+. I can imagine a lot of 'salvage' build flyers being around after the bonus experience week we just had. Were there any obvious 'rainbow' ships? For my part, I expect 'salvage' build players to get afk'd plenty when running with the 50k+ dps crowd in any numbers.
"possibly due to either: new or inexperienced player or a leecher" It can always be a leecher, but where I am mostly concerned with this is where it is a new or inexperienced player. I hold the afk penalty to be if not broken, then at least not working like it should. It can give an afk penalty to people who are not afk. I hold that it is more likely to do that to a new player, than it is to an experienced leech.
Most of the arguing as far as I can tell is about "all afk'rs are leeches" vs "some aren't, and are being treated unfairly" vs "if they aren't leeches then they should stay the hell out of my way" vs " everyone has a right as customers to access and respect". After you take a side or sides, then you have to try to defend where you are.
Thanks for trying to approach this topic rationally.
Paxdawn,
I don't know why you don't know this, but yes, a queue that says 'level 5-60' is by definition open to, and designed for levels '5' and up. They are not, as you call them, 'level 50+ queues'. If anyone is displaying an attitude of self entitlement, it is you, because you expect the rest of the community to ignore this in favor of your mistaken argument.
What is a level 5 going to do wherein you have level 50 mobs?
In order for a level 5 to go to a PuG, that level 5 must purposely go to that PuG. And someone must give them the wrong information about going to a PuG and skip the Storied Missions.
That level 5 player must also divert away from Storied missions and choose to move away.
The main difference between a storied mission and a PuG is in a PuG, someone can carry you and you reliant to team performance. In a storied mission, especially if one is doing it solo, no one will be carrying that level 5 player nor can that level 5 player rely from someone else doing the lifting for them. By moving away from Storied missions that player, avoids better gears offered by storied missions.
Besides, why are we even debating at level 5 when players shouldnt even spend most their time in level 5 or any low level due to the easeness of going 1-50 in this game.
A new player has no experience, and so has less competence in most areas of play, by rational extension.
It depends on a new player effort and where that new player gets information. Someone giving them wrong advice, including the wrong fundamentals, moving them to PuGs while at level 10 and avoid Storied mission will get that new player frustrated. Vs a new player who breeze thru the game by getting the correct information, correct fundamentals even this player spent less time playing the game than the other new player who got frustrated.
A casual player is most likely just trying to have fun, and by rational extension is not trying to make a profession out of it ergo has not wasted potentially limited 'fun' time by doing hours and hours of research on a 'casual' pastime, and so while possiby having some experience, still has less competence in at least some areas of play.
A high performance player spends less time per STF than an AFK Penalty player. Even a normal/average DPS player spends less time than AFK penalty performance player per STF mission. That is simple math and logic.
It doesnt mean one does minimum requirement one is already a professional. You can say that those who dont get AFK Penalty made more effort, better time management, more common sense, got the correct information. But it doesnt automatically mean those who avoided AFK spends more time anything game related to STO than those who get AFK penalty. Because an AFK penalty player can spend more time than even the ToP DpS player in total game related time played/interacted.
All of us are here to have fun. Sorry, False logic.
A veteran with several level 60 toons may still want to add a new one. While the new toon is low level, the new toon itself handicaps the practical level of applied competence, and so even the veteran has less effective competence in that situation.
A casual, new, or 'handicapped' veteran is at risk (through no fault of their own) of entering content with one or more other players who are using maxed out, and fully tuned level 60 characters. This has the effect of increasing the disparity in practical competence they experience, increases the difficulty of all mobs due to high level participation, and also therefore has a good chance of increasing the chance of getting afk penalties.
You agree they can get an afk penalty, but then say it has nothing to do with being new, casual, etc. However the logical relationship between effective competence, and being new, casual, or handicapped is so clear it cannot be ignored. None of these players will be doing 160k dps. Your argument here is invalidated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction
Just because one is handicapped/casual/new, it doesnt mean one gets automatically AFKed. Not all players are lazy and/or lacking of common sense. If one gets AFK, one deserves penalty because that is the current mechanic, that is the current standard. Now whether that player likes it or not is a different story.
Gear excuse is a lousy excuse. The pokemon video in General discussion have proven that you can complete ISA with complete common stuff. And if a new player actually did storied missions not advised by some "fake expert" giving incorrect information, bad fundamentals to go leech from a team, they would get better gears from storied mission rewards, becoming well geared, improve their level, create a sense of self reliance.
All players can improve. Difference is information, attitude and effort. The choices that player makes creates that disparity whether have the correct information, how to deal with certain challenges - blame the game for not spoonfeeding them rather than that player finding a way to improve themselves (attitude) and find or ask help for the correct information/fundamentals(effort).
The only time one needs to worry about AFK Penalty is if the intent of the player is to keep on leeching and no improvement.
You keep relying on circular reasoning. What you say always boils down to this; The afk system doesn't give out unfair penalties because the afk system is never unfair. We don't need any oversight of it, it is infallible! So whatever it does is infallible too!
You persistently claim that if someone gets afk's it can't ever be because the system is faulty, it always has to be the person who got afk'd. An afk penalty gets issued. It can't be the systems fault, so it has to be the players fault. Circular and ultimately weak. Your argument is rife with ad hominem attacks against any who have received the penalty. They must be guilty or they would not have been punished? Circular! It also resembles the sort of defense of official wrongdoing that totalitarian regimes attempt all the time. 'We only execute the guilty, so if they were executed they were guilty!"
Another way to look at is in terms of bad laws. "If one gets enslaved, one deserves to be enslaved because that is the current law, that is the current standard." is as true as "If one gets AFK, one deserves penalty because that is the current mechanic, that is the current standard." Both are devoid of any reasonably humane ethic.
You need to consider how narrow your view is. It limits you, and it will limit you in life.
No it is not the only way. Sure it is the only way if your intent is to leech. No way for the AFK Penalty performance players to complete STF missions without leeching.
HOLY JESUS F*ING CHRIST. We ain't talking about STFs...or any other 50+ queues. We haven't been since like page 2 or 3. We are talking about queues that the GAME says that level 5s can play in. So once again, you wanna get rid of it? Because to expect a level 5 toon to not AFK vs a 60+ 200k dps toon is hard enough when you are the TOP DPSers...for the other 99.9999999% of us...yeah...no. We at this point all pretty much agree that the AFK penalty for any of the 50+ queues, like STFs are fine the way it is and should stay. We are talking about just the 9 that they introduce to lowbies.
Sheez man. Way to bloat the population for propaganda and nosense. Are you in drugs or something?
No player can do 200k+ DPS when they are team in a PuG with AFK Penalty performance players.
Going back to reality, the best players can do in a PuG is most likely 130k, based on the highest Solo DPS recorded. That single 130k DPS player cannot AFK 99.9999999% of the playerbase nor this any proof that 99.9999999% of the playerbase does 1.3k DPS.
