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.
Actually, just to be crystal clear, I have no intention of letting this thread die while we are working on a solution to unfair AFK penalties. That is still the central concern of this thread. Ways to fix the system may include gating, scoreboards, elimination of any AFK for only the nine lower level queues, or any other thing that works. Like it says "The AFk penalty really needs to be looked at."
Switching to another thread doesn't get the AFK penalty looked at, so not going to happen as far as I'm concerned. I do have a Fleet or two who I can expect chime in with me if required to keep this on the front page. So lets not try to avoid the topic, by moving away from it. This could go on for months ... maybe years. No offense but I think you will wear out first.
I'll tell you a secret. When a type of complaint thread keeps coming back around it pretty much means that someone was unhappy enough to take the time to complain about it in a forum. If it happens a lot, you are probably safe in presuming that there is something that needs fixed, adjusted, removed, or improved regarding the thing in question, which in this case is the AFK system.
In retail management you do customer surveys to see what people have to say about your products and service. There is typically a rating scale, maybe a scale of 1 to 5. Often there is a spot to write down a complaint or observation that isn't covered already. The blank comment space is an important area on such surveys because it reveals the blind spots that management has in regards to customer satisfaction.
Sometimes you have a very narrow group who only shops in one section, buys only one type of product, but is very adamant about a feature you provide. If you cater to that group that is fine, provided you don't alienate your broader customer base. When you start to lose the broader customer base, you will typically lose the whole business soon after, including the narrow group of customers you had been favoring.
These forums are the only survey the customer base for STO gets to fill out. The blank space to reveal management blind spots is here on these pages. This is where the broader customer base gets to say " I don't like this." This is where the devs should be looking if they want to keep this business for many years to come.
There is a story about a company called F.A.S.A (lets just say FASA) and it is a sad one indeed. They had built a fantastically well supported pen and paper Star Trek game that is still loved, and mourned today. Mourned because FASA lost the right to use the Star Trek license. The reason given? The owners of the property (Star Trek) decided that FASA was providing a poor picture of the franchise by focusing so much on violence, and combat. Admittedly, the lack of material on exploration was fairly obvious.
It is fair to say that the franchise owners didn't really understand FAFA's game structure, but in the end it doesn't matter because the perception of an owner, right or wrong, is all that decides whether you keep a license or not.
It seems that over the years the owners of Start Trek have warmed up to constant war as a back drop. (DS-9 *Cough* Dominion) but that doesn't mean that they will ignore a licensed product that they feel is becoming damaging to their franchise. Especially if rumors of a new series are even close to true.
You should want people to like STO. You actually should want them to love STO, because your DPS league needs STO if they want to fly their top shelf builds. So you should want people to complain if they don't like something. You should want the devs to see the complaint, and react to it with some concern. You shouldn't want to keep having this same argument over and over again. Lets fix this now.
Provide for 'professional' expectations by leaving the top 29 queues alone, or make them a bit harder to get into. Make the bottom nine safe for people who just (as in only) want to have fun and who don't like having to be dps superstars just to play a stupid Star Trek game. Tweak a few features to make a good fit.
Then not only will this thread die at that point, but you will see a lot fewer threads even resembling this. Then we can just play the game. Wouldn't that be nice?
I get what you're saying about non-performance but these are just 9 low level queues that reward a handful of fleet marks. Surely you can at least let these be learning queues for new players? A middle ground is what's needed here, not just complaints about not performing well. As I posted above, I was able to play one at level 5 and was barely able to avoid the afk penalty and I'm certainly not a newbie. The new players need somewhere to learn and I'd rather it be in these queues, than in advanced/elite ones. I most whole-heartedly agree with performing at much higher competency levels when you have been around for a while, and the ones who don't, either due to laziness,leeching or the Barbie players, who just want their stuff to be pretty, need to stay away from hard content.
It isn't about "elitism" with me, and honestly, you need to stop with that because it just makes you sound jealous and bitter. Every post you've made is always about it, and no one takes you seriously anymore. As you can plainly see from my post above, I'm all for removing the barriers for newbies in low level queues, but even you must admit that advanced/elite stf's are harder, and players need to upgrade skills and gear to contribute positively to the team. I welcome any ideas/thoughts you might have concerning a way to make queues better, but seriously, stop with the "elitism" comments. Not all the dps community is like that, and to lump all of us together that way is seriously wrong thinking. In my experiences with the so called "elitists", I've experienced nothing but helpful people and I expect if you'd get past your biased way of thinking, you might find most of them to be quite pleasant people.
Remove afk's for the nine queues that allow levels below 50 to enter. Add a top performer special reward (maybe?)
Create a 'mission' that tallies your (X) successive full completions of a normal mission before it rewards you with advancement.
Possibly give more passive (skill?) boosts to low levels mixed with high levels so they carry their own weight better.
Except for needing a 'reward' for access, and re-adding auto fails, don't change the top 29 queues requiring level 50+ to enter.
Possibly provide a score that the player may choose to look at at their own discretion. So no public humiliations of new people.
Did I forget anything? Honest question here.
I am looking at leveling deficiencies caused by story based access to gear and abilities, in Rom/and KDF based toons when bonus XP are in effect. This can influence dps and other performance factors, and may contribute to afk's in some cases. See you in a while.
I get what you're saying about non-performance but these are just 9 low level queues that reward a handful of fleet marks. Surely you can at least let these be learning queues for new players? A middle ground is what's needed here, not just complaints about not performing well. As I posted above, I was able to play one at level 5 and was barely able to avoid the afk penalty and I'm certainly not a newbie. The new players need somewhere to learn and I'd rather it be in these queues, than in advanced/elite ones. I most whole-heartedly agree with performing at much higher competency levels when you have been around for a while, and the ones who don't, either due to laziness,leeching or the Barbie players, who just want their stuff to be pretty, need to stay away from hard content.
It isn't about "elitism" with me, and honestly, you need to stop with that because it just makes you sound jealous and bitter. Every post you've made is always about it, and no one takes you seriously anymore. As you can plainly see from my post above, I'm all for removing the barriers for newbies in low level queues, but even you must admit that advanced/elite stf's are harder, and players need to upgrade skills and gear to contribute positively to the team. I welcome any ideas/thoughts you might have concerning a way to make queues better, but seriously, stop with the "elitism" comments. Not all the dps community is like that, and to lump all of us together that way is seriously wrong thinking. In my experiences with the so called "elitists", I've experienced nothing but helpful people and I expect if you'd get past your biased way of thinking, you might find most of them to be quite pleasant people.
except we are in situation wherein advance and elite being played by those non performing.
If we are going to fix something, it needs to be gating or standards. Level 5 players should focus on leveling not going to pug queues. Going to pug queues at level 5 count as being unprepared or the mistake itself. Because what going straight to pug straight from level 5 is depdendent on team perfromance to complete and gives them the illusion that they are qualified to do the pugs. Instead of teaching them self reliance, the game would teach them over dependence on them being carried by team performance.
Let them acquire the basic fundamentals, tools and level first before going to the pugs rather than rush them to pugs at level 5.
Normal pug missions should be about learning to complete the missions, objectives/optional and players going in should have tools,level, know basic fundamentals before entering. Otherwise, there is no way to complete the pug mission. Normal pug missions should NOT be about learning basic fundamentals. Learning Basic fundamentals can be done on their own time not drag the whole random pug team in hours long completion or even non completion due to frustration.
I get what you're saying about non-performance but these are just 9 low level queues that reward a handful of fleet marks. Surely you can at least let these be learning queues for new players? A middle ground is what's needed here, not just complaints about not performing well. As I posted above, I was able to play one at level 5 and was barely able to avoid the afk penalty and I'm certainly not a newbie. The new players need somewhere to learn and I'd rather it be in these queues, than in advanced/elite ones. I most whole-heartedly agree with performing at much higher competency levels when you have been around for a while, and the ones who don't, either due to laziness,leeching or the Barbie players, who just want their stuff to be pretty, need to stay away from hard content.
It isn't about "elitism" with me, and honestly, you need to stop with that because it just makes you sound jealous and bitter. Every post you've made is always about it, and no one takes you seriously anymore. As you can plainly see from my post above, I'm all for removing the barriers for newbies in low level queues, but even you must admit that advanced/elite stf's are harder, and players need to upgrade skills and gear to contribute positively to the team. I welcome any ideas/thoughts you might have concerning a way to make queues better, but seriously, stop with the "elitism" comments. Not all the dps community is like that, and to lump all of us together that way is seriously wrong thinking. In my experiences with the so called "elitists", I've experienced nothing but helpful people and I expect if you'd get past your biased way of thinking, you might find most of them to be quite pleasant people.
except we are in situation wherein advance and elite being played by those non performing.
If we are going to fix something, it needs to be gating or standards. Level 5 players should focus on leveling not going to pug queues. Going to pug queues at level 5 count as being unprepared or the mistake itself. Because what going straight to pug straight from level 5 is depdendent on team perfromance to complete and gives them the illusion that they are qualified to do the pugs. Instead of teaching them self reliance, the game would teach them over dependence on them being carried by team performance.
Let them acquire the basic fundamentals, tools and level first before going to the pugs rather than rush them to pugs at level 5.
Normal pug missions should be about learning to complete the missions, objectives/optional and players going in should have tools,level, know basic fundamentals before entering. Otherwise, there is no way to complete the pug mission. Normal pug missions should NOT be about learning basic fundamentals. Learning Basic fundamentals can be done on their own time not drag the whole random pug team in hours long completion or even non completion due to frustration.
Thank you for your thoughts in regard to gating.
