Jump to content

Player Veto of Foreign Buffs Still Needed


TheLexiConArtist
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am flipping sick of flipping during relic runs.

 

Read the previous thread if you need the long story, but here's the summary:

  • Effects from other squad members may interfere with your gameplay (examples: Speed-altering effects, Rift Plane, Bullet attractor effects, Power Strength gains for speed-Novas etc)
  • It is not acceptable to force mission-abort or non-public sessions due to what is ostensibly intended to be a positive impact (see: Limbo reworking... and again to stop antisocial Stasis)
  • Players require the ultimate agency in what gameplay-altering effects apply to them from allied sources.
  • It is also not acceptable for a player's personal opinions and preferences to dictate the gameplay of others ("Stop casting <ability> or riot") where the conflict can arise completely at random through public matchmaking.
  • Therefore, an alternative source of seamless opting-out is necessary that is agnostic to any other individual in the game session.

 

I don't want to backflip every 5 seconds when there's a Volt in the squad. That's a band-aid, but its existence proves there can be a valid desire to not have that buff. Limbo may not be the troll-frame he used to be, but I'm sure lots of players would be happier if they didn't have to worry about tripping into and out of the Rift Plane at all.

Just give us the ability to say no to things before they're forced down our throats.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spectre-8 said:

Form your own squad and set your rules , problem solved.

7 minutes ago, EDYinnit said:
  • It is not acceptable to force mission-abort or non-public sessions due to what is ostensibly intended to be a positive impact (see: Limbo reworking... and again to stop antisocial Stasis)

Problem remains. As discussed in the previous thread before it got buried in Fan Concepts, implementing this function objectively improves co-operative gameplay as neither party has to alter their matchmaking or in-mission gameplay to achieve full satisfaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Spectre-8 said:

So you can't create your own squad , since when ? 😂

Equally, the players having a negative impact on the gameplay of others can form their own squads instead of matchmaking. Doesn't make it an acceptable solution either way.

The ability to make your own squad and demand nobody bring it didn't stop the Tonkor being nerfed.

The ability to make a squad with no Limbos in it didn't stop Stasis being reworked.

 

With this implemented nobody has to make their own squad; the ability user and everyone who likes the influence keeps it with no change, anyone who doesn't want it can still play with those who do without having to change the way they play. Everyone wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EinheriarJudith said:

this is an online game that has matchmaking. ignoring the problem doesnt make it go away.

I agree, this problem has manifested itself across this game for years and many games since the dawn of gaming.

1) Player has an issue with what teammates commonly do.
2) Other players suggest they play by themselves or recruit their own team.
3) This is significantly more difficult and problematic because the player has to forsake easy matchmaking for the slow, manual, and laborious process of tailoring a recruiting message, posting it, waiting for people to apply, dealing with players who drop out of the team before the match begins, players who need to be dissuaded from doing what the recruiter told them not to do, players who don't know what they're doing when they enter the mission, and players doing what you told them exactly not to do once the mission begins.

This reply is related to this thread but applies to more threads in general. If a player's only solution is to avoid matchmaking, something at the core of the game could likely be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MechaKnight said:

I agree, this problem has manifested itself across this game for years and many games since the dawn of gaming.

1) Player has an issue with what teammates commonly do.
2) Other players suggest they play by themselves or recruit their own team.
3) This is significantly more difficult and problematic because the player has to forsake easy matchmaking for the slow, manual, and laborious process of tailoring a recruiting message, posting it, waiting for people to apply, dealing with players who drop out of the team before the match begins, players who need to be dissuaded from doing what the recruiter told them not to do, players who don't know what they're doing when they enter the mission, and players doing what you told them exactly not to do once the mission begins.

This reply is related to this thread but applies to more threads in general. If a player's only solution is to avoid matchmaking, something at the core of the game could likely be better.

YES!!!!!!!!!!! Exactly this. my god its good to see more common sense being used where it should. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, EinheriarJudith said:

this is an online game that has matchmaking. ignoring the problem doesnt make it go away.

Calling this a problem is not accurate. Players have playstyle preferences. You either adapt to the squad or you play alone/with players who meet your standards. If we are allowed to disable Volt Speed, what is stopping me from asking to remove Metronome/Void Shadow because I dislike how Octavia/Operators hides my FashionFrame when I use Maiming Strike near them? The ridiculousness of my statement is tantamount to the statement regarding Escape Velocity or Volt's Speed. Buffs affect gameplay and you adapt or not play with these players.

The amount of work this provides for developers is immense. They have to determine what is and isn't a "buff worthy of opting out of", and players will disagree and tell DE to expand this. It is not feasible to introduce a list of EVERY single buff in the game from EVERY source with a checklist of "Enable/Disable". My examples seem extreme, but it is purely to show how easily this erupts into more harm than good.

Edited by Voltage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IceColdHawk said:

-scratches head-

Unlike Limbo or Slowva which can prolong a mission unnecessarily, i'm struggling to see how volt speed can be a "problem".