ISA AFK penalty range would be roughly around 1.3k and below. And NO data shows that 99.9999999% of the playerbase belongs to that DPS range.
SERIOUSLY LEARN TO F*ING READ. We have NOT BEEN TALKING ABOUTS ISA. Tell me again how most level 5 players in starer ship can pull off 1.3k again? Because sarcasmdector wasn't pulling much higher then that. AK, me and most who have replied with REASONABLE stuff have all agreed that ISA and other 50+ queues SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE. Get that through your thick skull already. I thought skull was dense...but man, you really are giving him a run for the money in the idiot department now. We are talking about things like starbase 24 and fleet alert where, why yes, a brand new level 5 can end up with players like YOU and SD in your maxed out ship O doom.
Thanks. I get tired of explaining it. The main reason I continue to explain it isn't for pax' at all. but for those who might buy into that brand of nonsense if he was left unanswered. Anyway, much appreciated.
Hey! For those who were interested I am repeating this list with changes because there was a problem with accessing it properly. Not all the links went where they were supposed to.
is an example of what you were supposed to see. Examples of MOB ship hull point progressions used in the game.
Some of the more complete entries also have things like this;
"Missions encountered
Dozens of Corsair Cruisers accompany Syndicate fleets during attacks on Federation starbases in:
“Fleet Alert”
“Fleet Transport Defense”
“Starbase Fleet Defense”
“No Win Scenario”: In Combat Simulation 347, a massive fleet of Syndicate ships attacks a civilian freighter.
“The Undying”: Corsairs are part of Hassan the Undying's fleet in the Nimbus System."
So all these though undeniably incomplete are supposed to link to this sort of data. You just need the whole line, not just the part that gets highlighted. If your willing to copy/paste each full line into the address bar, you should see what I was trying to show you. .
I figure this will help folks like shanker666 see what I mean when I am saying that the NPC MOBs operate at different levels than just '50'.
The main thing is that MOB ships are procedurally generated as groups of enemies on queued maps. You do not run into the same exact mix every time because it modifies to fit the team. If the team is heavy towards level 55-60 it wil be mostly a level 50 mob.
I figure this will help folks like shanker666 see what I mean when I am saying that the NPC MOBs operate at different levels than just '50'.
The main thing is that MOB ships are procedurally generated as groups of enemies on queued maps. You do not run into the same exact mix every time because it modifies to fit the team. If the team is heavy towards level 55-60 it wil be mostly a level 50 mob.
Anyway, I'll be back
Qapla
I realize that mobs spawn at different levels,depending on player levels. That was not the whole point of the test I ran. The goal was to see if the afk penalty is broken or not. I didn't see what every ship was, but the level 60 guy was flying the new Quas ship(and was top parser with 3,258). If I can participate with a player like this, 55 levels above me, AND flying a brand new T6 ship, with his being top parse, and only needing 1%(325.8), which I surpassed by a small amount, this tells me something about alot of players in the game: They have no clue what they're doing, even at higher levels. Now, this isn't a condemnation of players because I realize that there isn't much information ingame about builds, boff skills and how they interact, active space doffs, etc. but to see a level 57 being out dps'ed by a level 5 is a sad comment on the state of the game.
Cryptic needs to address the lack of information on how to improve your ship builds and maybe players(if they want to play at a higher competency level) should do some independent research. I've posted in this thread earlier, there are literally hundreds of how to videos on youtube on this very subject(ship builds) and taking 20 minutes to watch one doesn't seem like alot of trouble to me. The lack of information seems to be the main culprit here.
That being said, as far as I'm concerned with the afk's in the low level queues(and ONLY those) as long as a player is flying and shooting, they shouldn't be afk'ed. All other queues should remain the same, with the exception of advanced/elite difficulty, and the auto-fails need to be put back in advanced, and some kind of test being needed to access them(as was suggested in earlier posts). Just the titles(advanced/elite) indicate to players what they are: queues for advanced/elite players, meaning that you need to upgrade your skills and builds. Maybe Cryptic should put a warning on the higher difficulty queues, letting players know that these aren't to be accepted unless you are ready.
I plan on doing more tests with that same low level toon to get more data and will post results later but given the levels of the players in that particular mission, I would surmise that most(if not all) the mobs were at level 50 and it is possible to not be afk'ed with a level 5 toon.
I figure this will help folks like shanker666 see what I mean when I am saying that the NPC MOBs operate at different levels than just '50'.
The main thing is that MOB ships are procedurally generated as groups of enemies on queued maps. You do not run into the same exact mix every time because it modifies to fit the team. If the team is heavy towards level 55-60 it wil be mostly a level 50 mob.
Anyway, I'll be back
Qapla
I realize that mobs spawn at different levels,depending on player levels. That was not the whole point of the test I ran. The goal was to see if the afk penalty is broken or not. I didn't see what every ship was, but the level 60 guy was flying the new Quas ship(and was top parser with 3,258). If I can participate with a player like this, 55 levels above me, AND flying a brand new T6 ship, with his being top parse, and only needing 1%(325.8), which I surpassed by a small amount, this tells me something about alot of players in the game: They have no clue what they're doing, even at higher levels. Now, this isn't a condemnation of players because I realize that there isn't much information ingame about builds, boff skills and how they interact, active space doffs, etc. but to see a level 57 being out dps'ed by a level 5 is a sad comment on the state of the game.
Cryptic needs to address the lack of information on how to improve your ship builds and maybe players(if they want to play at a higher competency level) should do some independent research. I've posted in this thread earlier, there are literally hundreds of how to videos on youtube on this very subject(ship builds) and taking 20 minutes to watch one doesn't seem like alot of trouble to me. The lack of information seems to be the main culprit here.
That being said, as far as I'm concerned with the afk's in the low level queues(and ONLY those) as long as a player is flying and shooting, they shouldn't be afk'ed. All other queues should remain the same, with the exception of advanced/elite difficulty, and the auto-fails need to be put back in advanced, and some kind of test being needed to access them(as was suggested in earlier posts). Just the titles(advanced/elite) indicate to players what they are: queues for advanced/elite players, meaning that you need to upgrade your skills and builds. Maybe Cryptic should put a warning on the higher difficulty queues, letting players know that these aren't to be accepted unless you are ready.
I plan on doing more tests with that same low level toon to get more data and will post results later but given the levels of the players in that particular mission, I would surmise that most(if not all) the mobs were at level 50 and it is possible to not be afk'ed with a level 5 toon.
I apologize if you thought I was trying to say you were not aware. Sometimes I could word things better. I did think you had a question there somewhere, and so that is probably why I put it that way. Sorry.
Right now I have to say I am entirely with you. I agree entirely that it is common for players to have little to no experience despite their levels. I think the reason I want to give a safe zone (of sorts) to the new people is so that they can learn by doing.
