A List of Simple Solutions for Leechers on Open World Bounties / Jobs.

[ThumpumGood]

50 minutes ago, Flandyrll said:

Once again, "I have dictated that the reward is useful for me" therefore, you should have to put up with people not participating in the mission and contributing something with subjective value. Change it to the Kubrow's Dig ability as the example.

That ammo and energy is that it digs up every minute is "game changing and massively beneficial" to me, therefore, it is "contributing to the team". The core of the argument is terrible and the solution is essentially eating a chocolate bar out of the trash because "I like chocolate".

The mission is- collect 4000 whatever.. If you arent killing mobs,,, you are NOT contributing and therefore, wasting everyone's time and putting the mission at risk of failure. PERIOD. No convoluted story about ammo is going to change that. Im not going to stop and run for ammo when the mobs drop it and there are containers near me to hit for that kind of thing. If you arent doing the mission objective, you need to be kicked. End of discussion.

Edited November 25, 2018 by ThumpumGood
typo

[RX-3DR]

8 minutes ago, ThumpumGood said:

The mission is- collect 4000 whatever.. If you arent killing mobs,,, you are NOT contributing and therefore, wasting everyone's time and putting the mission at risk of failure. PERIOD. No convoluted story about ammo is going to change that. Im not going to stop and run for ammo when the mobs drop it and there are containers near me to hit for that kind of thing. If you arent doing the mission objective, you need to be kicked. End of discussion.

As with the other thread, you're throwing bombs at the wrong person. I'm breaking down the argument of "reward sharing" as a solution.

The problem is that some people view their subjective value of something being contributed as an excuse for non-participation. It has no fundamental basis beyond just "I'm contributing something so it's acceptable" which is why I bring in the Kubrow Dig example where there is virtually no one who will defend the value of it unlike Gems where some people think that getting 30 Goblite from a leecher is a fair trade. If one can use the excuse that, "I like getting Goblite so you should be happy for me leeching", it can easily be switched around to 10 Plastids, some ammo and energy or any other item.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Flandyrll

[ThumpumGood]

Look at it as an addon this time =D

[--Cyberius--]

Why not just insist players pick up an ID tag in middle of mission area, 1 for each part of the mission where there is a set area involved - no ID Tags = no bounty.

[Eisdschungel]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb PsyaNydeUK:

Why not just insist players pick up an ID tag in middle of mission area, 1 for each part of the mission where there is a set area involved - no ID Tags = no bounty.

this would be troublesome for fast parts (spy, search Caches) for Players that dont own an archwing launcher yet. when the Mission is possible to do in less than 30 seconds, you basicly get no loot when one Squad member owns an itzal. unless we say one tag is enough to Count as Bounty done, in which case leechers will  get the first tag and leech the rest. also, ist an additional nuissance for Player that are solo / not leeching / leeching with the other squadmates beeing ok with it (in our clan, if some1 hasnt enough time for max Standing we do leech rounds so that this Person gains standing faster)

[Messkoo]

how many time do I have fighting corpus in objective area without realizing that we are already in the next step and I m far away my teammate ...

Edited November 25, 2018 by Messkoo

[ArcKnight9202]

I was thinking that if there was an active bounty, all mining, fishing, and conservation activities could become hazardous. What I mean by this is that whenever someone mines/fishes/whatever, there's a chance the acquired item could be a bomb of sufficient strength to kill the player. Being far from the party, they wouldn't get revived. They would exhaust their revives and either have to leave or die out.

This explosion would be sufficient to destroy sentinels and hampering Sacrifice. (Maybe it could ragdoll the player a long distance, too.) To prevent honest players from getting really hosed by this, it would only increase in likelihood the more times the activity is performed. First time is 0% for X amount of time.

It's not an elegant solution but it's hilarious. I'm sure there are problems with this so feel free to point those out. Could you imagine going to claim your tiny mouse trophy only to have it explode and kill you? What about that super-rare Orokin fish turning out to be an ancient Orokin explosive device?