I would like to point out that there is only one way to learn how a queued mission works in STO, and that is by doing a queued mission. Nothing else is the same. I do agree that people should have to do something to get into Advanced or Elite versions of any queued mission that shows they can keep up. Like shanker666 was saying before, the people he was playing with had the ships and the levels, but they were not all as efficient as he was. His example is why I have no real problem with some kind of speed bump to slow down players just jumping into Advanced or Elite. I really do think we agree on that basic idea, if not the specific details.
One of the areas we obviously disagree on is the idea that people should focus on leveling their characters first, before entering available content. Neither you or I want players to mix to their mutual disadvantage, so we have that in common, and I hope you will consider what I am going to say next.
Players can level all they way to '60' and not learn anything useful. They can get to level 50+ and not know a thing about how queues work. Right now there are queues that are designed to allow those players to go into them as early as level '5', and see what a queue is like while they are low enough level to make the best possible improvements. The queues that are level 5+ are pretty much low difficulty missions. Really easy stuff compared to ISA.
The nine low level queues are FAs not STFs. They are really very basic. STFs are where Advanced and Elite are. Because they allow low and high level toons to mix, they can be ideal for learning. More ideal than private queues for two reasons.
One is that you don't need a lot of people to start a Public queue, and a person can join one even if no friends are online. If even one more experienced friend is online, they can go together and the better can offer tips and advice.
The other reason is that 'self reliance' you mentioned. I player has to be able to go ahead and jump in, rather than wait for someone to hold their hand. The queues that open up at level five make that possible. A player doesn't have to wait until level 50 to go get the experience they need to learn with.
I have more thoughts on this, but I am out of time for now. I'll come back to this in a bit.
The gating idea is one that certainly has merit. I don't like going into advanced/elite with unprepared players either, and having the mission drag on interminably, while I explode over and over again. But, come on, let the 9 low level queues have their thing. It's the first chance that newbies have to experience queues, and teaming with other players. If the rewards were something special, then things would be different. It's just some fleet marks, which veterans like you and me can easily get more of by doing commendation missions on the fleet starbase. The newbies have to start somewhere, just like both of us did and I think maybe you've been playing at such a high level that you may have forgotten what it's like to be just starting out.
If players are kept out of any kind of queuing until level 50, the amount of unprepared players is going to get worse, not better. At least they can begin learning at level 5 or so and maybe gain some level of competency by the time they get to level 50 and the real stf's. To me, it does sound as if you think all players should be at your level of competency, even though they're just starting out and have no access to decent ships,gear and some probably have no access to a decent fleet. Cryptic decided to allow access to those 9 queues at level 5 for whatever reason(my guess is as learning tools) and to have you say that a level 5 or 10 should be as good as you is just ludicrous. It's not the newbie's fault that they can join these queues, and they shouldn't be punished by Cryptic's lack of information about builds, etc.
I think we're in complete agreement about advanced/elite queues, players need to upgrade skills and gear, and possibly do independent research to find out the parameters of the missions, so they can contribute. I've seen one thing that skollulfr has said that I can possibly agree with, and that's the extremely high barrier for new players to start the game. New players are going to keep leaving if they can't play anything, it's just 9 queues that have nothing special about them, let the newbies have some kind of learning experience and maybe that will keep them interested in learning more about the game and become valuable teammates down the road.
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
It's just an arbitrary number I threw in to illustrate how gating could be done/work. Any player sufficiently geared and skilled for an advanced run should have no problem doing 5 or even 10 successful normal runs in a row.
New players are going to keep leaving if they can't play anything, it's just 9 queues that have nothing special about them, let the newbies have some kind of learning experience and maybe that will keep them interested in learning more about the game and become valuable teammates down the road.
No one is preventing players from playing what they want. There is just certain conditions for you to play just like every other storied mission which has a level requirement. Nor is playing PuG a requirement in learning game fundamentals.
Just to emphasize we are not talking about all new players, just new players who decided to keep doing PuGs at level 5 or lower levels and go straight to a PuG queue unprepared.
Is that subset of population even significant to change the mechanics, put time/money to coding more important than new season/fixing bugs, for that subset of players? Only cryptic can tell.
Because all these AFK Penalty changes are not for new players who got the correct advice/fundamentals or new players that didnt go to PuGs unprepared, but for new players who are in a rush to go to PuGs, got the wrong advice in game, went in unprepared.
and how exactly do you intend to communicate this, specifically, without exacerbating the problem?
Actually, level gating exists in the game. You can only play certain storied mission if you are of certain level. You cannot pay elite if you are not level 60.
I dont know what is the basis of the problem to increase if no one has the official data on all new account players behavior.
the game is already so starved of low level players that there arent enough to add strict level tiers to queues.
its of absolutely no surprise that people in am MP game, might want to start playing with others as soon as the option is available.
Dont know how we can assume that is a fact. Those numbers you just said is speculation Not unless you have the official numbers.
If you can direct me to official numbers, we can actually data mine/analyze why they are leaving especially if the game have that data. Of course if your assumption is correct that there are more new players leaving than actually staying.
Because for all we know, majority of the new players/accounts might went directly to 9k DPS or the average mean of DPS due to more new players given the correct advice, correct fundamentals.
I am going to chime in here with this, I suspect some people are wanting this penalty removed, as to level new DR toons quickly, as to recycle the goods obtained as quickly as possible.
Personally, I would prefer ALL mission queues, to be locked from playability till level 20 or 30 is reached, there is no real reason for anyone level 5 to be running a pve queue in the first place!
I am going to chime in here with this, I suspect some people are wanting this penalty removed, as to level new DR toons quickly, as to recycle the goods obtained as quickly as possible.
Personally, I would prefer ALL mission queues, to be locked from playability till level 20 or 30 is reached, there is no real reason for anyone level 5 to be running a pve queue in the first place!
I think it is best to say that reasons to do things can be pretty subjective. There is no reason to have pudding if you don't eat your meat. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!
The low level queues are where learning begins. The best reason to have low level queues is so that you don't have all these inexperienced people mobbing your queues at level 50+ Imagine ISA with people who had the least possible time to learn queues. Take 15 to 25 levels of options away, and you will start to see even more of that sort of thing happenng.
DR toons? Is that Delta Rising? I don't get the reference here. Are they bringing it back? I don't have one, and have no place to put one if I did.
I guess I don't understand why you would want the penalty removed just to quickly level toons. The XP for FA are pretty weak sauce. There are some missions you are given to specifically seek out those queues, and the PVP environment, and they do give more XP but that is about as far as it goes. I'm leveling a bunch of toons right now, and the story missions level you so fast with the bonus XP that you hardly have time to care. Even without the bonus week there are all sorts of other in game boosts.
My goal in leveling right now is to get to level 11+ then switch to another. At 11+ you have access to doff missions that boost your performance with rewards. You should all know which missions I am talking about. I teach people to use those mission rewards wisely. Claim the rewards tactically, so the timer runs consistently with your activities in game. If your doing book-keeping for your Fleet, don't claim the reward that boosts your weapons just yet. Wait an hour till you are going into story or queues so you maximize it. That sort of thing.
Once I have access to dith, and doffs, I could level a toon a lot more slowly, and be just fine. Speed leveling has to be for a definite goal, and not the goal in and of itself. You should never speed level any toon to '60' just to get there fast. Bad idea. Speed leveling teaches very little about the game, and underequips the toon who prematurely reaches that level.
The biggest problem with speed leveling imho is that it only kind of works for the UFP! KDF and Rom toons are actually somewhat mangled in any speed leveling environment since so much of what they have access to is story based.
I had a level 22+ Reman the other day who hadn't been able to do doff missions even though they are normally accessible at level 11, only because the doff system seems to require you have a faction. So many doff missions are faction specific. To be honest, I don't remember seeing any doff missions that were all about being a Rom. Once I had a faction, I pretty much could do the Doff missions.
I think access to queues is going to have a real world experience benefit that far outweighs any 'in game' experience 'points'. XP do not give the player skills. If the player needs skill, they have to do the things they are trying to get skills at. Learn to swing a hammer by swinging a hammer, learn to pitch a ball by pitching. Some things you just have to do to really understand them properly.
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
It's just an arbitrary number I threw in to illustrate how gating could be done/work. Any player sufficiently geared and skilled for an advanced run should have no problem doing 5 or even 10 successful normal runs in a row.
Right. We are still working the basic ideas. I think 5 sounds good, especially after looking at what some others said. Why I would pick five is I think it has a reasonable chance at dodging the luck bullet. Luck can account for some of any success, even in a chess game (Some people might argue. Let them go ahead and try, I have my response ready) A lucky player can get carried by a team if the team doesn't afk him, while the team accomplishes all goals needed for full completion. It could be that the player in question can be lucky 3 times in a row, or five times in a row, or even ten times in a row. However, sequential luck is less and less likely as you add layers.
Lets say for argument that you are guaranteed to get lucky half the time (to fail, you only have to be unlucky once!), so you will have a 50% chance of being lucky each time you try a queue. We will round up for the first one, so that means If you do one queue, your chance of getting lucky is 100%. But lets say you have to do two perfect queues in a row. You now have a 1 out of 2 chance to be lucky, or 50% overall. You need three perfect in a row? Then your chance of overall success is half as much as before, or 1 out of 4, or 25% chance of being lucky. To do four queues in a row, all objectives, and no afk for a player who is relying on luck would be half as likely, or a 1 out of 8, or 12.5%, and to be so lucky five times in a row would be 6.25% or 1 out of 16! If someone is going by pure luck, they will face increasingly tougher odds of doing (x) number of missions all objectives, and no afk in a row. These numbers are only to illustrate the concept.
The chance of doing ten in a row with that example is 00.1953125% or about 1 out of 500!
I know your not holding to that e30ernest, I just wanted some others to see it.