I think it is ludicrous to suggest that players have to avoid all queues till they learn how to queue. You learn to queue, by queueing.
So believe it or not, I don't know about auto fails, I guess because I never encountered one, so I don't know when they apply, but I presume they force participation. If that is the case, it sounds OK to me especially since you are saying it would be in advanced missions, and I can't see how that would hurt any nuggets.
I mentioned a test for access to advanced and elite earlier. If you remember it, what did you think?
I just want to add, that I appreciate your effort and experimentation. I hope your having fun with it also.
I did run another test, same as before and was able to avoid the afk penalty but not by alot. I would say that new/inexperienced players won't have much of a chance to avoid the penalty. As far as the "test", I'm not sure how to implement something like that. Maybe based on gear scores and successfully completing the normal versions of the queue. Maybe all weapons have to be Mk XIII VR before entry into advanced and MK XIV VR to get in elites. I really have no ideas other than that and I don't want people to feel left out, but certain requirements need to be met before attempting these queues. Just as the "nuggets"/inexperienced players are complaining about veteran players ruining their fun, by the same token, they ruin my(and others) fun, when they enter a queue they're not ready for.
It's not just about the dps, even though that's what is needed for most of the higher tiered queues, for me part of the fun is beating that content successfully, which I cannot do when teamed with under geared, unprepared players and that's what I think most of the dps people are arguing about also. For some of them, it is about squeezing out that last tiny bit of dps, and that's cool with me too. I'm not like that, I do 40k+ on my main toon and that's enough to do most of the harder content. Could I squeeze out a little more? Probably, but that isn't what I'm doing it for. It's just to compete at a high level and help others do the same, if they're interested.
I won't force my playing style on others, but in return don't force your style on me either. If you want to do advanced/elite, come ready to contribute or don't come at all. That's why alot of the public queues are dead. The dps players who have done the work to complete the stf's don't want to be bogged down by non-contributors and I think that's what most of them in this post were trying to get at, although sometimes a bit too aggressively. For my part, I'll most likely stay away from the low level queues because I don't want to cause someone to get an afk, and there are lots of ways for me to get fleet marks other than that. I hope in return that new/inexperienced/unprepared players show me the same consideration, and don't take away from my enjoyment of the game, as this is what we should all be playing for, fun and teaming with friends(and maybe finding a few new friends along the way).
I did run another test, same as before and was able to avoid the afk penalty but not by alot. I would say that new/inexperienced players won't have much of a chance to avoid the penalty. As far as the "test", I'm not sure how to implement something like that. Maybe based on gear scores and successfully completing the normal versions of the queue. Maybe all weapons have to be Mk XIII VR before entry into advanced and MK XIV VR to get in elites. I really have no ideas other than that and I don't want people to feel left out, but certain requirements need to be met before attempting these queues. Just as the "nuggets"/inexperienced players are complaining about veteran players ruining their fun, by the same token, they ruin my(and others) fun, when they enter a queue they're not ready for.
It's not just about the dps, even though that's what is needed for most of the higher tiered queues, for me part of the fun is beating that content successfully, which I cannot do when teamed with under geared, unprepared players and that's what I think most of the dps people are arguing about also. For some of them, it is about squeezing out that last tiny bit of dps, and that's cool with me too. I'm not like that, I do 40k+ on my main toon and that's enough to do most of the harder content. Could I squeeze out a little more? Probably, but that isn't what I'm doing it for. It's just to compete at a high level and help others do the same, if they're interested.
I won't force my playing style on others, but in return don't force your style on me either. If you want to do advanced/elite, come ready to contribute or don't come at all. That's why alot of the public queues are dead. The dps players who have done the work to complete the stf's don't want to be bogged down by non-contributors and I think that's what most of them in this post were trying to get at, although sometimes a bit too aggressively. For my part, I'll most likely stay away from the low level queues because I don't want to cause someone to get an afk, and there are lots of ways for me to get fleet marks other than that. I hope in return that new/inexperienced/unprepared players show me the same consideration, and don't take away from my enjoyment of the game, as this is what we should all be playing for, fun and teaming with friends(and maybe finding a few new friends along the way).
Live long and prosper
I don't think judging a player's preparedness based on gear levels will be fair. More experienced players for example can contribute enough for advanced with Mk X gear. My Engineer for example on a Canon (so not really optimized) build with Mk X equipment was doing 12-15k in ISA PUGs for example and surviving 50-70% of the aggro (it's setup to be a tank).
IMO moving to advanced should require x consecutive number of times they succeeded with all optionals met in normal so that they can prove they at least know the basic objectives of the mission instead of basing it on gear/level. Maybe even add-in a cumulative number of tasks done (like x number of kills or x number of gates/portals closed) in addition to successful runs to push active participation and discourage leeching and gaining successful runs just because other players did well.
Basically, you'd want to make the players learn the missions and their objectives rather than just focusing on pure pew-pewing.
For example, to get to ISA you should complete 10 consecutive successful ISNs with all objectives met and rack-in a total of 50 kills from all your runs combined. In CCA it could be 10 consecutive successful CCNs with no deaths from the Crystalline's pulse while giving out x amount of total of heals over all their runs and placing at least 3rd 5x. In GGA it could be 10 consecutive successful GGNs with all optionals met (including kills within the allotted time) and 50 gates closed and a total of 100 troop transports landed (I've seen runs with 35+ troop transports landed so this should be easy).
Elite should be open to all players who are eligible for advanced. Instead of gates, the fail-optionals are enough IMO.
Mind you, bad runs are not restricted to PUGs. There have been really bad runs inside the DPS channels. I've seen a number of poorly run Counterpoint missions for example where no-one closed portals or transported troops and everyone were mindlessly shooting at Terok Nor instead of stopping at 40% and focusing on troop transports. After doing so poorly on the optionals, you'll start hearing all the whining about bad rewards... I've also seen some really bad ISA runs there which is funny given how used everyone there should be to ISA by now and that they aren't really lacking in DPS.
Most of that sounds reasonable to me. I just couldn't think of any other ways to implement a test. More positive post contributions like this one is what's needed, instead of blaming each other for the way Cryptic has designed the game around dps. None of us have any control over their decisions, we can only share ideas here and hope that someone there takes an interest in what we have to say.
wont work because the game only tells you pass or fail. so there is nothing to indicate knowledge action.
making the queued events modifications of optional episodes where you where 'supported' by npcs that you needed to beat the mission would do this. linking harder versions of the queues to completing harder versions of the episode spells out the process. as well as giving a practice spot for people to test new builds without going into an mp queue.
This is easily solvable by adding a progress window for the player at the end of the mission (like how BDX, GGX or CPX shows at the end).