This also has no impact on players who literally aren't able to keep up for one reason or another.

Edited November 27, 2018 by ArcKnight9202

[Helch0rn]

3 hours ago, ArcKnight9202 said:

I was thinking that if there was an active bounty, all mining, fishing, and conservation activities could become hazardous. What I mean by this is that whenever someone mines/fishes/whatever, there's a chance the acquired item could be a bomb of sufficient strength to kill the player. Being far from the party, they wouldn't get revived. They would exhaust their revives and either have to leave or die out.

This explosion would be sufficient to destroy sentinels and hampering Sacrifice. (Maybe it could ragdoll the player a long distance, too.) To prevent honest players from getting really hosed by this, it would only increase in likelihood the more times the activity is performed. First time is 0% for X amount of time.

It's not an elegant solution but it's hilarious. I'm sure there are problems with this so feel free to point those out. Could you imagine going to claim your tiny mouse trophy only to have it explode and kill you? What about that super-rare Orokin fish turning out to be an ancient Orokin explosive device?

This also has no impact on players who literally aren't able to keep up for one reason or another.

Wukongs Defy would be the new meta

[RX-3DR]

8 minutes ago, ChaosSabre said:

Honestly the simplest solution would be if someone is just mining or fishing during a bounty to give all players in squad those resources as well.

The person not helping in bounties is getting the bounty rewards and you get to actually play and enjoy the game without having to spend your time on boring stuff like fishing and mining. It's a win-win situation in both scenarios.

Here we go again.

If I'm giving you 10 Plastids per minute while leeching all your rewards in Bounties, is it winning? Only person winning is the leecher who doesn't even need to fish or mine, he can just leech that too.

[Fishyflakes]

Honestly I would just opt out of this.

[RX-3DR]

7 minutes ago, ChaosSabre said:

If we are talking bout leechers who don't do anything that is a problem yes. They shouldn't get anything. But someone who is just doing mining and fishing and getting bounty rewards as well while you get nothing doing the bounty but bounty rewards, a system like this would be benefit both if resources gained from those would be shared. Here is the thing getting 10 plastids is useless. Coz you can just slaughter massive amounts of enemies and get those passively. In that case it would be pointless. But the open world resources don't function that way. To get mining and fishing resources you need to actively go out of your way to not have fun. Mining and fishing is boring for me and for lot of other players as well. If some other poor soul would spend whole bounty doing that and I had fun and got to jump around and shoot stuff ( you know reason I play warframe ) I'd be happy with that. Even if he got me just 10 goblite per minute in whole mission that's like 100 goblite I saved never having to spend into boring farming mechanics.

I saw you comparing to Kubrow Dig before. If Kubrow Dig would get me open world resources while I was out there using it you'd bet I'd be using that doggo every single mission.

So basically, if you decide that a resource is worthwhile to you, it is a justification to promote more leeching?

Like it or not, it's part of the game, you have to deal with it. I don't like Arbitrations, it's boring to me and likely to a lot of other players. If spectating a person (while taking up slots in the squad) gave him 1 Void Trace per minute, would it be alright for me to spectate a person running Arbitrations and receive the same rewards as him?

Ultimately, no, people who decide to join a bounty should be there to do the bounty, they may want to do other things on the side but the primary objective is to complete the bounty.

[RX-3DR]

15 minutes ago, ChaosSabre said:

Well people don't like farming plains resources. Just coz it's worthless to you means it's worthless to everyone?

Also coz it's a part of the game doesn't mean I'll do it. I hate arbitrations as well. So I don't play them. There is nothing in that worth anyway to farm for.

I don't like mining and fishing. So I don't do it. But you can't build all the new stuff if you don't do it. I don't care. If it's not fun to do I'm not gonna do it. So I didn't do it. The only exception was when I got the resource login booster. That's it. A bounty system change like that is a pure benefit for me in every way. Hell if it's up to me everyone else in team can go off  farming while I solo a 4 man bounty myself.