Momentum. An experienced player can often outpace most Volts with active Speed effects by simply being more competent with the parkour system.

The effect of Speed is unpredictable - you have no idea when your ally will press the button. You have no forewarning of exactly how strong the effect will be. Largely, this results in feeling like you've been put into the worst kind of ice physics and is a generally undesirable experience.

So you backflip to clear the buff.

And then they press their button again 5-10 seconds later. Process repeats. Intrusive, wouldn't you say?

 

3 hours ago, Voltage said:

Calling this a problem is not accurate. Players have playstyle preferences. You either adapt to the squad or you play alone/with players who meet your standards. If we are allowed to disable Volt Speed, what is stopping me from asking to remove Metronome/Void Shadow because I dislike how Octavia/Operators hides my FashionFrame when I use Maiming Strike near them? The ridiculousness of my statement is tantamount to the statement regarding Escape Velocity or Volt's Speed. Buffs affect gameplay and you adapt or not play with these players.

The amount of work this provides for developers is immense. They have to determine what is and isn't a "buff worthy of opting out of", and players will disagree and tell DE to expand this. It is not feasible to introduce a list of EVERY single buff in the game from EVERY source with a checklist of "Enable/Disable". My examples seem extreme, but it is purely to show how easily this erupts into more harm than good.

I don't see why stealth effects shouldn't be included in the opt-outs if you'd rather be going toe to toe with your foe instead of them being unaware thanks to an outside source.

Anyone not teabagging nearby the Octavia, or anyone at all near their local Loki or prowling Ivara still makes that player intimately familiar with the risk of crossfire despite their own stealth, so that's not really their place to complain in that regard.

 

As for the workload, programming-wise, it's a check of a setting when seeking to apply a buff to someone in range. It's little different here than checking to see if a target happens to be immune to a certain effect (CC on bosses), or is inside Nullification fields.

The most esoteric thing in the list I gave is probably concerning bullet attraction. Others are either simple statistic changes or a state effect (Rift Plane), the latter of which is already piling on the "is this source in the same rift-state as its target" checks for any given shot or melee swing that would connect with something.
That said, there's a decent chance the melee-sourced (thrown/gunblade) override for attractors could be borrowed and applied in all cases if a player had opted-out entirely.

You may notice in the previous thread I suggested different approaches to the design in order to help with that abstraction - not needing to specify every ability of every player entity, but instead to simply correctly tag the effects associated with a given ability and let the opt-out deal with them by category.

9 hours ago, (PS4)RenovaKunumaru said:

I have non buffs that distrupt my enjoyment of the game.

Slova on defense missions

Limbo on any mission.

Saryn on exterminate. 

DE appease create a system in which I can tailor there game to the things I only want to play with.

I'm sure this was meant to be sarcastic, but it's relevant to the discussion, if only to point out that cases which did get judged as unreasonable intrusion in the past (Banshee quake and Blind Mirage, most notably) did in fact see changes as a result.

Unfortunately, there's no way to govern the effects on enemies without resulting in two completely asynchronous game states. In terms of affecting players, though, doing this makes a seamless environment where nobody has the ability to directly alter another's control without them having any agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MechaKnight said:

I agree, this problem has manifested itself across this game for years and many games since the dawn of gaming.

1) Player has an issue with what teammates commonly do.
2) Other players suggest they play by themselves or recruit their own team.
3) This is significantly more difficult and problematic because the player has to forsake easy matchmaking for the slow, manual, and laborious process of tailoring a recruiting message, posting it, waiting for people to apply, dealing with players who drop out of the team before the match begins, players who need to be dissuaded from doing what the recruiter told them not to do, players who don't know what they're doing when they enter the mission, and players doing what you told them exactly not to do once the mission begins.

This reply is related to this thread but applies to more threads in general. If a player's only solution is to avoid matchmaking, something at the core of the game could likely be better.

Well it depends a lot on how one looks at it.

What has been gone over this thread is not so much about matchmaking as much as it is humanity in general. The problem is people generally don't get along but people come to expect things to operate in certain matters. If you get placed on a team/group for your job, you either work with them or you don't. You adapt to the situations presented by forced interactions or you don't. The general rebuke to that premise is that "...but it is a game." A game doesn't automatically remove every and all aspects of life. Public matchmaking is just that dealing with the average public. If you don't wish to deal with the public, then you segregate yourself from the public not the other way around.

Besides dealing with every possible interaction is a difficult endeavor. Are we removing Frost's Globe blocking shots? Are you able to get hit from inside if you choose to ignore it? How does that function as far as calculations go? Same arguments for the Rift Plane and Limbo's grasp on those interactions. Or perhaps healing in the form of either Health or Shields? I don't want your shields recovery if I am on Chroma for certain periods. Or DR? Honestly it is better to make a more streamlined and focused matchmaking system rather than making extra exception lists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ZodiacShinryu said:

Well it depends a lot on how one looks at it.
What has been gone over this thread is not so much about matchmaking as much as it is humanity in general. The problem is people generally don't get along but people come to expect things to operate in certain matters. If you get placed on a team/group for your job, you either work with them or you don't. You adapt to the situations presented by forced interactions or you don't. The general rebuke to that premise is that "...but it is a game." A game doesn't automatically remove every and all aspects of life. Public matchmaking is just that dealing with the average public. If you don't wish to deal with the public, then you segregate yourself from the public not the other way around.