All the information a player needs to accomplish a mission properly is there if they are willing to read it. In some missions, those objectives are even spoken out loud. Using previous success in normal as a gate to the advanced version of that queue will encourage players to learn first, instead of rushing headlong into a queue they are not prepared to tackle.
thats basically a scoreboard... for the game to track and report that would mean having all the parts of a scoreboard then not using it as such despite the benefits it would bring.
Yeah it is basically a scoreboard, but one only visible to the player so those scores can't be used to bash said player.
Most of that sounds reasonable to me. I just couldn't think of any other ways to implement a test. More positive post contributions like this one is what's needed, instead of blaming each other for the way Cryptic has designed the game around dps. None of us have any control over their decisions, we can only share ideas here and hope that someone there takes an interest in what we have to say.
Sure that is a good idea. Better let this thread die and create a thread about gating. AFK penalty thread complaints like these happens every other month/quarterly and has been happening for years, usually started/posted by the same group of players giving out the same recycled reasons.
However, This is an AFK Penalty complaint thread. Those who are affected by it are the ones who are passionate of complaining about this. Removing AFK Penalty only removes the penalty which doesnt solve the problem of these players non capability of completing the queue nor the increase completion time that these players will experience greater than the 2hr AFK penalty.
However, This is an AFK Penalty complaint thread. Those who are affected by it are the ones who are passionate of complaining about this. Removing AFK Penalty only removes the penalty which doesnt solve the problem of these players non capability of completing the queue nor the increase completion time that these players will experience greater than the 2hr AFK penalty.
that would be everyone in the game.
since everyone in the game is impacted by the loss of players. both in terms of dying fleets and queues that dont start because there arent enough players.
both of which are very easily solved with the correct use of ingame systems, rather than caustic ego-maniacal punishment of players who are presumed guilty.
It wouldn't really solve anything, because you would simply wind up with people tired of those who are dragging them down, by creating hour long missions!
In other words, those who avoid bad player(s) already, would still remain doing so, those who do them currently, will either remain doing so, or avoid the bad player pool as well.
Eventually, mission queues will be filled with bad pug groups constantly, taking hours upon hours to finish 1-2 of the missions!!!
I did run another test, same as before and was able to avoid the afk penalty but not by alot. I would say that new/inexperienced players won't have much of a chance to avoid the penalty. As far as the "test", I'm not sure how to implement something like that. Maybe based on gear scores and successfully completing the normal versions of the queue. Maybe all weapons have to be Mk XIII VR before entry into advanced and MK XIV VR to get in elites. I really have no ideas other than that and I don't want people to feel left out, but certain requirements need to be met before attempting these queues. Just as the "nuggets"/inexperienced players are complaining about veteran players ruining their fun, by the same token, they ruin my(and others) fun, when they enter a queue they're not ready for.
It's not just about the dps, even though that's what is needed for most of the higher tiered queues, for me part of the fun is beating that content successfully, which I cannot do when teamed with under geared, unprepared players and that's what I think most of the dps people are arguing about also. For some of them, it is about squeezing out that last tiny bit of dps, and that's cool with me too. I'm not like that, I do 40k+ on my main toon and that's enough to do most of the harder content. Could I squeeze out a little more? Probably, but that isn't what I'm doing it for. It's just to compete at a high level and help others do the same, if they're interested.
I won't force my playing style on others, but in return don't force your style on me either. If you want to do advanced/elite, come ready to contribute or don't come at all. That's why alot of the public queues are dead. The dps players who have done the work to complete the stf's don't want to be bogged down by non-contributors and I think that's what most of them in this post were trying to get at, although sometimes a bit too aggressively. For my part, I'll most likely stay away from the low level queues because I don't want to cause someone to get an afk, and there are lots of ways for me to get fleet marks other than that. I hope in return that new/inexperienced/unprepared players show me the same consideration, and don't take away from my enjoyment of the game, as this is what we should all be playing for, fun and teaming with friends(and maybe finding a few new friends along the way).
Live long and prosper
I don't think judging a player's preparedness based on gear levels will be fair. More experienced players for example can contribute enough for advanced with Mk X gear. My Engineer for example on a Canon (so not really optimized) build with Mk X equipment was doing 12-15k in ISA PUGs for example and surviving 50-70% of the aggro (it's setup to be a tank).
IMO moving to advanced should require x consecutive number of times they succeeded with all optionals met in normal so that they can prove they at least know the basic objectives of the mission instead of basing it on gear/level. Maybe even add-in a cumulative number of tasks done (like x number of kills or x number of gates/portals closed) in addition to successful runs to push active participation and discourage leeching and gaining successful runs just because other players did well.
Basically, you'd want to make the players learn the missions and their objectives rather than just focusing on pure pew-pewing.
For example, to get to ISA you should complete 10 consecutive successful ISNs with all objectives met and rack-in a total of 50 kills from all your runs combined. In CCA it could be 10 consecutive successful CCNs with no deaths from the Crystalline's pulse while giving out x amount of total of heals over all their runs and placing at least 3rd 5x. In GGA it could be 10 consecutive successful GGNs with all optionals met (including kills within the allotted time) and 50 gates closed and a total of 100 troop transports landed (I've seen runs with 35+ troop transports landed so this should be easy).
Elite should be open to all players who are eligible for advanced. Instead of gates, the fail-optionals are enough IMO.
Mind you, bad runs are not restricted to PUGs. There have been really bad runs inside the DPS channels. I've seen a number of poorly run Counterpoint missions for example where no-one closed portals or transported troops and everyone were mindlessly shooting at Terok Nor instead of stopping at 40% and focusing on troop transports. After doing so poorly on the optionals, you'll start hearing all the whining about bad rewards... I've also seen some really bad ISA runs there which is funny given how used everyone there should be to ISA by now and that they aren't really lacking in DPS.
I'm less for a gear based solution then a completion based solution. When I suggested test earlier I thought that three normal completions with all optionals was a good number, but I am not stuck there. I would like to hear more ideas on a good test if anyone else wants to chime in.
Basically though, I feel this is heading the right direction. The more casual players that I do speak with aren't all that interested in doing the Advanced missions anyway. Mostly (and rightly I suspect) they are intimidated. Heck, I'm intimidated. Once in awhile I go into one with friends who (yes) are providing the real edge to the team, but we all know what the deal is then. We are friends and having fun, and that comes first. We still play to win, just saying.
I can play PVP against my Fleets dps'rs but I lose consistently, and badly to them. I think I mentioned that earlier. It may have been another thread. The main reason I do PVP is it is a fun way to help my own and my friends game improve, and to get advice on builds. Another reason I do it is that those in our Fleets who are not all that skilled yet can have fun ganging up on someone who is skilled and learn tactics, and get feedback. Sometimes I am the better player in a PVP, and let them gang up on me. Other times we gang up on our best, and we get happily slaughtered. I know some folks who posted earlier think neither I or my people do anything to learn, but it isn't so. We just like to have fun at it. It isn't a job.
