Should there be a punishment for repetitively leaving a void fissure mission?

[.moon]

Currently, you're able to take a common relic to a void fissure, look at what squad members are using, and leave if the relics aren't good/don't suit your tastes.
This means that you are more rewarded and get more bang for your bucks for leaving missions.

I personally do not think that this intended, that it isn't a good mechanic, and that it hurts the game's integrity a bit.
A punishment for repetitively leaving a void fissure mission could easily stop a player from abusing this. (a timer perhaps?)

Thoughts?

[Errodin]

The problem with this is that the game gives the player the option to leave ... that's free choice ... forcing the player to stay or penalizing them for punching out early isn't the answer here ... on the other hand a player leaving after peeking at others relics is also unavoidable without making it invisible for viewing ... start a mission and stick with it to see if anything good drops, kind of "going in blind" so-to-say ... the controversy is real and nothing is really a suitable outcome.

[Urlan]

Can't honestly say so no. You can actually check what the other players are bringing until everyone readies in the lobby. That was stated as an intent of the system to enforce players being honest with their relics. That said, the safest way to avoid players leaving if players don't use the correct relic or radiant relic is to not play with randoms.

[seprent]

that raises the thought though say some one has bad internet or there power goes out and loses connection they too would be punished by this system if they are having a run of bad luck (ive been there) its a public mission people can leave if they want to they forfeit every they got form that mission due to them leaving it if they tried again odds are they arnt going to get what they want that quickly 

[NekroArts]

When relics first came out this happened a lot and yet surprisingly DE did nothing about this, but the community changed by themselves and this behavior has almost died out. Even though the player would leave if they don't like what the other's relic was they were already hurting themselves. Anticipating that you'll get a squad with exactly the relic you want in PUG was a big mistake; not only were they not getting any rewards, they were also wasting a lot of their time. Why bother going in PUG with a chance of getting a squad with the relics you want when you have a 100% chance of getting that squad from recruit chat?

[Turbine]

1. I bring vaulted rad, there are 3 of n7 intact crap. Should I stay? Preferable NO.

2. There shoud be better LFG method. Not chat-spam, but UI.

[.moon]

Interesting answers, thanks for the output

[(XBOX)duffy323]

I kind of REALLY like the idea of not knowing everyone's relic. That would cut down on a lot of mooching AND mission deserters I should think. It could also encourage more squad communication.

[nerfinator6]

59 minutes ago, (XB1)duffy323 said:

I kind of REALLY like the idea of not knowing everyone's relic. That would cut down on a lot of mooching AND mission deserters I should think. It could also encourage more squad communication.

And people lying.

[Tyanya]

4 hours ago, (XB1)duffy323 said:

I kind of REALLY like the idea of not knowing everyone's relic. That would cut down on a lot of mooching AND mission deserters I should think. It could also encourage more squad communication.

Yes I'd prefer that, if DE could also implement having to choose a relic if you're in a group opposed to "no relic selected", that would help too, just have the "no relic selected" for solo, mind you, how would that work for an agreed extraction during an endless? Tricky.

But I've definitely noticed players leaving at the start recently, how about introducing an increasing cooldown? The first time you leave it adds one minute to wait before joining, then 5 minutes, then 10 etc, that sort of thing, it won't punish those with connection problems because they won't be manually leaving the group, hitting the cross or abandoning, just have it apply to those that do. 🐱

[Teridax68]

There's definitely a problem, but I don't think punishment is the answer. At the end of the day, players are only working with what's being given to them: when a system encourages players to run together so that they can benefit from each other's relics (especially during radshares), the flipside to that will always be that there will be some cases where the relics in a squad will be of no direct benefit to a player. As such, quitting and retrying arises as a strategy for players who want to conserve relics, while looking for a prime part they want on a relic they don't have. Punishing players who do this not only runs into the risk of negatively affecting players who experience connection issues, but could also mess up cases where it would be legitimate to quit on a relic, e.g. a rad share where someone brought in the wrong relic or no relic at all. There could be workarounds to this, e.g. trying to better identify what caused the disconnection and only imposing a timer under certain circumstances, or imposing a timer only for public matchmaking, but it's still dangerous territory to tread, if only because there'll inevitably be an influx of players who will come here to complain about how they were punished "unfairly" for disconnecting, even if they were the ones who manually disconnected.