But main reason this would not happen coz it would cut down on "content" in orb vallis. Not only would everyone abuse a system like that to get a lot of resources you could easily get so much gems to fuel your fortuna standing without ever playing it.

The player just farming resources in a bounty, while doing a ass move, is the smart player in this situation. Since they get all the benefits with no downsides at all.

 

Do you not see the problem here? You're basically admitting that your subjective opinion is more important than everything else.

I'm not saying it's worthless to everyone else, I'm saying the value of what a leech would contribute is not valuable to everyone which is part of the reason why you cannot implement such a system and claim it is win-win for everyone.

On the topic of Arbitrations, you're basically saying, "I don't want anything from it, so you shouldn't be allowed to leech your way to get all those items." Whether you like the rewards or not doesn't matter, the problem is that such a system is once again, allowing people to maliciously leech while providing an excuse.

The reason why DE shouldn't push such a solution is something you admitted yourself, it's promoting bad, selfish behavior.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Flandyrll

[Kuestenjung]

Everything you propose is around a bounty area, but there are several bounties without an area, but what actually makes me mad about your ideas is the fact, that I should be punished because of leechers.

If I am going solo or with a friend I shouldn´t be able to do others stuff while also doing a bounty? That is even worse then having a leecher.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Kuestenjung

[KIREEK]

5 minutes ago, ChaosSabre said:

Honestly the simplest solution would be if someone is just mining or fishing during a bounty to give all players in squad those resources as well.

The person not helping in bounties is getting the bounty rewards and you get to actually play and enjoy the game without having to spend your time on boring stuff like fishing and mining. It's a win-win situation in both scenarios.

That is a very good idea, but only if it's planed, open areas are still areas where you need to know what is a primary objective and what isn't, if 3 players decide to fish and mine, that leaves 1 player to do the primary objective and thus the same principles of reporting someone applies, if someone is intentionally avoiding the primary objective, that could be troublesome for the accounts of said players.

Isn't a report the simpliest way of dealing with the issue, works everytime

[KIREEK]

13 minutes ago, ChaosSabre said:

Yea but there is a no report button for afk or leeching in warframe. And they wouldn't be afk or leeching. They'd be getting you resources.

yes, but that's not the primary objective, if a mission fails and someone is clearly not helping, a valid report can be done.

You can also report for afk, via support that is, provided you have decent communication skills and have proof

[Kuestenjung]

Am 25.11.2018 um 07:24 schrieb ThumpumGood:

The mission is- collect 4000 whatever.. If you arent killing mobs,,, you are NOT contributing and therefore,

You obviously don´t know how to efficiently collect credits, it´s not by killing enemies, it´s by cracking containers.

[(PSN)negativ21]

On 2018-11-24 at 12:23 AM, Flandyrll said:

1. Point was to let you know that people have came up with this idea and that it's not a good one. Problem is that this solution has terrible long-term possibility and is only effective in a "I get more stuff" short term.

2. It helps to create more detriment to the players running the bounty by setting a new "efficient meta" that is 1 person running the bounty and 3 people fishing/mining to "maximize gains". Short term sure, he got a few Glappids because it just so happened someone was fishing Glappids. Long term, this will become more commonplace.

Could you be more clear as to why this is a bad idea. Your saying that be it will in effect encourage "leeching", except that by that point it won't be leeching anymore, since everyone benefits from everyone's actions. It would be redefined as cooperation at that point.

Sure there are several micro arguments that could be made about specific situations where this would be bad, like difficulty completing bounties, or maybe no one wanting to do one thing or the other.