'X' In a row means they have to restart the sequence if there is a single incomplete mission. So five missions would have to be basically perfect. That seems to be pretty tough odds based on what shanker666 experienced, and I can only say that I think anyone that lucky would be great to have on a team.
We all have a dark side. Mine is expressing itself by thinking how fun it would be if you needed ten perfect runs, and if one of the more awesome but arrogant types had nine perfect runs, then had lag, or DC happen to them on run number ten, and had to start all over again after a two hour penalty while someone is telling them they deserved it! It's a bad thought and I shouldn't laugh, but can't quite help it.
Anyway for my part, I'll be using five perfect runs as the default example of what is needed to gain higher difficulty access as a reward. I would like to hear what people think about this.
The low level queues are where learning begins. The best reason to have low level queues is so that you don't have all these inexperienced people mobbing your queues at level 50+ Imagine ISA with people who had the least possible time to learn queues. Take 15 to 25 levels of options away, and you will start to see even more of that sort of thing happenng.
At level 5 the 'learning' is practically nil. At that point you have 3 BOff abilities, maybe a couple of captain abilities, and that's it. You spend most of your time maneuvering your ship and pressing space bar, which is something the solo missions can teach you as well. At that point of the game, there is practically zero requirements for team tactics, because the captains have absolutely no skills for team play. Someone at that level effectively plays in a team the same way he'd play solo, because there is no alternative for him.
At least by ranks 25-30 you most likely have some science skills to explore a support role, some engineering skills to survive (in case you want to tank) and quite a few damage skills. You will also be more adept at flying your ship, allowing you to focus more on what is happening around you rather than the UI. Also, your gear will be of higher quality as well (most drops at levels 5-10 are white, at levels 25-30 you get greens and blues regularly), making combat much less frustrating. At that level range you can actually start to feel if you're doing things right or not due to the relative increase in PvE difficulty, since before that point you just had to target stuff, press spacebar,and they'd eventually explode.
As a newbie (a lot of years ago) I think I went into a low level queue that the story pointed me at. I can't remember which one it was (probably SB24), but I do remember that I exploded a lot and I hated feeling useless. After that I never queued for anything until I hit at least level 45.
The low level queues are where learning begins. The best reason to have low level queues is so that you don't have all these inexperienced people mobbing your queues at level 50+ Imagine ISA with people who had the least possible time to learn queues. Take 15 to 25 levels of options away, and you will start to see even more of that sort of thing happenng.
At level 5 the 'learning' is practically nil. At that point you have 3 BOff abilities, maybe a couple of captain abilities, and that's it. You spend most of your time maneuvering your ship and pressing space bar, which is something the solo missions can teach you as well. At that point of the game, there is practically zero requirements for team tactics, because the captains have absolutely no skills for team play. Someone at that level effectively plays in a team the same way he'd play solo, because there is no alternative for him.
At least by ranks 25-30 you most likely have some science skills to explore a support role, some engineering skills to survive (in case you want to tank) and quite a few damage skills. You will also be more adept at flying your ship, allowing you to focus more on what is happening around you rather than the UI. Also, your gear will be of higher quality as well (most drops at levels 5-10 are white, at levels 25-30 you get greens and blues regularly), making combat much less frustrating. At that level range you can actually start to feel if you're doing things right or not due to the relative increase in PvE difficulty, since before that point you just had to target stuff, press spacebar,and they'd eventually explode.
As a newbie (a lot of years ago) I think I went into a low level queue that the story pointed me at. I can't remember which one it was (probably SB24), but I do remember that I exploded a lot and I hated feeling useless. After that I never queued for anything until I hit at least level 45.
This is a pretty good point too. Even if they raised the minimum level for the lowest-level STFs, they'd get there quickly enough so I don't think moving minimum levels to 25-30 wouldn't hurt them at all. I think that can be a good thing.
Tell me WHERE in the game it tells you that if you PUG at level 5, you made this TERRIBLE AWEFUL MISTAKE?!? Once again, the game LETS YOU DO THIS. Now I can understand shadow's stance of make it later...but that isn't entirely helpful since I doubt that the average STO player in a T3 ship will do any better then shankers in a T1. In fact the average STO player in a T6 does about a quarter the damage of what the top DPSers do in a T1 (which shankers is a part of). But that aside, the game tell you that you can do this...dispite the fact that you really can't...and that is a problem. You repeately saying that it is a bad idea doesn't fix the problem because the game STILL LETS YOU DO THIS. So either give a solution or just leave this discussion since you just saying it's a bad idea ain't help ANYONE. They SHOULD be learning fundamentals and they SHOULD be leveling...but hey, guess what, I didn't...because I wanted to explore this game. And if they had the AFK penalty back then, I sure as hell would have shelved this game if I got hit with it for what would apear to be no reason what so ever since the game said I could do this thing. So yeah, it is a problem.
I did say prevent to have a level gating. only level 50 on queues. It is already being applied in certain parts of the game I dont know what is the fuss about it. There are just thing you just cant go in and do in this game without doing certain conditions. Why should this be any different?
Like I keep on saying, If you put them unprepared and go straight to pugs at level 5, the level 5 player would now rely on the team to complete the pug aka leech and would now be dependent and addicted to leeching. If you let them finish to level 50 solo before they can enter the pug, they would achieve some sort self reliance to deal damage.
AFK penalty removal only solves the penalty being penalized for those who don't contribute to the team. But doesn't change the fact that these players don't contribute to the team. That means it doesn't solve the problem of non completion or if ever they finish the pug increased combat time completion.
Tell me WHERE in the game it tells you that if you PUG at level 5, you made this TERRIBLE AWEFUL MISTAKE?!? Once again, the game LETS YOU DO THIS. Now I can understand shadow's stance of make it later...but that isn't entirely helpful since I doubt that the average STO player in a T3 ship will do any better then shankers in a T1. In fact the average STO player in a T6 does about a quarter the damage of what the top DPSers do in a T1 (which shankers is a part of). But that aside, the game tell you that you can do this...dispite the fact that you really can't...and that is a problem. You repeately saying that it is a bad idea doesn't fix the problem because the game STILL LETS YOU DO THIS. So either give a solution or just leave this discussion since you just saying it's a bad idea ain't help ANYONE. They SHOULD be learning fundamentals and they SHOULD be leveling...but hey, guess what, I didn't...because I wanted to explore this game. And if they had the AFK penalty back then, I sure as hell would have shelved this game if I got hit with it for what would apear to be no reason what so ever since the game said I could do this thing. So yeah, it is a problem.
I did say prevent to have a level gating. only level 50 on queues. It is already being applied in certain parts of the game I dont know what is the fuss about it. There are just thing you just cant go in and do in this game without doing certain conditions. Why should this be any different?
Like I keep on saying, If you put them unprepared and go straight to pugs at level 5, the level 5 player would now rely on the team to complete the pug aka leech and would now be dependent and addicted to leeching. If you let them finish to level 50 solo before they can enter the pug, they would achieve some sort self reliance to deal damage.
AFK penalty removal only solves the penalty being penalized for those who don't contribute to the team. But doesn't change the fact that these players don't contribute to the team. That means it doesn't solve the problem of non completion or if ever they finish the pug increased combat time completion.
So...you solution is to get rid of those 9 queues for low levels then. Fine. We said that was A option...but one that most of us DO NOT LIKE. So all your spewing is COMPLETELY IRRELIVANT TO THE DISCUSSION AT HAND ON HOW TO SAVE THOSE 9 QUEUES. So please just stop now. All your complaints about the AFK players don't apply here because we are talking about something completely different. And where do you have any data that supports that if you play those queues at 5 and get carried that you will continue to do it? Because I sure as hell did in MANY of those early queues (especially SB24) but, hey guess what, I still somehow managed to learn to do better and even get 1st in CCA about a quater of the time and usually place. So not too shabby for somebody who, according to YOU should be an AFK leecher. Here is the thing...first we need to KEEP NEW PLAYERS. Then we can worry about keeping them as PRODUCTIVE players.
Oh and one final thing...those early queues are pretty much the first thing that people see as multiplayer in what is suppose to be a MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME. Yes, missions are more efficent...but you know what, I wanna play with other people god damn it. If I wanted a single player star trek game, I would be playing armada.
That is the thing with your assumption, all new players are NOT what you assumed them to be. Not all new/casual players want to be carried and leech from other players efforts nor rush to PUGs at lower level. That means any solution made with your assumption only increase the population of players who are not self reliant or player with the behavior type you all assumed.
Of course that is again under the assumption that the game doesn't have new player retention at all. Now if the game does have new player retention, and the current mechanics target a particular behavior, it is not targeting the new player subset you just assumed.
So what if you or certain players disagree? That doesn't make you automatically right nor that in any way gives you monopoly on what is right and what is the behavior of all "new players".
And more importantly, no one is preventing any player From doing multiplayer, just certain conditions/standard.
Tell me WHERE in the game it tells you that if you PUG at level 5, you made this TERRIBLE AWEFUL MISTAKE?!? Once again, the game LETS YOU DO THIS. Now I can understand shadow's stance of make it later...but that isn't entirely helpful since I doubt that the average STO player in a T3 ship will do any better then shankers in a T1. In fact the average STO player in a T6 does about a quarter the damage of what the top DPSers do in a T1 (which shankers is a part of). But that aside, the game tell you that you can do this...dispite the fact that you really can't...and that is a problem. You repeately saying that it is a bad idea doesn't fix the problem because the game STILL LETS YOU DO THIS. So either give a solution or just leave this discussion since you just saying it's a bad idea ain't help ANYONE. They SHOULD be learning fundamentals and they SHOULD be leveling...but hey, guess what, I didn't...because I wanted to explore this game. And if they had the AFK penalty back then, I sure as hell would have shelved this game if I got hit with it for what would apear to be no reason what so ever since the game said I could do this thing. So yeah, it is a problem.