OK, just for fun I'll tell you. Sometimes we do what I call 'Hunt the Klingon'. Basically it is a PVP where I have a K'tinga with slightly above average consoles and stuff ( Most of my KDF keep one around for fun). The other side has a PVP killing machine, and and one or more nuggets. I go around cloaked looking for a cheap-shot ambush on a nugget when available, and they get experience reacting to ambushes, working with allies, and well ... hunting cloaked Klingons. The PVPr keeps it from being a game of me killing nuggets since that isn't exactly the goal. I explode a lot! Afterwards the PVPr gives some feedback on what worked for a nugget, and I pick things up also.
I still think you need to learn queues earlier than later, or it will take you forever to get good at them or you may never do them at all.
e30ernest? Would you come down from ten successful runs ISN with all the goals hit, to maybe five? just asking.
IMO moving to advanced should require x consecutive number of times they succeeded with all optionals met in normal so that they can prove they at least know the basic objectives of the mission instead of basing it on gear/level.
wont work because the game only tells you pass or fail. so there is nothing to indicate knowledge action.
making the queued events modifications of optional episodes where you where 'supported' by npcs that you needed to beat the mission would do this. linking harder versions of the queues to completing harder versions of the episode spells out the process. as well as giving a practice spot for people to test new builds without going into an mp queue.
Maybe even add-in a cumulative number of tasks done (like x number of kills or x number of gates/portals closed) in addition to successful runs to push active participation and discourage leeching and gaining successful runs just because other players did well.
thats basically a scoreboard... for the game to track and report that would mean having all the parts of a scoreboard then not using it as such despite the benefits it would bring.
Maybe based on gear scores and successfully completing the normal versions of the queue. Maybe all weapons have to be Mk XIII VR before entry into advanced and MK XIV VR to get in elites.
gear scores really are just manifest egotism gone wild. they have been used before in other games, and the result?
guilds that refused to recruit new players without gear scores higher than they could get without having done the content already,
along with lobby's that wouldnt let people in without gearscores higher than they could get without having done the content already.
its a monumentally worse system than cryptic already have due to being actively regressive and actively hostile.
Actually, I think the the consecutive wins with optionals could work, only because the machinery seems to be there already, and please here me out;
If you take a mission from "Available" missions it may say something like 'play in three pvp arenas' or 'die X number of times'. It may as well be a "Test for Advanced Access" mission. Basically you are going to get a score (the game is tracking it) for the queue mission (lets say ISN) and if you get all the optionals then it ticks plus one on your 'Mission' requirements. When you get three in a row, you turn it in for the reward, which is access to Advanced.
The mechanic here is only about as hard as the ones that say "join X pve matches" or "Kill X number of enemy captains" before you get those rewards.
A solo queue with AI allies could be interesting. I'm not against it, but I would rather see it as added content rather than substitute content.
You know I have already said that I have nothing against a scoreboard in principle, so all I will say is that I am looking for a good compromise that helps the new or casual players avoid wrong afk's. For my part I am willing to see the 'test' idea as part of that compromise.
I like e30ernest's last post. Even if a score was only visible to the player at their option, it would still provide feedback, and no "front page news" blow to their ego.
Comments
@coldnapalm
But should a new player keep doing it? The reason you get AFK and affected by AFK is you do it unprepared, choose to do it and keep on repeating it.
Why in hell will a new player, casual player, keep repeating a PuG mission, with lower repeat value than a storied mission at all? Why in the world will the casual player even have a time to repeat multiple PuGs when they were doing AFK penalty performance? They already spent hours doing 1 STF.
It destroys the logic of casual, and your logic of exploration. Sure they do it one time. But multiple times?
Why shouldnt a player not level? This is an MMO, wherein level matters. Expect others to carry your load for you?
No it is not the only way. Sure it is the only way if your intent is to leech. No way for the AFK Penalty performance players to complete STF missions without leeching. Remove AFK Penalty, those AFK penalty performance players can now keep on leeching without penalty.
No I am not dropping my stance on player improvement nor my stance on standards. You improve player performance, you improve a players gaming experience. Sure you hate DPS. But it is DPS what makes you get those rewards. That is part of the mechanics of the game. Absent of DPS, no one will complete anything.
Removing AFK penalty wont help players improve their gaming experience. Nor is it assured that new and casual players get AFK penalty.
It is a subset of those subset of those players who get AFK Penalty. Non of it is dependent of being in new or casual.
Like I keep on saying, this is a Leechers complaint thread.
Sheez man. Way to bloat the population for propaganda and nosense. Are you in drugs or something?
No player can do 200k+ DPS when they are team in a PuG with AFK Penalty performance players.
Going back to reality, the best players can do in a PuG is most likely 130k, based on the highest Solo DPS recorded. That single 130k DPS player cannot AFK 99.9999999% of the playerbase nor this any proof that 99.9999999% of the playerbase does 1.3k DPS.
ISA AFK penalty range would be roughly around 1.3k and below. And NO data shows that 99.9999999% of the playerbase belongs to that DPS range.
Also,aren't players below level 50 buffed to level 50 and 51 and above nerfed to level 50? Now I'm only talking about FFA and the low level entrance queues. If this is the case, the argument that level 50+ toons are causing higher level mobs to spawn is in fact, a wrong conclusion. So, even if you're level 5 and join, you're going to get level 50 mobs anyway but you get the buff to help mitigate the much higher level mob spawn. If this is wrong, I apologize for the post but I'm hoping the correct info will help clear up things for me a bit. Thanks in advance for any pertinent information regarding my questions.
I understand that when something new opens up for them, most players are going to jump right in, even though it seems Cryptic has made this a no-win situation for low level toons. I will roll a new toon and test this for myself, just to get an idea of what is actually happening. I will post my results later and maybe we can all figure out a solution to the problem(if Cryptic will even acknowledge there is one).
Team consisted of a level 60, 2 level 59's and a level 57(and me at level 5). We didn't rescue any transports, and I did run a parse,which I realize is not optimal. Top parser at 3,258k(level 60 guy), a level 59 at 1k, a level 59 at 487, me at 345 and the level 57 at 105 dps. At level 5 I actually out dps'ed a level 57(didn't happen to notice what ship he was flying). I did not get an afk penalty but I'm guessing the level 57 did.
You can draw your own conclusions from this, but I was able to use evasive maneuvers and full impulse to get around just fine, and engage mobs before they were killed(or killed the transport and warped out). Now, granted, I'm a veteran player and know how to run the stf, but after this run I'm not sure the issue is with the afk penalty, but possibly due to either: new or inexperienced player or a leecher, just out to get the reward without actually contributing. I was way outclassed by all the players and ships, but still managed to hold my own and not get an afk penalty(even against level 50 mobs).
I will run more tests with the same toon(and won't level up anymore) and wait for FFA to be fixed and put back in. I didn't screenshot the parse(because of privacy issues and I can't figure out how to scratch out the other names). Only one test, but it's certainly got me thinking.