At the end of the day, I think the solution that could benefit most people, even if it would take more time to implement, would be to give Prime progression another rework. Putting aside the problem of some players opportunistically disconnecting and reconnecting based on other people's relics, the current relic system is based upon multiple layers of RNG, which renders the process a lot more frustrating and less straightforward than it needs to be. The ideal system, imo, should be one in which players participating should always benefit from completing the mission, regardless of which Prime part they're personally looking for. There are a lot of different ways this could be implemented, and depending on what DE wants, there could always be an element of RNG, though personally I'd prefer a system in which the player would be able to reliably work towards whichever Prime they want, even if it takes equal or more time than the current average.

Edited October 1, 2018 by Teridax68

[Guest]

relic missions has to change technical issues aside such d*ck moves are common in random groups and pre-mades are no walk in the park

[KeelLorentz]

1. There should not be punishment for leaving, since issues like internet dropping in middle of something, exist. 

2. You seem to be missing point of relic grouping and relics being visible to others. If Im there to open axi k3 radiant-I need 3 others with axi k3 radiant. Not 3 with axi z1, axi n3 and axi b2. Probably because I need whatever prime part drops from it and I only have few relics. 

[Hallelion]

What if their relic degrades by one refinement (or damage relics if Intact, repairable by using traces) if they "choose" to abandon a mission? 

For the disconnects, they get a grace period where if they rejoin, no penalties. If they choose to not rejoin, a "toll fee" of some traces could be imposed before being able to access Fissures. 

 

Notice that the above uses traces. Since traces can be earned by completing Fissues (and Alerts but on a slower pace), it should encourage completion and discourages quitting.

 

What do you guys think? 

[Urlan]

On 2018-10-02 at 7:46 AM, hallelion said:

What if their relic degrades by one refinement (or damage relics if Intact, repairable by using traces) if they "choose" to abandon a mission? 

For the disconnects, they get a grace period where if they rejoin, no penalties. If they choose to not rejoin, a "toll fee" of some traces could be imposed before being able to access Fissures. 

 

Notice that the above uses traces. Since traces can be earned by completing Fissues (and Alerts but on a slower pace), it should encourage completion and discourages quitting.

 

What do you guys think? 

Considering you can never re-upgrade an upgraded relic or get back traces in any significant amount per play, while the ability to see allies' relics and leave is a mechanic DE specifically put in support for, I would think that while its encouraging to try to find ideas to give negative incentive; it is misguided. DE made the system as it is for players to be able to leave if their allies use the wrong relics for them, and removed the old Void key system because forcing this version of a keyshare from before was the intent. It would akin to chopping off fingers for disagreeing with someone whereas losing the player costs nothing but disappointment.

[(XBOX)KayAitch]

On 2018-09-26 at 1:07 AM, .moon said:

Currently, you're able to take a common relic to a void fissure, look at what squad members are using, and leave if the relics aren't good/don't suit your tastes.

Why would anyone do that? I mean, unless you really just like piloting the lander. Once you've gone through all the rigamarole of finding a team and loading in you might as well play on even if your teammates working on common relics.

On 2018-09-26 at 1:07 AM, .moon said:

This means that you are more rewarded and get more bang for your bucks for leaving missions.

But you don't get anything if you quit a mission?

I mean, I've had crashes and lost everything, why would anyone choose that?

On 2018-10-02 at 12:31 PM, KeelLorentz said:

You seem to be missing point of relic grouping and relics being visible to others. If Im there to open axi k3 radiant-I need 3 others with axi k3 radiant. Not 3 with axi z1, axi n3 and axi b2. Probably because I need whatever prime part drops from it and I only have few relics. 

Oh. Wait. So, you really want to crack an Axi K3, so you keep rejoining missions until you get a squad all working on it? That sounds tedious and painful, why not just ask in the recruitment chat? Your chances of randomly finding a squad all working on the same thing as you (outside of the few days after a new prime/unvaulting) have to be remote.

 

I'm genuinely surprised that anyone actually does this.

 

I rarely start a mission with the relics I really want to crack, I'm not sure why. I have loads of one I don't need, but I do need forma and ducats so it's all good in the end.

I always start with forma fodder and then switch to radiant relics once we've got a little momentum. I guess if everyone did that it would stop this behaviour.

Maybe a slight increase the rare chances the further you go into a mission? Say after 45 mins the chance for a rare from a radiant would increase to 1/3. That way there would be bigger rewards for staying for more challenge, and a disincentive to quit early. They already do that with affinity/drop boosters.

 

I don't think you can fairly punish players for leaving a match, flakey connections are much more common than quitting griefers.