Picture the following:

You start a mission. You do half the mission. A player joins who uses the unwanted ability that directly intrudes on your gameplay.

Is that then fair to define your only options as abort (after doing some amount of work, losing all gains and causing host migration) or to suffer an unpleasant experience? No. Should this stop you from ever matchmaking to avoid perhaps one specific effect not present in every mission and squad setup? No, that's absurd. It beholds you to an unanticipated quantity.

On the other hand, is it fair for a player to join into a mission then have their gameplay beholden to the others they had no power of knowing would not appreciate what they wanted to do? I would say, also no.

Ergo, the solution must be sought that solves the problem for the recipient without restricting the source.

6 minutes ago, ZodiacShinryu said:

Besides dealing with every possible interaction is a difficult endeavor. Are we removing Frost's Globe blocking shots? Are you able to get hit from inside if you choose to ignore it? How does that function as far as calculations go? Same arguments for the Rift Plane and Limbo's grasp on those interactions. Or perhaps healing in the form of either Health or Shields? I don't want your shields recovery if I am on Chroma for certain periods. Or DR? Honestly it is better to make a more streamlined and focused matchmaking system rather than making extra exception lists.

Gara doesn't block allied shots - arguably this suggests Frost doing so is outdated and should be removed outright, not just opt-outable (there's not really any benefit to remaining opted in, here)

Affecting incoming bullets falls under the 'enemy influencing' category. This would not be under the purview of opt-out regardless.

The Rift Plane generally functions as a check on target and source of damage and whether their Rift-state matches; players opted out of Rift mechanics would be able to hit and be hit by targets in both planes in much the same way Warframe abilities override the check. I'm aware this is debatably exploitable due to Stasis (shooting frozen targets from anywhere) but needing to be reworked already shows that ability was not well thought through to begin with, and again, abilities still do it already.

There are few instances where restorations and DR are ever a bad thing, and perhaps it would be better served to look into tweaks for those few cases to remove that concern.
As a strictly advanced set of options, though, why not? On your own head be it if you want to opt away any allied help in these categories. Randoms aren't obliged to heal you up at all, so you aren't relying fully on them anyway, right?

 

A 'more refinable matchmaking system' exists in recruiting chat. Trying to allow the random matchmaking to filter more is going to be a larger headache for game health and kill diversity in many cases, where this strictly enhances diversity because nobody should ever have to worry what else ends up in the same squad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, EDYinnit said:

Gara doesn't block allied shots - arguably this suggests Frost doing so is outdated and should be removed outright, not just opt-outable (there's not really any benefit to remaining opted in, here)

Affecting incoming bullets falls under the 'enemy influencing' category. This would not be under the purview of opt-out regardless.

The Rift Plane generally functions as a check on target and source of damage and whether their Rift-state matches; players opted out of Rift mechanics would be able to hit and be hit by targets in both planes in much the same way Warframe abilities override the check. I'm aware this is debatably exploitable due to Stasis (shooting frozen targets from anywhere) but needing to be reworked already shows that ability was not well thought through to begin with, and again, abilities still do it already.

There are few instances where restorations and DR are ever a bad thing, and perhaps it would be better served to look into tweaks for those few cases to remove that concern.
As a strictly advanced set of options, though, why not? On your own head be it if you want to opt away any allied help in these categories. Randoms aren't obliged to heal you up at all, so you aren't relying fully on them anyway, right?

 

A 'more refinable matchmaking system' exists in recruiting chat. Trying to allow the random matchmaking to filter more is going to be a larger headache for game health and kill diversity in many cases, where this strictly enhances diversity because nobody should ever have to worry what else ends up in the same squad.

exactly. ive played MANY coop games and only in warframe have i ever been made to play to another players tune as seen with limbo, or have how i prefer to play interrupted as seen with volts speed. it is also important to note that snow globe blocking ally shots should have never happened since volt does not block ally shots with his shield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ZodiacShinryu said:

Well it depends a lot on how one looks at it.

What has been gone over this thread is not so much about matchmaking as much as it is humanity in general. The problem is people generally don't get along but people come to expect things to operate in certain matters. If you get placed on a team/group for your job, you either work with them or you don't. You adapt to the situations presented by forced interactions or you don't. The general rebuke to that premise is that "...but it is a game." A game doesn't automatically remove every and all aspects of life. Public matchmaking is just that dealing with the average public. If you don't wish to deal with the public, then you segregate yourself from the public not the other way around.