-> Go and do a private match with same low level group.
Now, In order for one to be affected by AFK, 1) one needs to go decide or be advise to do a PuG, 2)one needs to do lower than what is expected of the team, 3) That player needs to repeat constantly PuGs.
Those are 3 conditions to be affected by AFK. Those 3 conditions are already conditional on their own. Why?
1) Not all low level will do a PuG straight from a low level. It is a wild assumption based from some personal experience that everyone jumps to a PuG straight from low level or some "fake expert" advised them to go do PuGs.
2) Not all low level have the same effort, same access to information, same discipline, same attitude. That means that new/casual player will not experience the same performance as the other. E.g. new players getting advice from admiralkogar vs getting advice from sarcasmdetector would have different information be given to that new player. Or if that player made an effort to research while the other mismanage time, just lazy(spent the time chatting at ESD rather than researching) even though total time spent for STO game related is the same. That is why I insist new/casual doesnt equate AFK penalty performance. Not everyone is lazy, stubborn or needs to be spoonfed.
3) Not all of these low level chooses to keep on repeating PuGs. I see no value for new/casual to keep repeating PuGs in the current mechanics except to leech.
This is a very specific subset of players we are talking about who gets affected by AFK.
I was understanding that you had to do 1% of the teams total dps, so if someone is doing 160k dps that is hard for a fiver to compete with. It is even harder if there is a 40k, a 50k, a 100k, and a 160kr along with you. But it could be the npc's (which should be procedurally generated to match the highest players difficulty and so could be very tough) Anyway, that is why you see low level mob stats for missions like Fleet Alerts in the links. If your all level five, the mob is also, (more or less) and you will also see a slightly different mix of ships. Fewer high Tier ships in the mob. Fewer weapons slots shooting at YOU. And so on.
And no as far as I can determine the only thing that gets a buff when you 'fight at higher level' is maybe your base dps but I guess you may get a passive boost to base shields and hull. I suppose a parsing program would confirm that, but it is going to be third party software. The links I provided a while back show that the mobs are leveled to the player (caveat; the information on the wiki is incomplete). When you are flying in some maps, you get a dps boost (you are fighting at... ) which doesn't grant you better consoles more weapon slots, more Boffs, better Boffs, more abilities, better abilities, etc. You still at level 5, have a few boffs, no doffs, and three weapons. Even if they let you fight at level 50.
All the damage difference between a T6 with 60 toon, and a T1 with level 5 toon isn't just how much to boost each weapon. When you think about all the layers that go into a 160k build concept, you would see consoles stacking with boff, and doff abilities and captain abilities each forming a cross supporting network of 'boosts'. A skill for managing ability cooldowns is good to have if your high level with lots of functionality, but if you don't have abilities in the first place, the skill is useless for you. You are mananging the cooldowns for only a few things, and they do not stack very far when they do stack at all.
Being nerfed doesn't eliminate slots on your T6 ship, or eliminate your doffs, or Boff abilities, it mostly seems to only reduce damage by a percentage. I don't know if they take a percentage of your hull, or shield strength, but I never notice it at high levels. All that ability and device stacking more than makes up for it.
Having teamed with others at different levels this problem exists as much for shared story missions as it does for queues, at least where balance is concerned. You don't get an afk for story missions. But to explain, lets suppose your rescuing the Bolian freighter after leveling a bunch. You come back with a level 40 toon, and a T5 ship. Your mob are not the wimps they were when you could have taken the mission earlier. They are leveled to match you. The pushover battleships you beat the TRIBBLE out of at 5th level are gone, and replaced with their higher level cousins.
Now suppose you share the mission with a friend who is just now getting it. You are teaming to have some fun, and run a mission you are both eligible for. Low and behold, matching the team leaders level doesn't work like you expect. If you are the leader, your Friend (fighting at your level) is getting skinned alive. your Friend can't match you in weapons slots, consoles, available Boff powers, and so you are literally having to carry them. It's true. In this regard people like paxdawn are at least partly right. Howeever I recognize that I am the one bringing in the higher level mobs, and making things tough for my friend. He would have better luck if we aborted the mission, and he may have to drop and retake it (don't continue, or the mob may continue also, seen this happen) and take it again from the available missions. Also changing who is leader will not help once the battle is on.
Try this. Next time you go into an FFA take your lowest toon if you have any, and team only with people at about your level. When you engage targets I know you will be busy, but do check the levels of targets. The information is there. You will be above or below a slight bit as mobs are typically varied around a baseline (level 40 base would include roughly maybe 37 to 43?) You can see what the targets level is, and how far above or below you are. Then do it with someone 30+ levels higher than you.
I think that will make the point that mobs level to match. There are no bad questions. Sometimes there are bad answers. For all that I have just typed, please allow I am uncertain about some things, and would not try to mislead you on purpose. The main point I am sure of is that mobs level also, and that leveling doesn't make up for shortfalls in gear, or available abilities, and their boosts.
Qapla
What you just said! The mix is always weighted to reflect the presence of a higher level ship, except it seems to top 50 +or - about 5. Then the level 60 gets some nerfing going in, but the mob is set.
Qapla
Good! I am all for what you did there. I have only had a problem with this once myself, so I am feeling like what you did would be more like what I would expect from previous experiences. The build you flew in this example is almost exactly the sort I have been running for my new Fed toons. My queues have been fine. I don't parse (probably will get on that bandwagon eventually) but I do check the chat window and eyeball things there.
It's important to me, so I'll ask. Did you have fun?
Some observations. According to some people you should not even try to queue that mission with a level five toon. You did, so I presume you got it offered as you hit 3-5th level. As you say, many aren't veterans, and especially not at level 5. But they will get offered the mission. Not saving any transports ... that is sort of the thing that some of the other 'vets' are complaining about, and those ones blame low level players for missing mission goals, or holding them back.
Oddly enough, I am going to suggest that you may have been the most experienced player in the team. We don't know how the players you ran with got to be the levels they were at, or how many queues they have done, or how well thought out their builds are. I can tell for sure, that they are not running the 50k-220k dps builds we have heard about here, and I think if they were you would have been afk'd.
The numbers you tracked for them are like I might expect from ordinary players reaching level 55+ with 'salvage' builds, where they just plugged in the best of what they had earned on the way up to level 55+. I can imagine a lot of 'salvage' build flyers being around after the bonus experience week we just had. Were there any obvious 'rainbow' ships? For my part, I expect 'salvage' build players to get afk'd plenty when running with the 50k+ dps crowd in any numbers.
"possibly due to either: new or inexperienced player or a leecher"
Most of the arguing as far as I can tell is about "all afk'rs are leeches" vs "some aren't, and are being treated unfairly" vs "if they aren't leeches then they should stay the hell out of my way" vs " everyone has a right as customers to access and respect". After you take a side or sides, then you have to try to defend where you are.