I did say prevent to have a level gating. only level 50 on queues. It is already being applied in certain parts of the game I dont know what is the fuss about it. There are just thing you just cant go in and do in this game without doing certain conditions. Why should this be any different?
Like I keep on saying, If you put them unprepared and go straight to pugs at level 5, the level 5 player would now rely on the team to complete the pug aka leech and would now be dependent and addicted to leeching. If you let them finish to level 50 solo before they can enter the pug, they would achieve some sort self reliance to deal damage.
AFK penalty removal only solves the penalty being penalized for those who don't contribute to the team. But doesn't change the fact that these players don't contribute to the team. That means it doesn't solve the problem of non completion or if ever they finish the pug increased combat time completion.
So...you solution is to get rid of those 9 queues for low levels then. Fine. We said that was A option...but one that most of us DO NOT LIKE. So all your spewing is COMPLETELY IRRELIVANT TO THE DISCUSSION AT HAND ON HOW TO SAVE THOSE 9 QUEUES. So please just stop now. All your complaints about the AFK players don't apply here because we are talking about something completely different. And where do you have any data that supports that if you play those queues at 5 and get carried that you will continue to do it? Because I sure as hell did in MANY of those early queues (especially SB24) but, hey guess what, I still somehow managed to learn to do better and even get 1st in CCA about a quater of the time and usually place. So not too shabby for somebody who, according to YOU should be an AFK leecher. Here is the thing...first we need to KEEP NEW PLAYERS. Then we can worry about keeping them as PRODUCTIVE players.
Oh and one final thing...those early queues are pretty much the first thing that people see as multiplayer in what is suppose to be a MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME. Yes, missions are more efficent...but you know what, I wanna play with other people god damn it. If I wanted a single player star trek game, I would be playing armada.
It's true. If we get rid of the nine low level queues there will be no way to learn about queues at all until level 50. There are really only 5 queues that are level 5+. The rest gate at increasing levels, 10, 20, 30, so what we are talking about IS a gradual system of inclusion.
If paxdawn was correct, and they kept choosing to repeat only the level five missions, they would be stuck in 5 out of 38!
Schrondiger is I think, missing the point that human beings play differently. They chat with you, for one thing.
You are correct in that this is a multiplayer game, and we need to encourage that. I could go play Dark Souls for a solo experience. paxdawn might like that one, it takes some finesse.
The low level queues are where learning begins. The best reason to have low level queues is so that you don't have all these inexperienced people mobbing your queues at level 50+ Imagine ISA with people who had the least possible time to learn queues. Take 15 to 25 levels of options away, and you will start to see even more of that sort of thing happenng.
At level 5 the 'learning' is practically nil. At that point you have 3 BOff abilities, maybe a couple of captain abilities, and that's it. You spend most of your time maneuvering your ship and pressing space bar, which is something the solo missions can teach you as well. At that point of the game, there is practically zero requirements for team tactics, because the captains have absolutely no skills for team play. Someone at that level effectively plays in a team the same way he'd play solo, because there is no alternative for him.
At least by ranks 25-30 you most likely have some science skills to explore a support role, some engineering skills to survive (in case you want to tank) and quite a few damage skills. You will also be more adept at flying your ship, allowing you to focus more on what is happening around you rather than the UI. Also, your gear will be of higher quality as well (most drops at levels 5-10 are white, at levels 25-30 you get greens and blues regularly), making combat much less frustrating. At that level range you can actually start to feel if you're doing things right or not due to the relative increase in PvE difficulty, since before that point you just had to target stuff, press spacebar,and they'd eventually explode.
As a newbie (a lot of years ago) I think I went into a low level queue that the story pointed me at. I can't remember which one it was (probably SB24), but I do remember that I exploded a lot and I hated feeling useless. After that I never queued for anything until I hit at least level 45.
This is a pretty good point too. Even if they raised the minimum level for the lowest-level STFs, they'd get there quickly enough so I don't think moving minimum levels to 25-30 wouldn't hurt them at all. I think that can be a good thing.
They get there to quickly already especially with bonus XP. They aren't learning much on the way up either. We want to change that, don't we?
Also, the minimum for the lowest STF is already 50. Other missions are not technically STF's. In another comment I tried to clarify that there are really only 5 queues that take level 5+ toons. After that there is one 10+, two 20+ and a 30+ mission.
I cant agree with schrondiger on this. Solo missions are not enough like queues to give the proper experience. Delaying entry to queues with real human players also greatly diminishes the aspects of multiplayer that make it an MMO. Delayed entry sets up barriers to learning from team mates. It blocks the interactions that occur in the chat window, or voice chats. All in all I can't support delayed entry to the most basic queues. There are already plenty enough queues that the new players can't get into right now, and taking those away just makes a bad situation worse in my opinion.
Every person I brought into this game wanted to do things together with friends, but we all came into the game at different intervals. It would have killed our shared experiences in the early stages of the game, and for many that would have killed the game altogether. New players in an MMO want to game with people! and I doubt they want to wait till they are halfway to the end game to do it.
I will agree with schrondiger that it sucks to feel useless. I'll bet that being afk'd when you were doing something would make you feel useless, or worse, cheated. Feeling useless can make someone quit, but feeling cheated can make someone rage-quit! Someone who feels like they weren't useful is probably less likely than the rage-quiter to blog to all their friends about how "stupid that STO game is". The one who feels cheated will make noise, and it won't be the type of noise that sells this game to others.
The other noise that will drive players away is the voice of someone who joined an MMO and got stuck soloing story missions till they quit out of boredom.
My preferred fix is to relieve the lowest level missions of inaccurate and/or unjust penalties, and a few little tweaks to make it all a bit better.
Tell me WHERE in the game it tells you that if you PUG at level 5, you made this TERRIBLE AWEFUL MISTAKE?!? Once again, the game LETS YOU DO THIS. Now I can understand shadow's stance of make it later...but that isn't entirely helpful since I doubt that the average STO player in a T3 ship will do any better then shankers in a T1. In fact the average STO player in a T6 does about a quarter the damage of what the top DPSers do in a T1 (which shankers is a part of). But that aside, the game tell you that you can do this...dispite the fact that you really can't...and that is a problem. You repeately saying that it is a bad idea doesn't fix the problem because the game STILL LETS YOU DO THIS. So either give a solution or just leave this discussion since you just saying it's a bad idea ain't help ANYONE. They SHOULD be learning fundamentals and they SHOULD be leveling...but hey, guess what, I didn't...because I wanted to explore this game. And if they had the AFK penalty back then, I sure as hell would have shelved this game if I got hit with it for what would apear to be no reason what so ever since the game said I could do this thing. So yeah, it is a problem.
I did say prevent to have a level gating. only level 50 on queues. It is already being applied in certain parts of the game I dont know what is the fuss about it. There are just thing you just cant go in and do in this game without doing certain conditions. Why should this be any different?
Like I keep on saying, If you put them unprepared and go straight to pugs at level 5, the level 5 player would now rely on the team to complete the pug aka leech and would now be dependent and addicted to leeching. If you let them finish to level 50 solo before they can enter the pug, they would achieve some sort self reliance to deal damage.
AFK penalty removal only solves the penalty being penalized for those who don't contribute to the team. But doesn't change the fact that these players don't contribute to the team. That means it doesn't solve the problem of non completion or if ever they finish the pug increased combat time completion.
So...you solution is to get rid of those 9 queues for low levels then. Fine. We said that was A option...but one that most of us DO NOT LIKE. So all your spewing is COMPLETELY IRRELIVANT TO THE DISCUSSION AT HAND ON HOW TO SAVE THOSE 9 QUEUES. So please just stop now. All your complaints about the AFK players don't apply here because we are talking about something completely different. And where do you have any data that supports that if you play those queues at 5 and get carried that you will continue to do it? Because I sure as hell did in MANY of those early queues (especially SB24) but, hey guess what, I still somehow managed to learn to do better and even get 1st in CCA about a quater of the time and usually place. So not too shabby for somebody who, according to YOU should be an AFK leecher. Here is the thing...first we need to KEEP NEW PLAYERS. Then we can worry about keeping them as PRODUCTIVE players.
Oh and one final thing...those early queues are pretty much the first thing that people see as multiplayer in what is suppose to be a MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME. Yes, missions are more efficent...but you know what, I wanna play with other people god damn it. If I wanted a single player star trek game, I would be playing armada.
That is the thing with your assumption, all new players are NOT what you assumed them to be. Not all new/casual players want to be carried and leech from other players efforts nor rush to PUGs at lower level. That means any solution made with your assumption only increase the population of players who are not self reliant or player with the behavior type you all assumed.
Of course that is again under the assumption that the game doesn't have new player retention at all. Now if the game does have new player retention, and the current mechanics target a particular behavior, it is not targeting the new player subset you just assumed.
So what if you or certain players disagree? That doesn't make you automatically right nor that in any way gives you monopoly on what is right and what is the behavior of all "new players".
And more importantly, no one is preventing any player From doing multiplayer, just certain conditions/standard.
Your continued assumption that improperly punishing players of a game will somehow make them more self reliant is absurd.
Plus you are back to making sweeping and arbitrary accusations again. I seriously doubt the afk penalty is getting half as many leeches as it gets ordinary people just trying to play the game.
I cant agree with schrondiger on this. Solo missions are not enough like queues to give the proper experience. Delaying entry to queues with real human players also greatly diminishes the aspects of multiplayer that make it an MMO. Delayed entry sets up barriers to learning from team mates. It blocks the interactions that occur in the chat window, or voice chats. All in all I can't support delayed entry to the most basic queues. There are already plenty enough queues that the new players can't get into right now, and taking those away just makes a bad situation worse in my opinion.