But, the fact is that problem will solve itself. If the bounty isn't being completed cuz a lower level player is the one doing the fighting while the rest are fishing, someone will help them out, cuz if they don't they lose their benefits and its not worth it anymore. And I can tell u not everyone will do one or the other. I myself would prefer fishing sometimes or fighting sometimes depending on my mood, and I would think (probably) the community would be the same in that they reach their own equilibrium on that. There a number of similar situations that the community will find it's own solution for. 

The benefits of this kind of change would be amazing for player satisfaction and alleviating the grind. Probably the only reason DE might br reluctant is bc it reduces the ridiculous fishing/mining grind they seem to enjoy pushing on us. 

Personally when it comes to dealing with unwanted behaviour in any context i always find diversion or conversion of incentives to be more effective in dealing with those people than straight up fighting, and I think this embodies that.

[(PSN)negativ21]

1 hour ago, ChaosSabre said:

My statement wasn't that if it was implemented it would promote bad selfish behavior, it's that the way it currently works RIGHT NOW is promoting bad selfish behavior. If you look at it from standpoint of someone who doesn't have a lot of time to play Warframe going into a bounty picking up your mining and fishing resources while everyone else is doing the bounty is the most optimal and fastest way to progress through fortuna content. You'd be getting resources to build items, rewards from bounties and standing to use those resources. The only one losing out in current system is the players actually playing the game. If those resources were actually shared there'd be no extra gain on certain side

Exactly. Idk if this is understood, but that solution is by no means promoting "leeching" bc by that point it is no longer leeching. It becomes something beneficial to all and thus not negative in connotation. 

Also generally I don't think using arbitration as an example helps the discussion any as that is a (supposedly) elite game mode while bounties are supposed to be relatively early game content open to many players required for a LARGE number of things (standing, resources, parts, etc). How much ppl need and how many need it is on different magnitudes. It's alot more likely that people will need all the resources/standing/etc if they are playing bounties relatively. 

[MysticDragonMage]

3 hours ago, Kuestenjung said:

Everything you propose is around a bounty area, but there are several bounties without an area, but what actually makes me mad about your ideas is the fact, that I should be punished because of leechers.

If I am going solo or with a friend I shouldn´t be able to do others stuff while also doing a bounty? That is even worse then having a leecher.

so i'd like to clarify that while, yes, most of the suggestions is based around a specified area for the bounty, there is a way this could all work. suggestion #5, #3, and #2 (on in the case of loot dropped by enemies) will simply not apply if there is no specified area for the bounty.

will edit the topic soon.

Edited November 27, 2018 by MysticDragonMage

[(PSN)negativ21]

Some of these issues people have like with playing with a friend in a specific way would also be more effectively solved by having the "leechers" rewards be shared. In fact that would incentivize squads from clans/alliances or friends to go in together and encourage more co-op play by plan, which would by definition discourage leechwork bc more planned full/locked squads means less open ones to join in. But that argument is retroactive.

[MysticDragonMage]

seeing as there have been a lot of comments with ideas to share loot once the bounty is complete, i'd like to share my own input as to why i strongly disagree with this idea.

it would be inconsistent with how the game currently works.

players dont share loot at the end of regular missions because it encourages even leeches to at least move around and collect items on their own in order to get the optimum reward. while it could be said that it would be nice for one friend to collect while the other to plays the objective, there is nothing stopping a player from doing both while the other continues to leech the optimum reward by doing nothing. not everyone is going to have a friend available and the devs need to take casual players into account weather some like it or not.

this concept will encourage more leeching than it is now, because then leechers would have an excuse. the goal here is to have everyone participate in the bounty they have chosen like every other regular mission.

regardless of it being an open world, the game you play is still warframe. when you have physically chosen a mission, commit to that choice and do that mission. nothing else is necessary and i personally dont care if i get extra fish or rep because of loot sharing. i care about players participating in the missions they have physically chosen.

[Gullim92]

The amount of people who think this is a non-issue simply because they take turns with their friends and clanmates going off to mine and fish during bounties is ridiculous, so let's just separate them from the equation by doing something like this.