Thanks for trying to approach this topic rationally.
Qapla
You keep relying on circular reasoning. What you say always boils down to this; The afk system doesn't give out unfair penalties because the afk system is never unfair. We don't need any oversight of it, it is infallible! So whatever it does is infallible too!
You persistently claim that if someone gets afk's it can't ever be because the system is faulty, it always has to be the person who got afk'd. An afk penalty gets issued. It can't be the systems fault, so it has to be the players fault. Circular and ultimately weak. Your argument is rife with ad hominem attacks against any who have received the penalty. They must be guilty or they would not have been punished? Circular! It also resembles the sort of defense of official wrongdoing that totalitarian regimes attempt all the time. 'We only execute the guilty, so if they were executed they were guilty!"
Another way to look at is in terms of bad laws. "If one gets enslaved, one deserves to be enslaved because that is the current law, that is the current standard." is as true as "If one gets AFK, one deserves penalty because that is the current mechanic, that is the current standard." Both are devoid of any reasonably humane ethic.
You need to consider how narrow your view is. It limits you, and it will limit you in life.
Qapla
Thanks. I get tired of explaining it. The main reason I continue to explain it isn't for pax' at all. but for those who might buy into that brand of nonsense if he was left unanswered. Anyway, much appreciated.
Qapla
Anyway, this Corsair link I used before should take you to where the 'mob' hull strengths are listed for a few levels but it won't unless you copy and paste the whole line.
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Corsair_Flight-Deck_Cruiser_(Mob)#Hull_strength
Instead it takes you to here;
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Corsair_Flight-Deck_Cruiser_
and there is a fair bit of difference in these entries.
This ...
"Hull strength
Level Standard Difficulty Advanced Difficulty Elite Difficulty
2....................8,378..........................-.........................-............
13................17,005..........................-.........................-............
17................20,651..........................-.........................-............
22................27,177..........................-.........................-............
39................48,019..........................-.........................-............"
is an example of what you were supposed to see. Examples of MOB ship hull point progressions used in the game.
Some of the more complete entries also have things like this;
"Missions encountered
Dozens of Corsair Cruisers accompany Syndicate fleets during attacks on Federation starbases in:
“Fleet Alert”
“Fleet Transport Defense”
“Starbase Fleet Defense”
“No Win Scenario”: In Combat Simulation 347, a massive fleet of Syndicate ships attacks a civilian freighter.
“The Undying”: Corsairs are part of Hassan the Undying's fleet in the Nimbus System."
So all these though undeniably incomplete are supposed to link to this sort of data. You just need the whole line, not just the part that gets highlighted. If your willing to copy/paste each full line into the address bar, you should see what I was trying to show you. .
These links show evidence of ships having level 2+ mob stats;
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Brigand_Cruiser#Hull_strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Federation_Escort_(Mob)#Hull_strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Federation_Cruiser_(Mob)#Hull_strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Federation_Science_Vessel_(Mob)#Hull_strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Nebula_Class_Science_Vessel#Hull_strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Corsair_Flight-Deck_Cruiser_(Mob)#Hull_strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Terran_Escort#Hull_strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/D'Kora_Class#Hull_Strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Mogai_Heavy_Warbird_(Mob)#Hull_strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Deferi_Cruiser#Hull_strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Tulwar_Dreadnought_Warbird_(Mob)#Hull_strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Falchion_Dreadnought_Warbird_(Mob)#Hull_strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Terran_Cruiser#Hull_strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Terran_Science_Vessel#Hull_strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Jem'Hadar_Heavy_Escort#Hull_strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Kar'Fi_Battle_Carrier_(Mob)#Hull_Strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/K'Norr_Escort#Hull_Strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Sphere#Hull_strength
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Chel_Grett_Cruiser#Hull_strength
And just to be weird;
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Tortured_Soul_(space)#Hull_Strength
I figure this will help folks like shanker666 see what I mean when I am saying that the NPC MOBs operate at different levels than just '50'.
The main thing is that MOB ships are procedurally generated as groups of enemies on queued maps. You do not run into the same exact mix every time because it modifies to fit the team. If the team is heavy towards level 55-60 it wil be mostly a level 50 mob.
Anyway, I'll be back
Qapla
I realize that mobs spawn at different levels,depending on player levels. That was not the whole point of the test I ran. The goal was to see if the afk penalty is broken or not. I didn't see what every ship was, but the level 60 guy was flying the new Quas ship(and was top parser with 3,258). If I can participate with a player like this, 55 levels above me, AND flying a brand new T6 ship, with his being top parse, and only needing 1%(325.8), which I surpassed by a small amount, this tells me something about alot of players in the game: They have no clue what they're doing, even at higher levels. Now, this isn't a condemnation of players because I realize that there isn't much information ingame about builds, boff skills and how they interact, active space doffs, etc. but to see a level 57 being out dps'ed by a level 5 is a sad comment on the state of the game.
Cryptic needs to address the lack of information on how to improve your ship builds and maybe players(if they want to play at a higher competency level) should do some independent research. I've posted in this thread earlier, there are literally hundreds of how to videos on youtube on this very subject(ship builds) and taking 20 minutes to watch one doesn't seem like alot of trouble to me. The lack of information seems to be the main culprit here.
That being said, as far as I'm concerned with the afk's in the low level queues(and ONLY those) as long as a player is flying and shooting, they shouldn't be afk'ed. All other queues should remain the same, with the exception of advanced/elite difficulty, and the auto-fails need to be put back in advanced, and some kind of test being needed to access them(as was suggested in earlier posts). Just the titles(advanced/elite) indicate to players what they are: queues for advanced/elite players, meaning that you need to upgrade your skills and builds. Maybe Cryptic should put a warning on the higher difficulty queues, letting players know that these aren't to be accepted unless you are ready.
I plan on doing more tests with that same low level toon to get more data and will post results later but given the levels of the players in that particular mission, I would surmise that most(if not all) the mobs were at level 50 and it is possible to not be afk'ed with a level 5 toon.
Right now I have to say I am entirely with you. I agree entirely that it is common for players to have little to no experience despite their levels. I think the reason I want to give a safe zone (of sorts) to the new people is so that they can learn by doing.
I think it is ludicrous to suggest that players have to avoid all queues till they learn how to queue. You learn to queue, by queueing.
So believe it or not, I don't know about auto fails, I guess because I never encountered one, so I don't know when they apply, but I presume they force participation. If that is the case, it sounds OK to me especially since you are saying it would be in advanced missions, and I can't see how that would hurt any nuggets.
I mentioned a test for access to advanced and elite earlier. If you remember it, what did you think?
I just want to add, that I appreciate your effort and experimentation. I hope your having fun with it also.