Every person I brought into this game wanted to do things together with friends, but we all came into the game at different intervals. It would have killed our shared experiences in the early stages of the game, and for many that would have killed the game altogether. New players in an MMO want to game with people! and I doubt they want to wait till they are halfway to the end game to do it.
I disagree that the MMO aspect is most prominent in the queues. Having the social hubs full of people, grouping with friends in missions (non queued) and hot-joining the deep space encounters and Alerts is "MMO enough" for me, especially at low levels. You can do a lot of things with friends, at low levels, and I will even go so far as to say that the queues are the worst content in the game. Most of them don't even make sense until after specific key missions.
Also, gating instanced content until later is an industry standard. In other MMOs for example, you get your first proper dungeon experience at levels 20/50 or 25/60, exactly because most classes are extremely bare bone before those points (and even then, you have 1 heal to spam). Assuming that the queues open up at level 25 in STO is nothing in comparison. It's a week of casual gameplay.
I will agree with schrondiger that it sucks to feel useless. I'll bet that being afk'd when you were doing something would make you feel useless, or worse, cheated. Feeling useless can make someone quit, but feeling cheated can make someone rage-quit! Someone who feels like they weren't useful is probably less likely than the rage-quiter to blog to all their friends about how "stupid that STO game is". The one who feels cheated will make noise, and it won't be the type of noise that sells this game to others.
A newbie, a true newbie, will care for the experience before any reward. Most will be even unaware of what constitutes a proper reward. But most people handle bad experiences in different ways, I guess. Someone may rage-quit, but for me the sour experience of feeling useless was a sign that I wasn't cutting it for the content I'd chosen to do. It also gave me an incentive to actually get more involved in ship and character building. And really, hypothetical newbie bloggers that may go out and spread the word of how "stupid that STO game is" because they didn't get some virtual currency that they have no idea what to use for...? Pretty far fetched isn't it?
The other noise that will drive players away is the voice of someone who joined an MMO and got stuck soloing story missions till they quit out of boredom.
The story missions of the game are its best aspect for a Trekkie. That and all the marvelous foundry stuff. If someone quits due to being bored after 10 solo missions before being able to queue, he's really going to hate levels 50-60.
I am going to chime in here with this, I suspect some people are wanting this penalty removed, as to level new DR toons quickly, as to recycle the goods obtained as quickly as possible.
Personally, I would prefer ALL mission queues, to be locked from playability till level 20 or 30 is reached, there is no real reason for anyone level 5 to be running a pve queue in the first place!
I think it is best to say that reasons to do things can be pretty subjective. There is no reason to have pudding if you don't eat your meat. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!
The low level queues are where learning begins. The best reason to have low level queues is so that you don't have all these inexperienced people mobbing your queues at level 50+ Imagine ISA with people who had the least possible time to learn queues. Take 15 to 25 levels of options away, and you will start to see even more of that sort of thing happenng.
DR toons? Is that Delta Rising? I don't get the reference here. Are they bringing it back? I don't have one, and have no place to put one if I did.
I guess I don't understand why you would want the penalty removed just to quickly level toons. The XP for FA are pretty weak sauce. There are some missions you are given to specifically seek out those queues, and the PVP environment, and they do give more XP but that is about as far as it goes. I'm leveling a bunch of toons right now, and the story missions level you so fast with the bonus XP that you hardly have time to care. Even without the bonus week there are all sorts of other in game boosts.
My goal in leveling right now is to get to level 11+ then switch to another. At 11+ you have access to doff missions that boost your performance with rewards. You should all know which missions I am talking about. I teach people to use those mission rewards wisely. Claim the rewards tactically, so the timer runs consistently with your activities in game. If your doing book-keeping for your Fleet, don't claim the reward that boosts your weapons just yet. Wait an hour till you are going into story or queues so you maximize it. That sort of thing.
Once I have access to dith, and doffs, I could level a toon a lot more slowly, and be just fine. Speed leveling has to be for a definite goal, and not the goal in and of itself. You should never speed level any toon to '60' just to get there fast. Bad idea. Speed leveling teaches very little about the game, and underequips the toon who prematurely reaches that level.
The biggest problem with speed leveling imho is that it only kind of works for the UFP! KDF and Rom toons are actually somewhat mangled in any speed leveling environment since so much of what they have access to is story based.
I had a level 22+ Reman the other day who hadn't been able to do doff missions even though they are normally accessible at level 11, only because the doff system seems to require you have a faction. So many doff missions are faction specific. To be honest, I don't remember seeing any doff missions that were all about being a Rom. Once I had a faction, I pretty much could do the Doff missions.
I think access to queues is going to have a real world experience benefit that far outweighs any 'in game' experience 'points'. XP do not give the player skills. If the player needs skill, they have to do the things they are trying to get skills at. Learn to swing a hammer by swinging a hammer, learn to pitch a ball by pitching. Some things you just have to do to really understand them properly.
Anyway, those are my thoughts here.
Qapla
Low level queues, being where learning begins?
I'm sorry, but we have lvl 50 - 60 player(s), who haven't learned anything much, or haven't bothered to learn enough, so those missions being devoid of playability @ lvl 5, is not some big loss IMO.
If you want social gaming, there are tons of ways to go about it, and not having to rely on pve queues to get it!!!
So, just because you and what few player(s) like you seem to think on this matter, it really doesn't warrant any major changes to the current AFK penalty system at such low levels, considering they shouldn't even be doing mission queues IMO in the first place!
I am going to chime in here with this, I suspect some people are wanting this penalty removed, as to level new DR toons quickly, as to recycle the goods obtained as quickly as possible.
Personally, I would prefer ALL mission queues, to be locked from playability till level 20 or 30 is reached, there is no real reason for anyone level 5 to be running a pve queue in the first place!
I think it is best to say that reasons to do things can be pretty subjective. There is no reason to have pudding if you don't eat your meat. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!
The low level queues are where learning begins. The best reason to have low level queues is so that you don't have all these inexperienced people mobbing your queues at level 50+ Imagine ISA with people who had the least possible time to learn queues. Take 15 to 25 levels of options away, and you will start to see even more of that sort of thing happenng.
DR toons? Is that Delta Rising? I don't get the reference here. Are they bringing it back? I don't have one, and have no place to put one if I did.
I guess I don't understand why you would want the penalty removed just to quickly level toons. The XP for FA are pretty weak sauce. There are some missions you are given to specifically seek out those queues, and the PVP environment, and they do give more XP but that is about as far as it goes. I'm leveling a bunch of toons right now, and the story missions level you so fast with the bonus XP that you hardly have time to care. Even without the bonus week there are all sorts of other in game boosts.
My goal in leveling right now is to get to level 11+ then switch to another. At 11+ you have access to doff missions that boost your performance with rewards. You should all know which missions I am talking about. I teach people to use those mission rewards wisely. Claim the rewards tactically, so the timer runs consistently with your activities in game. If your doing book-keeping for your Fleet, don't claim the reward that boosts your weapons just yet. Wait an hour till you are going into story or queues so you maximize it. That sort of thing.
Once I have access to dith, and doffs, I could level a toon a lot more slowly, and be just fine. Speed leveling has to be for a definite goal, and not the goal in and of itself. You should never speed level any toon to '60' just to get there fast. Bad idea. Speed leveling teaches very little about the game, and underequips the toon who prematurely reaches that level.
The biggest problem with speed leveling imho is that it only kind of works for the UFP! KDF and Rom toons are actually somewhat mangled in any speed leveling environment since so much of what they have access to is story based.
I had a level 22+ Reman the other day who hadn't been able to do doff missions even though they are normally accessible at level 11, only because the doff system seems to require you have a faction. So many doff missions are faction specific. To be honest, I don't remember seeing any doff missions that were all about being a Rom. Once I had a faction, I pretty much could do the Doff missions.
I think access to queues is going to have a real world experience benefit that far outweighs any 'in game' experience 'points'. XP do not give the player skills. If the player needs skill, they have to do the things they are trying to get skills at. Learn to swing a hammer by swinging a hammer, learn to pitch a ball by pitching. Some things you just have to do to really understand them properly.
Anyway, those are my thoughts here.
Qapla
Low level queues, being where learning begins?
I'm sorry, but we have lvl 50 - 60 player(s), who haven't learned anything much, or haven't bothered to learn enough, so those missions being devoid of playability @ lvl 5, is not some big loss IMO.
If you want social gaming, there are tons of ways to go about it, and not having to rely on pve queues to get it!!!
So, just because you and what few player(s) like you seem to think on this matter, it really doesn't warrant any major changes to the current AFK penalty system at such low levels, considering they shouldn't even be doing mission queues IMO in the first place!
If learning doesn't begin in the low level examples of content, then it has to begin later at higher levels, and those inexperienced people will end up in the level 50+ queues, get afk'd and end up in one of these types of threads. Then we will be talking about removing the afk penalties for the level 50+ queues instead of just a few at the bottom. I honestly think it would make things worse for you in the long run.
Leveling isn't the answer, at least by itself. Some of the leveling is so fast it may well be that some of those 50-60 levelers you see, didn't get to stay at low levels long enough to absorb anything useful. Content should be available (like the devs seem to have intended) for new players to learn with. Even queues. Red Alerts aren't really the same.
While there may be other ways to experience similar (but not the same) content, again, I point out that the system is saying to level five toons, "Hey! Come over here and join this queue!". The devs clearly intend for them to do so, or they would not be given the invite in the first place. We can have our opinions on who should, or should not do what, but there is a design flaw here that should be obvious to anyone and this flaw hurts players who don't deserve it often enough to create this thread.
The devs made it so the game invites you at about level 3-5, and then the game punishes you for going where you were invited, if you have the misfortune of arriving at the same time as a pack of heavy hitters. That warrants a change if only for ethical reasons. It is wrong to invite someone then punish them for showing up.