Is the squad a public instance? > Disable all non-essential mission equipment during bounties (IE: mining, fishing, conservation, etc).

Is the squad a friends-only or Invite-only instance? > Let them do whatever they want

 

Then add this:

If a player spends a bounty stage outside the designated bounty zone, they get a chat message reminding them that a bounty is in progress. If they spend a second stage outside the area, they get another message and a penalty to rewards (like 50% less standing or no item rewards like kuva, relics, etc). If they spend a third bounty outside the stage, the rest of the squad gets a notification to vote kick, selecting yes or no, majority votes win and the leecher is automatically kicked and stripped of rewards.

For bounties without a designated area this does not apply, and I don't know if bounties with less than 5 stages should still give 3 "strikes" or scale them down. For now this is what I have.

Opinions?

[ThumpumGood]

7 hours ago, Kuestenjung said:

You obviously don´t know how to efficiently collect credits, it´s not by killing enemies, it´s by cracking containers.

If the containers are near what you are killing - IE inside the buildings at the grow sight - then more power to ya... there's mobs near there. But your comment is a distraction... apply that logic to killing 65 Moas... you cant so just stop.

 

[(PSN)negativ21]

To be fair I was addressing the clan/squad players for their sake. I'm a casual friendless player myself, and I still think this is a good idea. 

3 hours ago, MysticDragonMage said:

players dont share loot at the end of regular missions because it encourages even leeches to at least move around and collect items on their own in order to get the optimum reward. while it could be said that it would be nice for one friend to collect while the other to plays the objective, there is nothing stopping a player from doing both while the other continues to leech the optimum reward by doing nothing. not everyone is going to have a friend available and the devs need to take casual players into account weather some like it or not.

this concept will encourage more leeching than it is now, because then leechers would have an excuse. the goal here is to have everyone participate in the bounty they have chosen like every other regular mission.

We may have to agree to disagree here. You seem to be saying this solution is detrimental bc it encourages leechers, but id argue where is the detriment. If I'm doing a fortuna bounty (when it's out) and some random decides to catch fish instead and I don't particularly need his help (more mobs for me to test my builds on) then by all means. He's not a leech anymore, he's a favorable business partner.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like ur primary rejection reason is out of principal, like following through on a mission. 

Bottom line, if people are going to find ways to leech anyway, if we implement this and if we don't, at least take this route and give the honest players some benefit too.

[ThumpumGood]

26 minutes ago, (PS4)negativ21 said:

To be fair I was addressing the clan/squad players for their sake. I'm a casual friendless player myself, and I still think this is a good idea. 

We may have to agree to disagree here. You seem to be saying this solution is detrimental bc it encourages leechers, but id argue where is the detriment. If I'm doing a fortuna bounty (when it's out) and some random decides to catch fish instead and I don't particularly need his help (more mobs for me to test my builds on) then by all means. He's not a leech anymore, he's a favorable business partner.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like ur primary rejection reason is out of principal, like following through on a mission. 

Bottom line, if people are going to find ways to leech anyway, if we implement this and if we don't, at least take this route and give the honest players some benefit too.

If you want to test your build, solo it. If you want to complete as quickly as possible so that you can do other things, having them not help kills that. Kicking them gets the message across. Nothing more annoying than to try and get things done in a limited amount of time than having some one drag things down. I have no life. Im retired. I have all day to play games. But I was a business owner and with the limited gaming time I had as a business owner and a dad, people slowing things down was unacceptable. Alerts, Bounties, Invasions, Fissures, Sorties... these are meant to be done fast. If you want to slow down and fish, min or break open containers, go solo directly to Orb Vallis or the Plains of Eidelon or a Syndicate mission or even a mission anywhere else on the map. Then take your time and do whatever your heart desires. It's Rude to waste people's time. And last I checked, this is an 18+ game and most of you have jobs.