Qapla
It's not just about the dps, even though that's what is needed for most of the higher tiered queues, for me part of the fun is beating that content successfully, which I cannot do when teamed with under geared, unprepared players and that's what I think most of the dps people are arguing about also. For some of them, it is about squeezing out that last tiny bit of dps, and that's cool with me too. I'm not like that, I do 40k+ on my main toon and that's enough to do most of the harder content. Could I squeeze out a little more? Probably, but that isn't what I'm doing it for. It's just to compete at a high level and help others do the same, if they're interested.
I won't force my playing style on others, but in return don't force your style on me either. If you want to do advanced/elite, come ready to contribute or don't come at all. That's why alot of the public queues are dead. The dps players who have done the work to complete the stf's don't want to be bogged down by non-contributors and I think that's what most of them in this post were trying to get at, although sometimes a bit too aggressively. For my part, I'll most likely stay away from the low level queues because I don't want to cause someone to get an afk, and there are lots of ways for me to get fleet marks other than that. I hope in return that new/inexperienced/unprepared players show me the same consideration, and don't take away from my enjoyment of the game, as this is what we should all be playing for, fun and teaming with friends(and maybe finding a few new friends along the way).
Live long and prosper
As for damage, DPS, heals and objective-type-button-pressing should be accounted for combined.
14k total damage in a game round ? Yes, he should be banned.
I don't think judging a player's preparedness based on gear levels will be fair. More experienced players for example can contribute enough for advanced with Mk X gear. My Engineer for example on a Canon (so not really optimized) build with Mk X equipment was doing 12-15k in ISA PUGs for example and surviving 50-70% of the aggro (it's setup to be a tank).
IMO moving to advanced should require x consecutive number of times they succeeded with all optionals met in normal so that they can prove they at least know the basic objectives of the mission instead of basing it on gear/level. Maybe even add-in a cumulative number of tasks done (like x number of kills or x number of gates/portals closed) in addition to successful runs to push active participation and discourage leeching and gaining successful runs just because other players did well.
Basically, you'd want to make the players learn the missions and their objectives rather than just focusing on pure pew-pewing.
For example, to get to ISA you should complete 10 consecutive successful ISNs with all objectives met and rack-in a total of 50 kills from all your runs combined. In CCA it could be 10 consecutive successful CCNs with no deaths from the Crystalline's pulse while giving out x amount of total of heals over all their runs and placing at least 3rd 5x. In GGA it could be 10 consecutive successful GGNs with all optionals met (including kills within the allotted time) and 50 gates closed and a total of 100 troop transports landed (I've seen runs with 35+ troop transports landed so this should be easy).
Elite should be open to all players who are eligible for advanced. Instead of gates, the fail-optionals are enough IMO.
Mind you, bad runs are not restricted to PUGs. There have been really bad runs inside the DPS channels. I've seen a number of poorly run Counterpoint missions for example where no-one closed portals or transported troops and everyone were mindlessly shooting at Terok Nor instead of stopping at 40% and focusing on troop transports. After doing so poorly on the optionals, you'll start hearing all the whining about bad rewards... I've also seen some really bad ISA runs there which is funny given how used everyone there should be to ISA by now and that they aren't really lacking in DPS.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
This is easily solvable by adding a progress window for the player at the end of the mission (like how BDX, GGX or CPX shows at the end).
All the information a player needs to accomplish a mission properly is there if they are willing to read it. In some missions, those objectives are even spoken out loud. Using previous success in normal as a gate to the advanced version of that queue will encourage players to learn first, instead of rushing headlong into a queue they are not prepared to tackle.
Yeah it is basically a scoreboard, but one only visible to the player so those scores can't be used to bash said player.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
Sure that is a good idea. Better let this thread die and create a thread about gating. AFK penalty thread complaints like these happens every other month/quarterly and has been happening for years, usually started/posted by the same group of players giving out the same recycled reasons.
However, This is an AFK Penalty complaint thread. Those who are affected by it are the ones who are passionate of complaining about this. Removing AFK Penalty only removes the penalty which doesnt solve the problem of these players non capability of completing the queue nor the increase completion time that these players will experience greater than the 2hr AFK penalty.
It wouldn't really solve anything, because you would simply wind up with people tired of those who are dragging them down, by creating hour long missions!
In other words, those who avoid bad player(s) already, would still remain doing so, those who do them currently, will either remain doing so, or avoid the bad player pool as well.
Eventually, mission queues will be filled with bad pug groups constantly, taking hours upon hours to finish 1-2 of the missions!!!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
I'm less for a gear based solution then a completion based solution. When I suggested test earlier I thought that three normal completions with all optionals was a good number, but I am not stuck there. I would like to hear more ideas on a good test if anyone else wants to chime in.
Basically though, I feel this is heading the right direction. The more casual players that I do speak with aren't all that interested in doing the Advanced missions anyway. Mostly (and rightly I suspect) they are intimidated. Heck, I'm intimidated. Once in awhile I go into one with friends who (yes) are providing the real edge to the team, but we all know what the deal is then. We are friends and having fun, and that comes first. We still play to win, just saying.
I can play PVP against my Fleets dps'rs but I lose consistently, and badly to them. I think I mentioned that earlier. It may have been another thread.
OK, just for fun I'll tell you. Sometimes we do what I call 'Hunt the Klingon'. Basically it is a PVP where I have a K'tinga with slightly above average consoles and stuff ( Most of my KDF keep one around for fun). The other side has a PVP killing machine, and and one or more nuggets. I go around cloaked looking for a cheap-shot ambush on a nugget when available, and they get experience reacting to ambushes, working with allies, and well ... hunting cloaked Klingons. The PVPr keeps it from being a game of me killing nuggets since that isn't exactly the goal. I explode a lot!
I still think you need to learn queues earlier than later, or it will take you forever to get good at them or you may never do them at all.
e30ernest? Would you come down from ten successful runs ISN with all the goals hit, to maybe five? just asking.
Qapla
Actually, I think the the consecutive wins with optionals could work, only because the machinery seems to be there already, and please here me out;
If you take a mission from "Available" missions it may say something like 'play in three pvp arenas' or 'die X number of times'. It may as well be a "Test for Advanced Access" mission. Basically you are going to get a score (the game is tracking it) for the queue mission (lets say ISN) and if you get all the optionals then it ticks plus one on your 'Mission' requirements. When you get three in a row, you turn it in for the reward, which is access to Advanced.
The mechanic here is only about as hard as the ones that say "join X pve matches" or "Kill X number of enemy captains" before you get those rewards.
A solo queue with AI allies could be interesting. I'm not against it, but I would rather see it as added content rather than substitute content.
You know I have already said that I have nothing against a scoreboard in principle, so all I will say is that I am looking for a good compromise that helps the new or casual players avoid wrong afk's. For my part I am willing to see the 'test' idea as part of that compromise.
I like e30ernest's last post. Even if a score was only visible to the player at their option, it would still provide feedback, and no "front page news" blow to their ego.
Thanks for your input.
Qapla