I cant agree with schrondiger on this. Solo missions are not enough like queues to give the proper experience. Delaying entry to queues with real human players also greatly diminishes the aspects of multiplayer that make it an MMO. Delayed entry sets up barriers to learning from team mates. It blocks the interactions that occur in the chat window, or voice chats. All in all I can't support delayed entry to the most basic queues. There are already plenty enough queues that the new players can't get into right now, and taking those away just makes a bad situation worse in my opinion.
Every person I brought into this game wanted to do things together with friends, but we all came into the game at different intervals. It would have killed our shared experiences in the early stages of the game, and for many that would have killed the game altogether. New players in an MMO want to game with people! and I doubt they want to wait till they are halfway to the end game to do it.
I disagree that the MMO aspect is most prominent in the queues. Having the social hubs full of people, grouping with friends in missions (non queued) and hot-joining the deep space encounters and Alerts is "MMO enough" for me, especially at low levels. You can do a lot of things with friends, at low levels, and I will even go so far as to say that the queues are the worst content in the game. Most of them don't even make sense until after specific key missions.
Also, gating instanced content until later is an industry standard. In other MMOs for example, you get your first proper dungeon experience at levels 20/50 or 25/60, exactly because most classes are extremely bare bone before those points (and even then, you have 1 heal to spam). Assuming that the queues open up at level 25 in STO is nothing in comparison. It's a week of casual gameplay.
I will agree with schrondiger that it sucks to feel useless. I'll bet that being afk'd when you were doing something would make you feel useless, or worse, cheated. Feeling useless can make someone quit, but feeling cheated can make someone rage-quit! Someone who feels like they weren't useful is probably less likely than the rage-quiter to blog to all their friends about how "stupid that STO game is". The one who feels cheated will make noise, and it won't be the type of noise that sells this game to others.
A newbie, a true newbie, will care for the experience before any reward. Most will be even unaware of what constitutes a proper reward. But most people handle bad experiences in different ways, I guess. Someone may rage-quit, but for me the sour experience of feeling useless was a sign that I wasn't cutting it for the content I'd chosen to do. It also gave me an incentive to actually get more involved in ship and character building. And really, hypothetical newbie bloggers that may go out and spread the word of how "stupid that STO game is" because they didn't get some virtual currency that they have no idea what to use for...? Pretty far fetched isn't it?
The other noise that will drive players away is the voice of someone who joined an MMO and got stuck soloing story missions till they quit out of boredom.
The story missions of the game are its best aspect for a Trekkie. That and all the marvelous foundry stuff. If someone quits due to being bored after 10 solo missions before being able to queue, he's really going to hate levels 50-60.
Peace!
Since we don't have any kind of objective measure for what damage may or may not be occurring to the game, I'll have to agree to disagree with you on less definite points. It is still essentially wrong to punish someone for sincere if ineffective participation in something that is supposed to be fun. Especially after the person was invited to participate without any rules or parameters given, or any way to back out honorably after it starts.
Not quite related to the whole theme of the AFK-penalty mechanics, but I've just run THREE Mirror Invasions in a row with at last one person AFKing through most or all of the round. I'm being told that the AFK-penalty mechanics aren't even implemented in MI, so given that this is just the second day of fourteen runs, that sure seems to be something great for which to look forward.
Not quite related to the whole theme of the AFK-penalty mechanics, but I've just run THREE Mirror Invasions in a row with at last one person AFKing through most or all of the round. I'm being told that the AFK-penalty mechanics aren't even implemented in MI, so given that this is just the second day of fourteen runs, that sure seems to be something great for which to look forward.
For what it is worth, I agree that you have every right to feel frustrated.
After typing that first line I stopped for a few minutes to think through what I was feeling then. It's a little complicated. Right off the bat, I started feeling angry at the persons who afk'd because I have been here on this topic defending people who are actually trying to do something, these guys(?) aren't trying?! I'm thinking they are some kind of leeches then, and what they did undermines progress towards a more fair system for new and experienced alike. They are the cause of all this conflict! That was my initial reaction.
After another minute I thought about how we really don't know what was going on with any of those people at those times. Maybe some or all were leeches, but I can think of other scenarios where some or all of them might not be. It does seem more likely that when you have multiple instances of afk's in a single team, that at least one of them may be a leech. By the same token it seems more likely that when you have multiple instances there is more of a chance that one or more are not leeching, but are instead affected by some other issue. Like lag, to name one. No idea what is going on due to inexperience, is another.
I don't know how to make sure if someone is a leech or not. If I ever think of a way, I'll be sure to share it with everyone. In the meantime we have a system that can, and does give penalties for being afk, to people who were not afk. Some people seem to think that is not only fine, but that it is even proper, and come up with rationalizations for why it must be that way, and why nobody should ever try to change it. I think there must be a better way.
Comments
Actually, just to be crystal clear, I have no intention of letting this thread die while we are working on a solution to unfair AFK penalties. That is still the central concern of this thread. Ways to fix the system may include gating, scoreboards, elimination of any AFK for only the nine lower level queues, or any other thing that works. Like it says "The AFk penalty really needs to be looked at."
Switching to another thread doesn't get the AFK penalty looked at, so not going to happen as far as I'm concerned. I do have a Fleet or two who I can expect chime in with me if required to keep this on the front page. So lets not try to avoid the topic, by moving away from it. This could go on for months ... maybe years. No offense but I think you will wear out first.
I'll tell you a secret. When a type of complaint thread keeps coming back around it pretty much means that someone was unhappy enough to take the time to complain about it in a forum. If it happens a lot, you are probably safe in presuming that there is something that needs fixed, adjusted, removed, or improved regarding the thing in question, which in this case is the AFK system.
In retail management you do customer surveys to see what people have to say about your products and service. There is typically a rating scale, maybe a scale of 1 to 5. Often there is a spot to write down a complaint or observation that isn't covered already. The blank comment space is an important area on such surveys because it reveals the blind spots that management has in regards to customer satisfaction.
Sometimes you have a very narrow group who only shops in one section, buys only one type of product, but is very adamant about a feature you provide. If you cater to that group that is fine, provided you don't alienate your broader customer base. When you start to lose the broader customer base, you will typically lose the whole business soon after, including the narrow group of customers you had been favoring.
These forums are the only survey the customer base for STO gets to fill out. The blank space to reveal management blind spots is here on these pages. This is where the broader customer base gets to say " I don't like this." This is where the devs should be looking if they want to keep this business for many years to come.
There is a story about a company called F.A.S.A (lets just say FASA) and it is a sad one indeed. They had built a fantastically well supported pen and paper Star Trek game that is still loved, and mourned today. Mourned because FASA lost the right to use the Star Trek license. The reason given? The owners of the property (Star Trek) decided that FASA was providing a poor picture of the franchise by focusing so much on violence, and combat. Admittedly, the lack of material on exploration was fairly obvious.
It is fair to say that the franchise owners didn't really understand FAFA's game structure, but in the end it doesn't matter because the perception of an owner, right or wrong, is all that decides whether you keep a license or not.
It seems that over the years the owners of Start Trek have warmed up to constant war as a back drop. (DS-9 *Cough* Dominion) but that doesn't mean that they will ignore a licensed product that they feel is becoming damaging to their franchise. Especially if rumors of a new series are even close to true.
You should want people to like STO. You actually should want them to love STO, because your DPS league needs STO if they want to fly their top shelf builds. So you should want people to complain if they don't like something. You should want the devs to see the complaint, and react to it with some concern. You shouldn't want to keep having this same argument over and over again. Lets fix this now.
Provide for 'professional' expectations by leaving the top 29 queues alone, or make them a bit harder to get into. Make the bottom nine safe for people who just (as in only) want to have fun and who don't like having to be dps superstars just to play a stupid Star Trek game. Tweak a few features to make a good fit.
Then not only will this thread die at that point, but you will see a lot fewer threads even resembling this. Then we can just play the game. Wouldn't that be nice?
Qapla.
I get what you're saying about non-performance but these are just 9 low level queues that reward a handful of fleet marks. Surely you can at least let these be learning queues for new players? A middle ground is what's needed here, not just complaints about not performing well. As I posted above, I was able to play one at level 5 and was barely able to avoid the afk penalty and I'm certainly not a newbie. The new players need somewhere to learn and I'd rather it be in these queues, than in advanced/elite ones. I most whole-heartedly agree with performing at much higher competency levels when you have been around for a while, and the ones who don't, either due to laziness,leeching or the Barbie players, who just want their stuff to be pretty, need to stay away from hard content.
And @skollulfr,
It isn't about "elitism" with me, and honestly, you need to stop with that because it just makes you sound jealous and bitter. Every post you've made is always about it, and no one takes you seriously anymore. As you can plainly see from my post above, I'm all for removing the barriers for newbies in low level queues, but even you must admit that advanced/elite stf's are harder, and players need to upgrade skills and gear to contribute positively to the team. I welcome any ideas/thoughts you might have concerning a way to make queues better, but seriously, stop with the "elitism" comments. Not all the dps community is like that, and to lump all of us together that way is seriously wrong thinking. In my experiences with the so called "elitists", I've experienced nothing but helpful people and I expect if you'd get past your biased way of thinking, you might find most of them to be quite pleasant people.
Ideas that seem to have some backing ...
Remove afk's for the nine queues that allow levels below 50 to enter. Add a top performer special reward (maybe?)
Create a 'mission' that tallies your (X) successive full completions of a normal mission before it rewards you with advancement.
Possibly give more passive (skill?) boosts to low levels mixed with high levels so they carry their own weight better.
Except for needing a 'reward' for access, and re-adding auto fails, don't change the top 29 queues requiring level 50+ to enter.
