Matchmaking options to exclude players on certain terms

[(PSN)Private_Ventures]

2 hours ago, Himenoinu said:

Also implemented and sorely lackin' purpose 😉

truer words have never been said

[Zi-Sui]

3 hours ago, Himenoinu said:

This sounds like your Volt doesn't want another Volt in your team 😄

There are clans and there's the recruit chat. And while I believe that something could be done to prevent some unpleasant experiences, like maybe splitting the eidolon quests and gating them based on the # of time the player defeated the previous one or something, and maybe introduce a report for leeching option (without kicking) to the extend where a player is being banned from using the public option for a couple of hours or so after being reported a certain number of times.

Lastly, you don't seem to be a fan of public runs at all. Also, what happens if no players fit your high standard profile? You gonna solo it? Use the recruit chat? Return here to postulate the game is dead because you couldn't find a team for 2 hours? 😄 Even if you wouldn't pick the last option, you do realize - I hope - others might. The other two options are already available to you right now and there's a clan option too! Also implemented and sorely lackin' purpose 😉

No I'm not fan of public runs. ESO is okay but relic openings are too often a Volt overwriting my speed buff with their slower one and 99% of them ARE slower. Teralyst is a pain, bounties are full of leechers but my suggestion would not solve leeching, there's reporting for that. And I don't have high standards, I dont demand Ember or such for relic opening nor any focus stuff, amp nor weapon to teralyst.

This is not just for me but for everyone who experiences undesirable public squad setups anywhere.

But I guess warframe community is 90% nice enough to think about those who would be left out of eidolon caps and the Limbos and all new players who struggle to contribute and Saryns in Hydron and would rather have them in their squad.

Personally I'm ok with that. I can solo and got a healthy growing clan, and I can always take whatever else than Volt to relic openings. This topic was originally made for those people in mind who come to forums to complain about certain frames ruining the fun for them and people who proclaimed their high standards on tridolon and such. I guess we don't need this then.

[Zi-Sui]

5 hours ago, (PS4)Private_Ventures said:

Just tried a quick interview with players in recruit chat for Tridolon. I summarized it into 3 points: What is your chosen frame and build? What is your role in the squad? What is your preferred weapons loadout and tactic for victory. I interviewed six players. The first guy said "f**k you I'll find another squad". The next three didn't respond at all. The fourth both did not respond, and, five minutes later, send me repeated invites to Sanctuary Onslaught. The fifth guy told me it didn't matter, that he could solo Tridolon easily, and the sixth guy finally told me what I needed to know, sort of. "Chroma damage opticor" and then just "invite".

But then my wife decided to play too, and we just went for it together as a duo. She's not super experienced with Gant or Hydro, but we at least demolished Terry, did alright with Gary, but it took forever, so we didn't get to the Hydrolyst. But I would've liked if people were a bit more receptive to strategic planning.

BTW: I'm on PS4, and I use a relatively unusual tactic for Eidolons: I gear up with a max flight speed, no-bounce Kestrel with shattering impact, and break the armor almost entirely, to give us the greatest possible advantage. With the right team, you can Tridolon Cap, and still have fifteen minutes of night left over.  

And as for the Vote-To-Kick, I've already renounced that idea. What I would prefer now, is PLAYER REVIEWS. Imagine if you had a kickass squadmate, some guy that's just absolutely awesome in every way. His fashion frame game is on point, his damage dealt/damage taken is exceptional, and he's using weapons you rarely ever see. Drop that guy a five-star review, to be tallied into an overall player rating.

In contrast, you could leave a review for the leech in your bounty, fishing while everyone else battles lvl 60 ghouls, and still receiving all the fancy loot. You could leave a 1 star review stating "Went fishing while we fought. Caught no fish. 10/10 would abandon."

 

Did you think of all the trolls and those who would for some reason be sore about something, like that guy who you tried to interview? That people like them would give bad reviews for no reason and then your squadmates would abandon you. It happens. And the leecher or bad player could get positive reviews from clanmates by asking to up their rating. And besides, you can usually spot a leecher early and report or abandon or both if you have full map on.

Not that reviews wouldn't be all bad, they would have their benefits. People might bother using them enough. But it too slows the game and gives room for abuse.

One time a player in warframe asked my help and I helped. Then he asked my help again and I helped. Not even in my clan. And again. Then he wanted me to sell some aura mods for prime parts and got salty because according to him the mods I offered sucked. I told him I saved most of them to my clanmates which I do. We were pretty angry with each other and I unfriended him.

That's just an example of people who would probably abuse the review feature.

[(PSN)Private_Ventures]

57 minutes ago, BoarWarrior said:

One time a player in warframe asked my help and I helped. Then he asked my help again and I helped. Not even in my clan. And again. Then he wanted me to sell some aura mods for prime parts and got salty because according to him the mods I offered sucked. I told him I saved most of them to my clanmates which I do. We were pretty angry with each other and I unfriended him.

That's just an example of people who would probably abuse the review feature.

Well, sure, with any system, you'll get abuse. Just like you'd probably never see a Limbo, and I'd probably never see a Rhino. At least with this system, you could compare that guy's rating with the review he left for you. Besides what would his review say? "Had crappy mods, wouldn't trade what I wanted, 1 star"? Whereas yours would likely read "Helped him with missions, then he demanded a trade for rare mods. I told him no, and he flipped out. 1 star."