Besides dealing with every possible interaction is a difficult endeavor. Are we removing Frost's Globe blocking shots? Are you able to get hit from inside if you choose to ignore it? How does that function as far as calculations go? Same arguments for the Rift Plane and Limbo's grasp on those interactions. Or perhaps healing in the form of either Health or Shields? I don't want your shields recovery if I am on Chroma for certain periods. Or DR? Honestly it is better to make a more streamlined and focused matchmaking system rather than making extra exception lists.

You talk as if people who don't like finding X in random matchmaking are a super rare exception that absolutely don't represent a more major portion of the population. When similar complaints grow in number, it is obvious there's a problem. If you want to use your workplace example, understand that when you visit GlassDoor to see reviews or check recent news about the company and it is mostly bad, joining that place and expecting you'll do just fine bearing with every single issue everyone mentioned because you think you'll be superior to them or the issue won't magically happen to you isn't realistic. If there's a ton of complaints, there's probably an issue.

For example, Limbo was so hated by players that it created a toxic environment for the playerbase at large for both people who were in a squad with Limbo and people who wanted to play Limbo. Altering his Cataclysm ability to allow teammate's shots to instantly deal damage instead of being ineffectual up until Cataclysm reaches its maximum projectiles limit and Stasis suddenly breaks without warning to the detriment of your entire team was a great change.

There is no binary system--not black or white but shades of color. There are some things that are better changed than forcing people to recruit for their own squad every time, because if it is a big enough issue than many people will be forced to make their own squad instead of matchmaking, and all that does is divide the community while stressing it. The argument to change something or tell someone to recruit for their own squads goes on a case-by-case basis. Balance and changes are a community effort, and when players say something is wrong by a large enough consensus the developers would likely do the best they can to see if there is an issue before taking the time to resolve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EDYinnit said:

You start a mission. You do half the mission. A player joins who uses the unwanted ability that directly intrudes on your gameplay.

You are speaking to the wrong person if you want empathy on such a subject.

  1. If they joined halfway through my mission I wouldn't care because its almost done anyway. The mission is winding down at that point. I'm not so petty.
  2. There is almost no real circumstance that it would pose a huge problem based on how matchmaking actually works. On mission types you'd want to spend longer times in you can't have join ins after Rot A, so were talking about 5mins at most. That is early to decide what you want to do.
  3. If I was concerned about people joining in I wouldn't have been on Public to start with.
  4. I can change the way I play as it suits me. I have yet to meet a person with so much control over me (even at the peak of Limbo manipulation) to raise such a fuss.

You make a choice, you live with that choice, it is that simple.

2 hours ago, EDYinnit said:

On the other hand, is it fair for a player to join into a mission then have their gameplay beholden to the others they had no power of knowing would not appreciate what they wanted to do? I would say, also no.

If you care so much for the experience you want then it is your responsibility to control it. If you leave things to random chance then you leave the opening to get unwanted circumstances. That is how the world works.

3 hours ago, EDYinnit said:

Gara doesn't block allied shots - arguably this suggests Frost doing so is outdated and should be removed outright, not just opt-outable (there's not really any benefit to remaining opted in, here)

Affecting incoming bullets falls under the 'enemy influencing' category. This would not be under the purview of opt-out regardless.

I mean I would agree if they worked the same, but they don't. Gara's has more weak points than Frosts. Frost can hold more points and is generally simpler to use. While Gara's wall works great in enclosed spaces oddly enough it is fairly crap in open maps (and we got a whole new one coming!). While I can't say I love the limitation on Globe suggesting it is so similar to Gara's is naïve.

3 hours ago, EDYinnit said:

There are few instances where restorations and DR are ever a bad thing, and perhaps it would be better served to look into tweaks for those few cases to remove that concern.
As a strictly advanced set of options, though, why not? On your own head be it if you want to opt away any allied help in these categories. Randoms aren't obliged to heal you up at all, so you aren't relying fully on them anyway, right?

But they still exist. Honestly they are the cases I run into the most when I get annoyed. And you're right they are not obliged to heal me but since I don't have control of them and I likely didn't need them anyway, their mere presence is probably just a nuisance to begin with. AND if I really cared, I would just leave or set up my group how I wanted it. That would be my point wouldn't it.

2 hours ago, EinheriarJudith said:

exactly. ive played MANY coop games and only in warframe have i ever been made to play to another players tune as seen with limbo

You must have played some pretty simple straightforward games. I have played a handful of games where damage boosts could be trollable. Most the complaints here are honestly amusing in comparison.

2 hours ago, MechaKnight said:

For example, Limbo was so hated by players that it created a toxic environment for the playerbase at large for both people who were in a squad with Limbo and people who wanted to play Limbo. Altering his Cataclysm ability to allow teammate's shots to instantly deal damage instead of being ineffectual up until Cataclysm reaches its maximum projectiles limit and Stasis suddenly breaks without warning to the detriment of your entire team was a great change.