Possibly provide a score that the player may choose to look at at their own discretion. So no public humiliations of new people.
Did I forget anything? Honest question here.
I am looking at leveling deficiencies caused by story based access to gear and abilities, in Rom/and KDF based toons when bonus XP are in effect. This can influence dps and other performance factors, and may contribute to afk's in some cases. See you in a while.
Qapla
except we are in situation wherein advance and elite being played by those non performing.
If we are going to fix something, it needs to be gating or standards. Level 5 players should focus on leveling not going to pug queues. Going to pug queues at level 5 count as being unprepared or the mistake itself. Because what going straight to pug straight from level 5 is depdendent on team perfromance to complete and gives them the illusion that they are qualified to do the pugs. Instead of teaching them self reliance, the game would teach them over dependence on them being carried by team performance.
Let them acquire the basic fundamentals, tools and level first before going to the pugs rather than rush them to pugs at level 5.
Normal pug missions should be about learning to complete the missions, objectives/optional and players going in should have tools,level, know basic fundamentals before entering. Otherwise, there is no way to complete the pug mission. Normal pug missions should NOT be about learning basic fundamentals. Learning Basic fundamentals can be done on their own time not drag the whole random pug team in hours long completion or even non completion due to frustration.
Thank you for your thoughts in regard to gating.
I would like to point out that there is only one way to learn how a queued mission works in STO, and that is by doing a queued mission. Nothing else is the same. I do agree that people should have to do something to get into Advanced or Elite versions of any queued mission that shows they can keep up. Like shanker666 was saying before, the people he was playing with had the ships and the levels, but they were not all as efficient as he was. His example is why I have no real problem with some kind of speed bump to slow down players just jumping into Advanced or Elite. I really do think we agree on that basic idea, if not the specific details.
One of the areas we obviously disagree on is the idea that people should focus on leveling their characters first, before entering available content. Neither you or I want players to mix to their mutual disadvantage, so we have that in common, and I hope you will consider what I am going to say next.
Players can level all they way to '60' and not learn anything useful. They can get to level 50+ and not know a thing about how queues work. Right now there are queues that are designed to allow those players to go into them as early as level '5', and see what a queue is like while they are low enough level to make the best possible improvements. The queues that are level 5+ are pretty much low difficulty missions. Really easy stuff compared to ISA.
The nine low level queues are FAs not STFs. They are really very basic. STFs are where Advanced and Elite are. Because they allow low and high level toons to mix, they can be ideal for learning. More ideal than private queues for two reasons.
One is that you don't need a lot of people to start a Public queue, and a person can join one even if no friends are online. If even one more experienced friend is online, they can go together and the better can offer tips and advice.
The other reason is that 'self reliance' you mentioned. I player has to be able to go ahead and jump in, rather than wait for someone to hold their hand. The queues that open up at level five make that possible. A player doesn't have to wait until level 50 to go get the experience they need to learn with.
I have more thoughts on this, but I am out of time for now. I'll come back to this in a bit.
Stay well
Qapla
The gating idea is one that certainly has merit. I don't like going into advanced/elite with unprepared players either, and having the mission drag on interminably, while I explode over and over again. But, come on, let the 9 low level queues have their thing. It's the first chance that newbies have to experience queues, and teaming with other players. If the rewards were something special, then things would be different. It's just some fleet marks, which veterans like you and me can easily get more of by doing commendation missions on the fleet starbase. The newbies have to start somewhere, just like both of us did and I think maybe you've been playing at such a high level that you may have forgotten what it's like to be just starting out.
If players are kept out of any kind of queuing until level 50, the amount of unprepared players is going to get worse, not better. At least they can begin learning at level 5 or so and maybe gain some level of competency by the time they get to level 50 and the real stf's. To me, it does sound as if you think all players should be at your level of competency, even though they're just starting out and have no access to decent ships,gear and some probably have no access to a decent fleet. Cryptic decided to allow access to those 9 queues at level 5 for whatever reason(my guess is as learning tools) and to have you say that a level 5 or 10 should be as good as you is just ludicrous. It's not the newbie's fault that they can join these queues, and they shouldn't be punished by Cryptic's lack of information about builds, etc.
I think we're in complete agreement about advanced/elite queues, players need to upgrade skills and gear, and possibly do independent research to find out the parameters of the missions, so they can contribute. I've seen one thing that skollulfr has said that I can possibly agree with, and that's the extremely high barrier for new players to start the game. New players are going to keep leaving if they can't play anything, it's just 9 queues that have nothing special about them, let the newbies have some kind of learning experience and maybe that will keep them interested in learning more about the game and become valuable teammates down the road.
It's just an arbitrary number I threw in to illustrate how gating could be done/work. Any player sufficiently geared and skilled for an advanced run should have no problem doing 5 or even 10 successful normal runs in a row.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
No one is preventing players from playing what they want. There is just certain conditions for you to play just like every other storied mission which has a level requirement. Nor is playing PuG a requirement in learning game fundamentals.
Just to emphasize we are not talking about all new players, just new players who decided to keep doing PuGs at level 5 or lower levels and go straight to a PuG queue unprepared.
Is that subset of population even significant to change the mechanics, put time/money to coding more important than new season/fixing bugs, for that subset of players? Only cryptic can tell.
Because all these AFK Penalty changes are not for new players who got the correct advice/fundamentals or new players that didnt go to PuGs unprepared, but for new players who are in a rush to go to PuGs, got the wrong advice in game, went in unprepared.
Actually, level gating exists in the game. You can only play certain storied mission if you are of certain level. You cannot pay elite if you are not level 60.
I dont know what is the basis of the problem to increase if no one has the official data on all new account players behavior.
Dont know how we can assume that is a fact. Those numbers you just said is speculation Not unless you have the official numbers.
If you can direct me to official numbers, we can actually data mine/analyze why they are leaving especially if the game have that data. Of course if your assumption is correct that there are more new players leaving than actually staying.
Because for all we know, majority of the new players/accounts might went directly to 9k DPS or the average mean of DPS due to more new players given the correct advice, correct fundamentals.
Personally, I would prefer ALL mission queues, to be locked from playability till level 20 or 30 is reached, there is no real reason for anyone level 5 to be running a pve queue in the first place!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
I think it is best to say that reasons to do things can be pretty subjective. There is no reason to have pudding if you don't eat your meat. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!
The low level queues are where learning begins. The best reason to have low level queues is so that you don't have all these inexperienced people mobbing your queues at level 50+ Imagine ISA with people who had the least possible time to learn queues. Take 15 to 25 levels of options away, and you will start to see even more of that sort of thing happenng.
DR toons? Is that Delta Rising? I don't get the reference here. Are they bringing it back? I don't have one, and have no place to put one if I did.
I guess I don't understand why you would want the penalty removed just to quickly level toons. The XP for FA are pretty weak sauce. There are some missions you are given to specifically seek out those queues, and the PVP environment, and they do give more XP but that is about as far as it goes. I'm leveling a bunch of toons right now, and the story missions level you so fast with the bonus XP that you hardly have time to care. Even without the bonus week there are all sorts of other in game boosts.
My goal in leveling right now is to get to level 11+ then switch to another. At 11+ you have access to doff missions that boost your performance with rewards. You should all know which missions I am talking about. I teach people to use those mission rewards wisely. Claim the rewards tactically, so the timer runs consistently with your activities in game. If your doing book-keeping for your Fleet, don't claim the reward that boosts your weapons just yet. Wait an hour till you are going into story or queues so you maximize it. That sort of thing.
Once I have access to dith, and doffs, I could level a toon a lot more slowly, and be just fine. Speed leveling has to be for a definite goal, and not the goal in and of itself. You should never speed level any toon to '60' just to get there fast. Bad idea. Speed leveling teaches very little about the game, and underequips the toon who prematurely reaches that level.
The biggest problem with speed leveling imho is that it only kind of works for the UFP! KDF and Rom toons are actually somewhat mangled in any speed leveling environment since so much of what they have access to is story based.
I had a level 22+ Reman the other day who hadn't been able to do doff missions even though they are normally accessible at level 11, only because the doff system seems to require you have a faction. So many doff missions are faction specific. To be honest, I don't remember seeing any doff missions that were all about being a Rom. Once I had a faction, I pretty much could do the Doff missions.
I think access to queues is going to have a real world experience benefit that far outweighs any 'in game' experience 'points'. XP do not give the player skills. If the player needs skill, they have to do the things they are trying to get skills at. Learn to swing a hammer by swinging a hammer, learn to pitch a ball by pitching. Some things you just have to do to really understand them properly.
Anyway, those are my thoughts here.
Qapla
Right.
The chance of doing ten in a row with that example is 00.1953125% or about 1 out of 500!
I know your not holding to that e30ernest, I just wanted some others to see it.
'X' In a row means they have to restart the sequence if there is a single incomplete mission. So five missions would have to be basically perfect. That seems to be pretty tough odds based on what shanker666 experienced, and I can only say that I think anyone that lucky would be great to have on a team.
We all have a dark side. Mine is expressing itself by thinking how fun it would be if you needed ten perfect runs, and if one of the more awesome but arrogant types had nine perfect runs, then had lag, or DC happen to them on run number ten, and had to start all over again after a two hour penalty while someone is telling them they deserved it! It's a bad thought and I shouldn't laugh, but can't quite help it.
Anyway for my part, I'll be using five perfect runs as the default example of what is needed to gain higher difficulty access as a reward. I would like to hear what people think about this.
Qapla
At level 5 the 'learning' is practically nil. At that point you have 3 BOff abilities, maybe a couple of captain abilities, and that's it. You spend most of your time maneuvering your ship and pressing space bar, which is something the solo missions can teach you as well. At that point of the game, there is practically zero requirements for team tactics, because the captains have absolutely no skills for team play. Someone at that level effectively plays in a team the same way he'd play solo, because there is no alternative for him.