Abuse is going to happen with almost any system, just like how we get AFKers and Limbotrolls now. At least with player reviews, (think report button level speed), we could have a sort of baseline that would let us judge people properly. Imagine even a leaderboard for best rated players. A leaderboard that's actually based on player quality.

[Zi-Sui]

59 minutes ago, (PS4)Private_Ventures said:

Well, sure, with any system, you'll get abuse. Just like you'd probably never see a Limbo, and I'd probably never see a Rhino. At least with this system, you could compare that guy's rating with the review he left for you. Besides what would his review say? "Had crappy mods, wouldn't trade what I wanted, 1 star"? Whereas yours would likely read "Helped him with missions, then he demanded a trade for rare mods. I told him no, and he flipped out. 1 star."

Abuse is going to happen with almost any system, just like how we get AFKers and Limbotrolls now. At least with player reviews, (think report button level speed), we could have a sort of baseline that would let us judge people properly. Imagine even a leaderboard for best rated players. A leaderboard that's actually based on player quality.

True that. You should make a topic of it's own about it because I think it's a decent enough idea but this topic is about something else and you'd get people to discuss about that thing. I think rating system would be better in terms of abuse danger than votekick because you can't outvote anyone, just leave squad tops. So yeah.

[Himenoinu]

2 hours ago, BoarWarrior said:

This is not just for me but for everyone who experiences undesirable public squad setups anywhere.

The system you're suggesting is mostly covered by the clan/friends runs.
Now, as it happens in any other mmo, pug runs are usually unpleasant - even more so when dungeons (in our case missions) don't have any means of sifting through the people wanting to join in, like the armor/power rating requirements. And WF can't have that, simply because too many builds can actually get the job done that can't be comfortably assigned ratings as they cover quite a bit of the MR spectrum and still say nothing about the player using them.

On to of that, you have the - as I've said - the rather high chance of never finding a squad for the mission you want to run. Because Saryns and Volts will always abound in ESO (I too run Volt there because the current ESO mechanics don't allow me to actually enjoy strolling around with my hammer wielding Valkyr). Because what's the point of putting up with a broken mobs leveling system in Hydron when there's little to gain off of it. Because new players or players trying the tridolons for the first time don't know everything there is to know about them and some prefer to learn through personal experience rather than through watching vids about a task.

Regarding speed-runs, they definitely shouldn't be the goal of a public run. Not to mention, your Volt could be the twin brother of the photon if you end up with 2 new players who'll explore and fight everything they encounter on the way, probably getting lost and sometimes not even having a relic equipped. Speed clears were always advertised as such in other games and people would get inspected upon forming the team. Which you can do here too, even before you invite them in.

Lastly, a system to limits who's allowed to join us (?!) in a public (!!!) run will only make things worse for the community because of our human nature and of the current direction we're going in terms of social interactions.

In my case, I was joining public runs in other games to either first-hand learn the layouts or mechanics of the dungeon or - much later on in the game - to actually help newcomers see the dungeon's boss fall. In Guild Wars 1, for example, 2 people could've handled an Underworld run and we were sometimes doing that for the random newbies, especially because everyone else was either selling the runs or having high demands regarding the players' build and gear. Might I add that being able to carry newbies through a difficult mission has a certain chance of them wanting to join the ranks of your guild, so that, at some, point they too can do that?

Over the last week I saw both requests on making joining a clan more demanding and now even a public run. We're dividing ourselves more and more - as a community. We wanna interact less with each other and have systems in place that protect us from ever having to do it. We want newbies and casual players out of our way when joining public runs and we want to be payed (in blood preferably) for carrying someone. We've traded our minds for efficiency and sold our hearts for plats. Let's allow the public runs to serve their purpose and use the other 3 options available for when we want to have high demands...

[ShortCat]

On 2018-09-05 at 3:05 PM, BoarWarrior said:

So that when we go public, we would have matchmaking options where we could set what kinda frames and weapons and such must players have for us to join their mission.

One simple reason this suggestion is bad: Depending on your "block list", the second player will join your squad, because he meets all conditions. What happens next? Now that he also is in the game, his matchmaking conditions have to be considered as well. There is a very high probability, that his "block list" will be different from yours adding even more restrictions on this particular session for the next player to join. Rinse and repeat with the third player in the party.

Not only will this slow down the whole matchmaking process and limit the overall amount of available players per session, it is a great tool to troll other players, if you block the most common gear.

[(PSN)Private_Ventures]

2 hours ago, ShortCat said:

One simple reason this suggestion is bad: Depending on your "block list", the second player will join your squad, because he meets all conditions. What happens next? Now that he also is in the game, his matchmaking conditions have to be considered as well. There is a very high probability, that his "block list" will be different from yours adding even more restrictions on this particular session for the next player to join. Rinse and repeat with the third player in the party.

Not only will this slow down the whole matchmaking process and limit the overall amount of available players per session, it is a great tool to troll other players, if you block the most common gear.

Unless the conditions were reliant entirely on the host.

Frankly though, blocking the most common gear would be what I would do first, as I yearn to see unusual gear used in unusual ways. That's how you find the actually good players. Arca Plasmor would be #1 on my list.