I wouldn't say that I didn't think Limbo had too much power over people but what Stasis is now is next to broken. With talks of invalidation of frames and playstyles, those changes to Limbo just makes him the clear winner in the roles he plays. Then you get the community raving about Vauban and Nyx because they can't compete anymore.

2 hours ago, MechaKnight said:

There is no binary system--not black or white but shades of color. There are some things that are better changed than forcing people to recruit for their own squad every time, because if it is a big enough issue than many people will be forced to make their own squad instead of matchmaking, and all that does is divide the community while stressing it. The argument to change something or tell someone to recruit for their own squads goes on a case-by-case basis. Balance and changes are a community effort, and when players say something is wrong by a large enough consensus the developers would likely do the best they can to see if there is an issue before taking the time to resolve it.

I think you missed my points. It was you decide how you want to experience the game and what dictates what is and is not playstyle affecting is on the individual user. Figuring out all those interactions is going to be next to impossible for DE. We can barely get a handful of frames looked at in a year let alone going over every power and weapon for effects that may affect someone else adversely depending on the situation. It just seems like a waste of time and resources when you can deal with it yourself in a number of ways. Honestly the best way would just be adapting with the situation. Learn how to move and attack with Speed. Understand how to work around the Rift. So on and so forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ZodiacShinryu said:

You must have played some pretty simple straightforward games. I have played a handful of games where damage boosts could be trollable. Most the complaints here are honestly amusing in comparison.

i dont call killing floor 1/2, vermintide 1/2, borderlands 1/2, ME3 MP, ME:A MP,  Diablo 2, 3 or most ARPG to be simple and that is just naming ones people recognise. even in these examples none of them gives one player the kind of control limbo has over their teammates. the whole part of coop is to work together not answer to someone who can control what you do.

Edited by EinheriarJudith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ZodiacShinryu said:

You are speaking to the wrong person if you want empathy on such a subject.

  1. If they joined halfway through my mission I wouldn't care because its almost done anyway. The mission is winding down at that point. I'm not so petty.
  2. There is almost no real circumstance that it would pose a huge problem based on how matchmaking actually works. On mission types you'd want to spend longer times in you can't have join ins after Rot A, so were talking about 5mins at most. That is early to decide what you want to do.
  3. If I was concerned about people joining in I wouldn't have been on Public to start with.
  4. I can change the way I play as it suits me. I have yet to meet a person with so much control over me (even at the peak of Limbo manipulation) to raise such a fuss.

You make a choice, you live with that choice, it is that simple.

If you care so much for the experience you want then it is your responsibility to control it. If you leave things to random chance then you leave the opening to get unwanted circumstances. That is how the world works.

1/2: Nonetheless, having to have your time wasted or experience worsened outside of your control. Don't move the goalposts.

3: I don't care about people joining in with 99/100 potential influences they bring. Therefore, the 1/100 should overrule the entirety of the 99% of passable squads? Absurd.

4: 'I' can change the way I play. What I don't want is for other people to force 'me' to change the way I play because this is a negative impact on the experience. (quotes for impersonal)

I could raise many hyperbolic counterarguments to the last point, but let's just keep things on an even level here.

By your logic, there is no defensible argument for a non-smoker to go to a public place (enclosed, for the purposes) and have any issue with the environment being full of toxic chemicals. They should organise their own, restricted event and instantiate a non-smoking policy.

This is a tax of effort, delays, time, money on anyone just wanting the baseline of an experience.

Therefore, my government saw fit to stop this being allowed and to demand that the sources of the influence seek specific areas to engage their habits where the influence could not reach those who do not willingly, directly introduce themselves to it. Public places now have designated smoking areas.

 

Now, you may argue that the analogy doesn't fit because it's 'not intended to be a positive influence', but the net result of a perceived negative influence remains (and many smokers find their own comforts in the act besides mere addiction, making it 'positive' to them but not to everyone).

Obviously, in that case, there had to be a dichotomy. There's no way to simply tell your lungs not to breathe in smoke. Here, we don't have to stop anyone being in the same proverbial room.

5 minutes ago, ZodiacShinryu said:

I mean I would agree if they worked the same, but they don't. Gara's has more weak points than Frosts. Frost can hold more points and is generally simpler to use. While Gara's wall works great in enclosed spaces oddly enough it is fairly crap in open maps (and we got a whole new one coming!). While I can't say I love the limitation on Globe suggesting it is so similar to Gara's is naïve

Gara's vitrify has always lacked allied interference even when it was a duration-based impenetrable wall (as Frost's globe originally was). Pretending they are relevantly different and never operated in any similar way is simply trying to cherry-pick information to falsely support your point.

5 minutes ago, ZodiacShinryu said:

But they still exist. Honestly they are the cases I run into the most when I get annoyed. And you're right they are not obliged to heal me but since I don't have control of them and I likely didn't need them anyway, their mere presence is probably just a nuisance to begin with. AND if I really cared, I would just leave or set up my group how I wanted it. That would be my point wouldn't it.