At least by ranks 25-30 you most likely have some science skills to explore a support role, some engineering skills to survive (in case you want to tank) and quite a few damage skills. You will also be more adept at flying your ship, allowing you to focus more on what is happening around you rather than the UI. Also, your gear will be of higher quality as well (most drops at levels 5-10 are white, at levels 25-30 you get greens and blues regularly), making combat much less frustrating. At that level range you can actually start to feel if you're doing things right or not due to the relative increase in PvE difficulty, since before that point you just had to target stuff, press spacebar,and they'd eventually explode.
As a newbie (a lot of years ago) I think I went into a low level queue that the story pointed me at. I can't remember which one it was (probably SB24), but I do remember that I exploded a lot and I hated feeling useless. After that I never queued for anything until I hit at least level 45.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
I did say prevent to have a level gating. only level 50 on queues. It is already being applied in certain parts of the game I dont know what is the fuss about it. There are just thing you just cant go in and do in this game without doing certain conditions. Why should this be any different?
Like I keep on saying, If you put them unprepared and go straight to pugs at level 5, the level 5 player would now rely on the team to complete the pug aka leech and would now be dependent and addicted to leeching. If you let them finish to level 50 solo before they can enter the pug, they would achieve some sort self reliance to deal damage.
AFK penalty removal only solves the penalty being penalized for those who don't contribute to the team. But doesn't change the fact that these players don't contribute to the team. That means it doesn't solve the problem of non completion or if ever they finish the pug increased combat time completion.
That is the thing with your assumption, all new players are NOT what you assumed them to be. Not all new/casual players want to be carried and leech from other players efforts nor rush to PUGs at lower level. That means any solution made with your assumption only increase the population of players who are not self reliant or player with the behavior type you all assumed.
Of course that is again under the assumption that the game doesn't have new player retention at all. Now if the game does have new player retention, and the current mechanics target a particular behavior, it is not targeting the new player subset you just assumed.
So what if you or certain players disagree? That doesn't make you automatically right nor that in any way gives you monopoly on what is right and what is the behavior of all "new players".
And more importantly, no one is preventing any player From doing multiplayer, just certain conditions/standard.
It's true. If we get rid of the nine low level queues there will be no way to learn about queues at all until level 50. There are really only 5 queues that are level 5+. The rest gate at increasing levels, 10, 20, 30, so what we are talking about IS a gradual system of inclusion.
If paxdawn was correct, and they kept choosing to repeat only the level five missions, they would be stuck in 5 out of 38!
Anyone who wants to can look for themselves.
http://sto.gamepedia.com/PvE_Queue#List_of_PvE_Queue_missions
Schrondiger is I think, missing the point that human beings play differently. They chat with you, for one thing.
You are correct in that this is a multiplayer game, and we need to encourage that. I could go play Dark Souls for a solo experience. paxdawn might like that one, it takes some finesse.
Qapla.
They get there to quickly already especially with bonus XP. They aren't learning much on the way up either. We want to change that, don't we?
Also, the minimum for the lowest STF is already 50. Other missions are not technically STF's. In another comment I tried to clarify that there are really only 5 queues that take level 5+ toons. After that there is one 10+, two 20+ and a 30+ mission.
Everyone please take a look. http://sto.gamepedia.com/PvE_Queue#List_of_PvE_Queue_missions
I cant agree with schrondiger on this. Solo missions are not enough like queues to give the proper experience. Delaying entry to queues with real human players also greatly diminishes the aspects of multiplayer that make it an MMO. Delayed entry sets up barriers to learning from team mates. It blocks the interactions that occur in the chat window, or voice chats. All in all I can't support delayed entry to the most basic queues. There are already plenty enough queues that the new players can't get into right now, and taking those away just makes a bad situation worse in my opinion.
Every person I brought into this game wanted to do things together with friends, but we all came into the game at different intervals. It would have killed our shared experiences in the early stages of the game, and for many that would have killed the game altogether. New players in an MMO want to game with people! and I doubt they want to wait till they are halfway to the end game to do it.
I will agree with schrondiger that it sucks to feel useless. I'll bet that being afk'd when you were doing something would make you feel useless, or worse, cheated. Feeling useless can make someone quit, but feeling cheated can make someone rage-quit! Someone who feels like they weren't useful is probably less likely than the rage-quiter to blog to all their friends about how "stupid that STO game is". The one who feels cheated will make noise, and it won't be the type of noise that sells this game to others.
The other noise that will drive players away is the voice of someone who joined an MMO and got stuck soloing story missions till they quit out of boredom.
My preferred fix is to relieve the lowest level missions of inaccurate and/or unjust penalties, and a few little tweaks to make it all a bit better.
Qapla
Your continued assumption that improperly punishing players of a game will somehow make them more self reliant is absurd.
Plus you are back to making sweeping and arbitrary accusations again. I seriously doubt the afk penalty is getting half as many leeches as it gets ordinary people just trying to play the game.
Qapla
I disagree that the MMO aspect is most prominent in the queues. Having the social hubs full of people, grouping with friends in missions (non queued) and hot-joining the deep space encounters and Alerts is "MMO enough" for me, especially at low levels. You can do a lot of things with friends, at low levels, and I will even go so far as to say that the queues are the worst content in the game. Most of them don't even make sense until after specific key missions.
Also, gating instanced content until later is an industry standard. In other MMOs for example, you get your first proper dungeon experience at levels 20/50 or 25/60, exactly because most classes are extremely bare bone before those points (and even then, you have 1 heal to spam). Assuming that the queues open up at level 25 in STO is nothing in comparison. It's a week of casual gameplay.
A newbie, a true newbie, will care for the experience before any reward. Most will be even unaware of what constitutes a proper reward. But most people handle bad experiences in different ways, I guess. Someone may rage-quit, but for me the sour experience of feeling useless was a sign that I wasn't cutting it for the content I'd chosen to do. It also gave me an incentive to actually get more involved in ship and character building. And really, hypothetical newbie bloggers that may go out and spread the word of how "stupid that STO game is" because they didn't get some virtual currency that they have no idea what to use for...? Pretty far fetched isn't it?
The story missions of the game are its best aspect for a Trekkie. That and all the marvelous foundry stuff. If someone quits due to being bored after 10 solo missions before being able to queue, he's really going to hate levels 50-60.
Peace!
Low level queues, being where learning begins?
I'm sorry, but we have lvl 50 - 60 player(s), who haven't learned anything much, or haven't bothered to learn enough, so those missions being devoid of playability @ lvl 5, is not some big loss IMO.
If you want social gaming, there are tons of ways to go about it, and not having to rely on pve queues to get it!!!
So, just because you and what few player(s) like you seem to think on this matter, it really doesn't warrant any major changes to the current AFK penalty system at such low levels, considering they shouldn't even be doing mission queues IMO in the first place!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
If learning doesn't begin in the low level examples of content, then it has to begin later at higher levels, and those inexperienced people will end up in the level 50+ queues, get afk'd and end up in one of these types of threads. Then we will be talking about removing the afk penalties for the level 50+ queues instead of just a few at the bottom. I honestly think it would make things worse for you in the long run.
Leveling isn't the answer, at least by itself. Some of the leveling is so fast it may well be that some of those 50-60 levelers you see, didn't get to stay at low levels long enough to absorb anything useful. Content should be available (like the devs seem to have intended) for new players to learn with. Even queues. Red Alerts aren't really the same.
While there may be other ways to experience similar (but not the same) content, again, I point out that the system is saying to level five toons, "Hey! Come over here and join this queue!". The devs clearly intend for them to do so, or they would not be given the invite in the first place. We can have our opinions on who should, or should not do what, but there is a design flaw here that should be obvious to anyone and this flaw hurts players who don't deserve it often enough to create this thread.
The devs made it so the game invites you at about level 3-5, and then the game punishes you for going where you were invited, if you have the misfortune of arriving at the same time as a pack of heavy hitters. That warrants a change if only for ethical reasons. It is wrong to invite someone then punish them for showing up.
It should be obvious. Isn't it obvious to you?
Qapla
Since we don't have any kind of objective measure for what damage may or may not be occurring to the game, I'll have to agree to disagree with you on less definite points. It is still essentially wrong to punish someone for sincere if ineffective participation in something that is supposed to be fun. Especially after the person was invited to participate without any rules or parameters given, or any way to back out honorably after it starts.
I think you can agree with that principle
Peace to you also
Qapla
For what it is worth, I agree that you have every right to feel frustrated.
After typing that first line I stopped for a few minutes to think through what I was feeling then. It's a little complicated. Right off the bat, I started feeling angry at the persons who afk'd because I have been here on this topic defending people who are actually trying to do something, these guys(?) aren't trying?! I'm thinking they are some kind of leeches then, and what they did undermines progress towards a more fair system for new and experienced alike. They are the cause of all this conflict! That was my initial reaction.
After another minute I thought about how we really don't know what was going on with any of those people at those times. Maybe some or all were leeches, but I can think of other scenarios where some or all of them might not be. It does seem more likely that when you have multiple instances of afk's in a single team, that at least one of them may be a leech. By the same token it seems more likely that when you have multiple instances there is more of a chance that one or more are not leeching, but are instead affected by some other issue. Like lag, to name one. No idea what is going on due to inexperience, is another.
I don't know how to make sure if someone is a leech or not. If I ever think of a way, I'll be sure to share it with everyone. In the meantime we have a system that can, and does give penalties for being afk, to people who were not afk. Some people seem to think that is not only fine, but that it is even proper, and come up with rationalizations for why it must be that way, and why nobody should ever try to change it. I think there must be a better way.
Qapla