[Hallelion]

12 hours ago, Urlan said:

Considering you can never re-upgrade an upgraded relic or get back traces in any significant amount

Yup, but if they can allow re-refinements of relics up to Radiant, the idea would work.

As for getting traces back, this is why it would encourage players to commit to finishing fissure missions even more than ever: by re-iterating the premium value of traces, and have the penalties be enclosed around traces, it shows that they would seriously need to finish missions, with or without relics (straight toll fee of traces would be the penalty for this case) and potentially reduce the possibility of players leaving. With this in place, it would be against the player's interests to squat fissure missions (entering and leaving missions just because their squad mates don't have the relic they want to leech from).

13 hours ago, Urlan said:

while the ability to see allies' relics and leave is a mechanic DE specifically put in support for,

I'd like to know where could I see any statement from DE that they are "in support" of the bad behaviors that sprouted out because of this.

13 hours ago, Urlan said:

I would think that while its encouraging to try to find ideas to give negative incentive; it is misguided. DE made the system as it is for players to be able to leave if their allies use the wrong relics for them, and removed the old Void key system because forcing this version of a keyshare from before was the intent.

I agree and disagree: while the current systems in place are for people to see if someone snuck in a different relic than what was agreed upon, it then promotes leeching in unorganized, public groups, increasing the likelihood that some players will only finish fissure missions because a squadmate is willing to crack open a relic with that rare prime part, and if they don't see such in this public setup, it's even more in their best interest to leave and potentially cause host migration issues. 

13 hours ago, Urlan said:

It would akin to chopping off fingers for disagreeing with someone whereas losing the player costs nothing but disappointment.

Not just disappointment, but frustration. I dunno about you, but I have seen Hosts squat public missions, patiently waiting for that player with that "good" relic to play to even consider walking from the start zone.

 

As much as I understand that the current systems in place are good for people who use recruit chat, the notion that the safest way to play fissure missions is only to organize one would be detrimental to some people who prefer to just enter the game and play. After some time, I thought of the following:

 

Per every fissure mission completed, depending on the Relic's era and refinement, a meter will be charged. The meter will retain its charge for the day, and can be spent and refilled multiple times during the day. During the relic rewards screen, an additional time is given to all players to decide, only at their discretion without the other squad mates looking, if the current reward they got from their own relic suffices, or it is not good for them and wishes a "recalculation" and have another roll at the rewards. Each recalculation would consume some percentage of the meter. Then, once they confirm the reward to share to the squad (or the timer runs out), the current relic reward selection screen opens. 

With this idea, it would provide a positive incentive to players to commit and finish fissures, regardless of the relics of their squad mates, to charge their reroll meter. The recalculation option would then be an incentive to bring good relics to radshares, and improve the odds that unorganized groups finish missions with many squadmates. The daily reset of the meter is to encourage players constantly charge and use it, encourage more fissure plays.

 

Thoughts?

[(XBOX)KayAitch]

1 hour ago, hallelion said:

During the relic rewards screen, an additional time is given to all players to decide, only at their discretion without the other squad mates looking, if the current reward they got from their own relic suffices, or it is not good for them and wishes a "recalculation" and have another roll at the rewards. Each recalculation would consume some percentage of the meter. Then, once they confirm the reward to share to the squad (or the timer runs out), the current relic reward selection screen opens

I like this idea - it's also going to mean players starting missions with only their poor relics, they'll wait until they've accrued some rerolls before cracking their rare radians.

 

Why not also let these players filter in the mission select? They want to play this mission, but only with players with relic X equipped. They'll wait hours for a match without bothering anyone (if that's what they enjoy doing, I guess, I'd personally much rather play the game for relics I already have than wait, but whatever). Everyone else will get matches with people ready to play.

[Urlan]

3 hours ago, hallelion said:

Yup, but if they can allow re-refinements of relics up to Radiant, the idea would work.

As for getting traces back, this is why it would encourage players to commit to finishing fissure missions even more than ever: by re-iterating the premium value of traces, and have the penalties be enclosed around traces, it shows that they would seriously need to finish missions, with or without relics (straight toll fee of traces would be the penalty for this case) and potentially reduce the possibility of players leaving. With this in place, it would be against the player's interests to squat fissure missions (entering and leaving missions just because their squad mates don't have the relic they want to leech from).

I'd like to know where could I see any statement from DE that they are "in support" of the bad behaviors that sprouted out because of this.