I already said that this could still be included in opting-out even if the preferable solution to these in particular would be to obviate reasons that restoratives and protections may hinder the gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, EDYinnit said:

1/2: Nonetheless, having to have your time wasted or experience worsened outside of your control. Don't move the goalposts.

I didn't move the goal post, you did. You make the assumption that my "time was wasted or experience worsened" but I said nothing of the sort. I couldn't be bothered with who joins my missions when I am on public; that is in fact why I am on public. To which I will refer you to point 3 again. Honestly my experience worsens by "bad" players which isn't a frame issue, it is a player skill issue.

16 hours ago, EDYinnit said:

3: I don't care about people joining in with 99/100 potential influences they bring. Therefore, the 1/100 should overrule the entirety of the 99% of passable squads? Absurd.

The way you make it sound I would have guessed the non-passable squads make up the majority not the other way around. Your hyperbole is what makes it absurd.

17 hours ago, EDYinnit said:

4: 'I' can change the way I play. What I don't want is for other people to force 'me' to change the way I play because this is a negative impact on the experience. (quotes for impersonal)

If you aren't 'pressured' to change the way you play based on your situation (in this case allies), you may as well just play solo... where you can have the experience you want because you certainly don't need them at that point. It is honestly a flip of a coin of who gets to play the victim in this sort of situation.

17 hours ago, EDYinnit said:

By your logic, there is no defensible argument for a non-smoker to go to a public place (enclosed, for the purposes) and have any issue with the environment being full of toxic chemicals. They should organise their own, restricted event and instantiate a non-smoking policy.

This is a tax of effort, delays, time, money on anyone just wanting the baseline of an experience.

Therefore, my government saw fit to stop this being allowed and to demand that the sources of the influence seek specific areas to engage their habits where the influence could not reach those who do not willingly, directly introduce themselves to it. Public places now have designated smoking areas.

 

Now, you may argue that the analogy doesn't fit because it's 'not intended to be a positive influence', but the net result of a perceived negative influence remains (and many smokers find their own comforts in the act besides mere addiction, making it 'positive' to them but not to everyone).

Obviously, in that case, there had to be a dichotomy. There's no way to simply tell your lungs not to breathe in smoke. Here, we don't have to stop anyone being in the same proverbial room.

Well there is a sort of caveat to this particular example. In what do we call "public" and is it equal to "public matchmaking". "Open to the Public" doesn't necessarily mean public. The private owners of the buildings or organizations make rules that you then abide by. "Smoking Areas" is a rule set by such subjects is more akin to recruit chat (but a more streamlined matchmaking so to say) than it is to "public matchmaking" as Warframe does it. Governmental social owned areas, which are essentially an organization for the public, only provide such spaces because of retribution not for any ones particular benefit (they have to provide accommodations under law). Besides that whole issue is less about "experiences" than it is "the physical health of individuals". If "smoke" was only about experience it certainly wouldn't be regulated like it is. What is essentially being alluded to is that the world operates closer to recruit chat than it does public matchmaking. If we want to get to true "public" we are talking about like a remote (say mountain side) area where nothing technically stops anyone from "smoking" other than personal curtesy. This is more akin to how warframe public works.

I think you have bloated "baseline experience" beyond what it is with your own ideals.

17 hours ago, EDYinnit said:

Gara's vitrify has always lacked allied interference even when it was a duration-based impenetrable wall (as Frost's globe originally was). Pretending they are relevantly different and never operated in any similar way is simply trying to cherry-pick information to falsely support your point.

Who is cherry-picking now? But even then Vitrify also blocks enemy movement which can be at the boon or detriment of your allies (which have minimal influence and ultimately no control of) experience. But I suppose you will go to the direct vs indirect interference point which honestly doesn't ring as a huge distinction to me considering you speak of "baseline experiences".

17 hours ago, EDYinnit said:

I already said that this could still be included in opting-out even if the preferable solution to these in particular would be to obviate reasons that restoratives and protections may hinder the gameplay.

I get it you think of this like a one foot forward type of thing. However I just see it as a waste of time because it doesn't promote coop it just reduces hindrance of solo play in a group. I rather put resources in more pressing matters than going through interactions with a fine toothed pick. They would be better off improving matchmaking standards. If frames should get shunned (or even too acutely favored) because of it then they have a basis to change their interactions not the other way around.

18 hours ago, EinheriarJudith said:

even in these examples none of them gives one player the kind of control limbo has over their teammates

I mean generally speaking most games don't give the player the amount of control at base that DE/Warframe does let alone speaking about Limbo. Of what you listed, I have played ME MP extensively, and I would say it is a simplistic straightforward game. After a point I could just solo the top tier content. While teammates didn't really affect each other too often there really isn't a reason to because their skills were minor in comparison to positioning (though there were some pretty great self buffs).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, ZodiacShinryu said:

 Honestly the best way would just be adapting with the situation. Learn how to move and attack with Speed. Understand how to work around the Rift. So on and so forth.

