Jump to content
Dante Unbound: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

We Really Need A Report Play Function In This Game


malrock
 Share

Recommended Posts

as the title says we really need a report function in this game ive been grouping with random players the last few days and the amount of trolls and toxic behavior is getting out of control, was in a nightmare timed mission with some guy who refused to use the activation point because " TROLLOLOL WE GOT ALL TIME IN WORLD I GO EAT YOU ENDLESS DEFENCE" we need some sort of punishment system for players like this its getting out of hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you ask for a local personal player blacklist function instead. Much better and will improve player behaviours. You get warned if a blacklisted player joins or is part of a group you join or are playing in. You can then choose to leave or not. If blacklisted players try to join a game you are hosting, you get an allow deny click message, if you ignore, after n seconds, it disappears and they can't join.

After a while, the players who exhibit Toxic behaviours in game will get fewer, as they realise, more and more people, don't want them in their games. People won't exclude people for no reason, because of they do, they simply won't have enough players to enjoy their games..........everybody wins and it requires no policing.

Note: I said a LOCAL blacklist, not server side.

Until then, you still have the ultimate say, as you can leave a game any time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reporting option alone isn't going to do anything for you, you still need a gamemaster to do something about it, now with 3 odd million players or so, the idea of giving users the option to self moderate would be more practical.

For example, DE could give the host more power over his game (kick options, black lists).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reporting option alone isn't going to do anything for you, you still need a gamemaster to do something about it, now with 3 odd million players or so, the idea of giving users the option to self moderate would be more practical.

For example, DE could give the host more power over his game (kick options, black lists).

 

Allowing the host to kick is just empowering the trolls that get selected as host. Also, there would certainly be people, that would otherwise not be trolls, that kick players at extraction just out of spite for action or the lack of during the mission.

Edited by Karma_Ghost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allowing the host to kick is just empowering the trolls that get selected as host. Also, there would certainly be people, that would otherwise not be trolls, that kick players at extraction just out of spite for action or the lack of during the mission.

You prefer DE having to babysit a horde of players?

The game should be clearer about who is hosting in the first place, the matchmaking should be less muddy and you should be able to see who is in a lobby before joining it. Who is hosting should be a setting too.

We don't need to be handheld, we need options to help ourselves.

Edited by NIL0S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You prefer DE having to babysit a horde of players?

The game should be clearer about who is hosting in the first place, the matchmaking should be less muddy and you should be able to see who is in a lobby before joining it. Who is hosting should be a setting too.

We don't need to be handheld, we need options to help ourselves.

 

When did I say anything about babysitting? I said giving ONE player the ability to kick EVERYONE else is a bad idea. What part of that doesn't make sense to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did I say anything about babysitting? I said giving ONE player the ability to kick EVERYONE else is a bad idea. What part of that doesn't make sense to you?

The part where said player is the host, and should have power over his own game he has set up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@NIL0S

And what will invariably happen is people come to the forums, or the support pages, and QQ at DE because they were kicked from a rare BP alert mission right before extraction by a troll.

And what happens when said troll sits on mercury and just kicks every single player who joins his game? Think that wont hurt the survivability of this game when the first introduction a player has to this games community is being repeatedly kicked?

A blacklist would be infinitely better because it wouldn't allow for it to be used to troll and would eventually push the trolls out of the game because if they continually troll they wouldn't be able to play with anyone else.

If a kick must be implemented though it should be a vote kick where there are certain conditions that have to be met before it can be used to avoid its use in trolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part where said player is the host, and should have power over his own game he has set up.

 

Host doesn't set up anything. Host is seemingly random in public (online) games. Giving a random player power over every other player invites unwarranted kicks.

 

In the case that you're inviting specific players to your game, trolling generally isn't an issue anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were you ever in games where there was a vote to kick, and random troll starts a vote, then everybody pushes the kick button just for the sake of it? I saw that plenty of times. Both methods are flawed if you start from a negative perspective. I don't really care how but we need more control over our experience in Warframe, that's all i'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@NIL0S

And that's why if a vote kick is ever implemented it needs some way to prevent the trolling, such as conditions.

The conditions can be:

-Been afk for X amount of time

-Been in a seperate room from the rest of the group for X amount of time (this will catch rushers, turtlers and people who weight down W to avoid the pure afk kick)

-Been holding the spy datamass for X amount of time when the rest of the team is at extraction

-Been holding the deception/MD datamass for X amount of time when the rest of the team is at the tile to use it

Those are just examples and can be expanded, but that will catch quite a few of the trolls without opening the vote-kick to be used for trolling itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point i'm trying to bring across is that if you give more power to players themselves they will sort themselves out.

That's the positive approach.

If you spend more resources on moderating through game masters (reports have to be sifted through by SOMEONE at the end of the day) or putting in place arbitrary conditions (like mentioned) you risk overdoing it all and overextending through limitations.

That's the negative approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were you ever in games where there was a vote to kick, and random troll starts a vote, then everybody pushes the kick button just for the sake of it? I saw that plenty of times. Both methods are flawed if you start from a negative perspective. I don't really care how but we need more control over our experience in Warframe, that's all i'm saying.

 

Requiring 3 people to make the decision is far less likely to result in an unwarranted kick than when decided by one person, who you seem to assume will always be you.

 

Here's a highly probably scenario if host can kick whenever he wants:  You're playing survival and you're trying to collect as many mods and resources as you can. The host dies and no one manages to revive him.  The host doesn't want to wait for the map to end, so he kicks everyone, including you. 75% of contributing players get nothing because one person (Host) was impatient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wut?

 

You're arguing that only the host should have the ability to kick, completely disregarding the possibility of trolls/griefers occupying that slot. 

 

Your counter argument for vote-kicking is that a troll might start a vote and everyone kicks a random player. You claim that requiring consensus and/or conditions is the "negative approach". What's to prevent that same troll from just kicking you outright if he/she is host?

 

You're assuming that the host is going to be you or someone else that might be responsible enough not to kick for trivial things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Karma_Ghost

Exactly.

Without some form of conditions on a vote kick it WILL be used for trolling. There's no two ways about it. You *cant* expect the majority of players that can be hosts to be reasonable and responsible with giving them the power to just kick anyone at any time.

Thats like putting a steak on the ground in a dog kennel and not expecting any of the dogs to eat it. Just wont happen. The fact of the matter is is that there will be far more bad hosts who will abuse a "host can kick anyone any time" option than people who will use it responsibly. And it would just break Pugs completely.

Whenever you give people complete anominity and immunity to the reprocussions of what they do they will abuse anything and everything they can in general.

And kicking is no different.

The only way to prevent that is to limit the ability, and vote-kick with conditions is the most logical way to do it.

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...