I agree and disagree: while the current systems in place are for people to see if someone snuck in a different relic than what was agreed upon, it then promotes leeching in unorganized, public groups, increasing the likelihood that some players will only finish fissure missions because a squadmate is willing to crack open a relic with that rare prime part, and if they don't see such in this public setup, it's even more in their best interest to leave and potentially cause host migration issues. 

Not just disappointment, but frustration. I dunno about you, but I have seen Hosts squat public missions, patiently waiting for that player with that "good" relic to play to even consider walking from the start zone.

 

As much as I understand that the current systems in place are good for people who use recruit chat, the notion that the safest way to play fissure missions is only to organize one would be detrimental to some people who prefer to just enter the game and play. After some time, I thought of the following:

 

Per every fissure mission completed, depending on the Relic's era and refinement, a meter will be charged. The meter will retain its charge for the day, and can be spent and refilled multiple times during the day. During the relic rewards screen, an additional time is given to all players to decide, only at their discretion without the other squad mates looking, if the current reward they got from their own relic suffices, or it is not good for them and wishes a "recalculation" and have another roll at the rewards. Each recalculation would consume some percentage of the meter. Then, once they confirm the reward to share to the squad (or the timer runs out), the current relic reward selection screen opens. 

With this idea, it would provide a positive incentive to players to commit and finish fissures, regardless of the relics of their squad mates, to charge their reroll meter. The recalculation option would then be an incentive to bring good relics to radshares, and improve the odds that unorganized groups finish missions with many squadmates. The daily reset of the meter is to encourage players constantly charge and use it, encourage more fissure plays.

 

Thoughts?

You originally couldn't see allies relics at all with Relics and fissures, this was added in so players could, and if the players were not using the same relics, and thus wasting the point of the enforced keyshare of the Relic/Fissure system, the players could stop the countdown or leave. This was not something you could originally do. I think its fair to ask that once fissures are started to not allow new players to join; I think its fair to require the relics all be the same when starting the mission - at the same level as the host or it won't start - but I do not think trying to punish players for a 'feature' that DE put in after the fact is appropriate. Everything else is just the nature of playing with random folk, there will always be disagreements and differences between trying your hand at random teammates. Great allies, and terrible allies in often equal chances.

[Hallelion]

10 hours ago, Urlan said:

You originally couldn't see allies relics at all with Relics and fissures, this was added in so players could, and if the players were not using the same relics, and thus wasting the point of the enforced keyshare of the Relic/Fissure system, the players could stop the countdown or leave. This was not something you could originally do. I think its fair to ask that once fissures are started to not allow new players to join; I think its fair to require the relics all be the same when starting the mission - at the same level as the host or it won't start - but I do not think trying to punish players for a 'feature' that DE put in after the fact is appropriate. Everything else is just the nature of playing with random folk, there will always be disagreements and differences between trying your hand at random teammates. Great allies, and terrible allies in often equal chances.

I think keeping to look at it in the mind of "keyshares" or "radshares" is a bit narrow-sighted, but I agree that we should be able to have some degree of control before missions start, and even how matchmaking does its job. But with this may bring the problems of a server browser. I just hope that more public, unorganized missions will be promoted by DE if they decide that a server browser is feasible and desirable in Warframe.

Also, I thought of another, more positive, way to be an encouraging system. What do you think of it? 

[Urlan]

3 hours ago, hallelion said:

I think keeping to look at it in the mind of "keyshares" or "radshares" is a bit narrow-sighted, but I agree that we should be able to have some degree of control before missions start, and even how matchmaking does its job. But with this may bring the problems of a server browser. I just hope that more public, unorganized missions will be promoted by DE if they decide that a server browser is feasible and desirable in Warframe.

Also, I thought of another, more positive, way to be an encouraging system. What do you think of it? 

Its certainly better than straight penalizing players for wanting to run with players using the same relic/relic level but I think still trying to penalize players for a path that DE took. I could absolutely agree with players being able to be put into alerts with relics or whatever of a certain quality as it would allow the Relic/Fissure randomness that DE said it was pushing for with Specters of the Rail while also allowing some stabilization for players just looking for allies to get the best chances out of their relics, as this system does put the burden on finding other players to get chances versus the old that prioritized leaders stepping up to supply a team.

[Pizzarugi]

If you're doing public relic missions, you're either doing it for ducat fodder, or farming traces. Neither of which are dependent on teammates.

That said, I don't care if people duck out if they see me using a relic they don't like. I'm not here to give you optimal components, I'm here to get traces and ducats, with a team that lets me have a chance at finding higher rarity parts. Stick around or don't, it makes no difference to me.

Edited October 7, 2018 by Pizzarugi