This. I'm a volt main. I don't spam speed (half the reason it's spammed so much is the low base duration, but that's for another thread.) But I use it when it's a good strategic choice. It's not too difficult to learn. I learned limbo's mechanics pretty quickly. And knowing how to work with it makes teaming up with someone who plays with that kind of buff is so much more fun. If you play on your teammates strengths, you'll do that much better. 

Speed is wonky sometimes, yeah. But once you learn the physics, it gives you a large movement speed increase and dps increase. As for the unpredictability? Sure, that could be annoying, but it takes a half second to correct a movement mistake, and a half second to react. You've lost roughly one second. Oh no. 

Limbo? What's not great about getting energy and straight up ignoring enemies you don't want to deal with? Limbo is a tactical choice. He chooses what enemies he is going to focus/ignore, and it's his allies choice if they should go along with it. It's much more effective if they do, but...

its also true that we can easily deal with it on our own. The opt out is more than most games will give you. I've never seen opt out of this buff before warframe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at the page and thought "TL;DR", but here's my 2 ducats.

It's not going to hurt DE to make an optional menu selection that lets players toggle some form of auto-block for buffs certain buffs. It might not be high-priority for them right now, with the hype train for Fortuna running at full steam, but it's still not an unreasonable request.

Now, one way to do it is to make a list of every potential buff, and give it a series of checkboxes for what you want to auto-block or allow. You'd have Public/Friends/Clan/Alliance/None, I'd say. That gives you the full swing of customisation, without overcomplicating the system. DE wouldn't need to make it fancy, it'd just be an extension of the menu (under an Advanced option or something, to avoid clutter)

Another way to do it (which would be better IMO), is to have an 'optional buffs' menu setting with a hotkey binding for Accept and Deny. Whenever you get a buff, have a small message notifying you of the buff in the corner. Simply press the Accept or the Deny hotkey to make it happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ZodiacShinryu said:
  • I didn't move the goal post, you did. You make the assumption that my "time was wasted or experience worsened" but I said nothing of the sort. I couldn't be bothered with who joins my missions when I am on public; that is in fact why I am on public. To which I will refer you to point 3 again. Honestly my experience worsens by "bad" players which isn't a frame issue, it is a player skill issue.
  • The way you make it sound I would have guessed the non-passable squads make up the majority not the other way around. Your hyperbole is what makes it absurd.
  • If you aren't 'pressured' to change the way you play based on your situation (in this case allies), you may as well just play solo... where you can have the experience you want because you certainly don't need them at that point. It is honestly a flip of a coin of who gets to play the victim in this sort of situation.
  • Well there is a sort of caveat to this particular example. In what do we call "public" and is it equal to "public matchmaking". "Open to the Public" doesn't necessarily mean public. The private owners of the buildings or organizations make rules that you then abide by. "Smoking Areas" is a rule set by such subjects is more akin to recruit chat (but a more streamlined matchmaking so to say) than it is to "public matchmaking" as Warframe does it. Governmental social owned areas, which are essentially an organization for the public, only provide such spaces because of retribution not for any ones particular benefit (they have to provide accommodations under law). Besides that whole issue is less about "experiences" than it is "the physical health of individuals". If "smoke" was only about experience it certainly wouldn't be regulated like it is. What is essentially being alluded to is that the world operates closer to recruit chat than it does public matchmaking. If we want to get to true "public" we are talking about like a remote (say mountain side) area where nothing technically stops anyone from "smoking" other than personal curtesy. This is more akin to how warframe public works.
  • I think you have bloated "baseline experience" beyond what it is with your own ideals.
  • Who is cherry-picking now? But even then Vitrify also blocks enemy movement which can be at the boon or detriment of your allies (which have minimal influence and ultimately no control of) experience. But I suppose you will go to the direct vs indirect interference point which honestly doesn't ring as a huge distinction to me considering you speak of "baseline experiences".
  • I get it you think of this like a one foot forward type of thing. However I just see it as a waste of time because it doesn't promote coop it just reduces hindrance of solo play in a group. I rather put resources in more pressing matters than going through interactions with a fine toothed pick. They would be better off improving matchmaking standards. If frames should get shunned (or even too acutely favored) because of it then they have a basis to change their interactions not the other way around.
  • A player's time can be wasted or their experience worsened by the influence. If it wasn't identified as potentially unwanted then it would not have a cleansing action to begin with. Just because you're fine with it doesn't mean everyone must be; please don't confuse the impersonal 'you' with a specific reference to yourself.
  • It depends on the content. For Volt-Speed in particular I can go from maybe 1% impact pub-running other missions, to 90% impact in relic runs. Either way, there's an issue. Shouldn't suffer from a buff, prevention > cure, and 'private squads only' is not a solution.
  • The point of this suggestion is that nobody needs to be a victim, either by enforced segregation on pain of negative influences on the experience, or by having direct alterations to existing abilities for those that do like them as they are. Hell, I liked old Limbo stasis for cracking aim-glide-headshot rivens... but the rest of the time I wanted no part of being forced into melee only.
  • This is a lot of waffle that boils down to another goalpost moving. Obviously this is not the universal 'way the world works' as you originally claimed, although it is difficult to find analogies in real life where there can be a solution where nobody needs to compromise. There is no downside for either party in the context of this thread's suggestion.
  • No, the game presents the baseline of an experience by what is designed and programmed to happen. You can go in rank 0, unmodded, and use no abilities to have that base experience. You can then alter the way you engage that experience with mods and abilities. Any other player also brings their own set of influences. But those should not change your control and gameplay directly without you having any agency in the matter.
  • Nice Tu quoque fallacy. I'm not cherry picking, and I already said that while it is infeasible to seamlessly opt out of (most) allied influences that affect enemies, it has been known to be addressed by reworks in the more extreme cases (e.g. blind Mirage).
  • I have previously described how this does in fact promote co-operative gameplay. If I wanted to avoid Speed currently electric puns I would have to abort out of any mission containing Volt (or other such influences), whereas with this implemented I would be able to play with any frame in the squad without needing to concern myself with the unwanted effect. Ergo, more viable squads without the need to abort, more welcome diversity, more co-op.
38 minutes ago, voltocitygel said:

Speed is wonky sometimes, yeah. But once you learn the physics, it gives you a large movement speed increase and dps increase. As for the unpredictability? Sure, that could be annoying, but it takes a half second to correct a movement mistake, and a half second to react. You've lost roughly one second. Oh no. 

Limbo? What's not great about getting energy and straight up ignoring enemies you don't want to deal with? Limbo is a tactical choice. He chooses what enemies he is going to focus/ignore, and it's his allies choice if they should go along with it. It's much more effective if they do, but...

its also true that we can easily deal with it on our own. The opt out is more than most games will give you. I've never seen opt out of this buff before warframe. 

It gives you a large momentum increase which is not the same thing. You play the Volt, you know what your speed modifier is and you know when it's on. I get matched with any number of Volts, and it objectively slows me down because I have no way of knowing what power strength they have attached to the damn thing, so it is guaranteed to break my parkour flow (plus muscle memory), and backflipping every 10 seconds for each new cast intrudes on my game over and over.

It's like having someone jump into a game at random that turns the level into ice-physics. No thanks.

Limbo also doesn't just choose what enemies he focuses on - it's entirely possible for anyone else in the squad to be unable to attack wide swathes of enemies after a Cataclysm-Surge-Cataclysm puts them all into 'targeted' Rift; until that times out and unless Limbo provides Rift access to other players, nothing they can do.

Heck, even WoW lets you remove most buff effects with a right-click, and they added in a specific item that helps deal with some potential grief abilities by using it as a long lasting, preemptive opt-out.

Edited by EDYinnit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to opt out of Desecrate. DE pls. 

 

But in all seriousness, what's stopping you from simply... I dunno... staying away from those teammates? Why should your play preferences affect their playstyle, if you can't stand having the situation be the other way around?

What's so bad about spending -- at a reasonable maximum -- 20 minutes with someone who is doing something that you have the ability to walk away from? On Survival, Capture, Spy, Rescue, Exterminate, Interception, and Excavation missions, you have the opportunity to simply not interact with these people. In Defense missions, you can simply drop out at 5. Abilities have a maximum range, and just as they are free to build for, as well as use, those abilities, you are free to leave their range, as well as the mission.

Plus, a majority of the community does not have problems with many of the buffs you have called attention to, and they simply adjust their playstyles accordingly. Actually, many people view them as buffs, whereas you view them as nuisances, and I honestly don't think your minority is large enough to warrant catering to, considering how much effort it would take on DE's part to implement a 'fix.'

If it's actually so bothersome to you that you'd rather leave the mission than deal with it, there's nothing stopping you. The inability to adapt and endure is 100% a you issue. It's not anything else, and it's definitely not something the likes of DE can fix.

Edited by Axio.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, EDYinnit said:

It's like having someone jump into a game at random that turns the level into ice-physics. No thanks.

Fair enough. I can understand it, at least. It takes me around a second to adjust when a volt with a different power strength uses speed. Like I mentioned though, the current opt out would work better if the duration was longer. Then the people who wanted it wouldn't have to cast all the time, and the recipients wouldn't have to opt out constantly. 

Put in the same situation, I'd learn to adapt to it, but that's probably easier knowing how to deal with the ability to begin with. 

As for limbo, it's hard to get a better squad mate than a good one. Unfortuneately that isn't always what happens, and that's what people complain about the most. Limbo is a slippery slope. He's good and powerful if used well, but if used poorly can send everything downhill. It doesn't help that the community has ostracized limbo players, so they don't even know who they are welcome to include in their tactics.

i understand the rationale behind your idea- I'm just not 100% for it. It would be handy sometimes, but it'll be difficult to pull off without ruining most of what makes warframe fun- being awesome with your team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...