Ban Pick Option?

[Metalgearfox]

Playing with Mesas can turn a fun defense / inception / survival / excavation into forum browsing, facebooking, online banking...

 

Ending up with a Mesa in your party is pretty much the worst thing that can happen.

 

Could we get the option to screen out certain frames from being grouped with us?

 

Got the idea from the MMOchamp mega thread: http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1246597-Megathread-Warframe/page20

Edited May 9, 2015 by Metalgearfox

[BEESANDTREES]

I don't know why people really feel the need to play mesa as it is

not letting anyone else shoot aside it's sort of a boring playstyle

[Metalgearfox]

I don't know why people really feel the need to play mesa as it is

not letting anyone else shoot aside it's sort of a boring playstyle

 

Farmville is more of a fast pace shooter than playing an ult spec mesa.

[nms.]

If people were able to blacklist frames, mastery ranks, minimum equipment rank, conclave ratings, from their matchmaking pairings, a lot of crap threads wouldn't make it to the forums. The same applies to newbies that want to play trivial exterminate missions like metal gear solid and a saryn, that does not give a flying f*ck about the mission because he has played that type around 200 times before, runs through it in 1 minute, then they come to the forums asking for nerfs. Then they complain nonstop, filling the first 5 pages of a subforum, when the frame is nerfed (see excalibur).

 

If you don't want to be paired with certain frames and/or ranks, you should be allowed to have that choice.

Edited May 9, 2015 by nms64

[Bobtm]

Not gonna lie, I've always hated this idea in and of itself.  There are a lot of frames that end up with a bad rap, sometimes even for hilariously off-point reasons based on nothing more than things not hitting the meta.  Would you believe me if I told you Loki was once considered to be a very weak frame?  Now imagine if players had been allowed to blacklist Lokis from their games, it's just bad news all in all.

 

There are always going to be non-favorable things involved with playing with randoms in an online game.  It's the nature of the beast really.  Now of course it's good to have appropriately usable countermeasures to report folks who cause legitimate problems in one's matches, but there's no justifiable reason to let folks just ban others from using stuff.

 

Mesa being able to auto-fire with one's brain set to off is of course problematic, however banning Mesas from games will also hurt those who don't operate under these sorts of playstyles as well.  This is why I'm opposed to this non-solution, it's not going to fix anything.  Beyond that, what kind of conflicts would arise should players end up in a match with different folks having different blacklisted frames?

 

All stuff like this does is perpetuate more frame hatred amongst the playerbase, and that's not something we need more of.  Mindless and endless 4 spam stuff is surely a problem, no question there.  But this isn't a good solution for that problem as far as I'm concerned.

 

 If you don't want to be paired with certain frames and/or ranks, you should be allowed to have that choice.

We do have that choice, it's called using the recruiting channel.  Random public matches don't need pointless bias filled restrictors upon them.

[nms.]

 

We do have that choice, it's called using the recruiting channel.  Random public matches don't need pointless bias filled restrictors upon them.

Well, look at that. How many times has that very same line not been posted on threads with people wanting to nerf X, or hating on X because they don't like it, and all the other humans call out the person that made such suggestion "short" minded because things shouldn't work like that. Truly, what a conflicted community.

Edited May 9, 2015 by nms64

[Bobtm]

Well, look at that. How many times has that very same line not been posted on threads with people wanting to nerf X, or hating on X because they don't like it, and all the other humans call out the person that made such suggestion "short" minded because things shouldn't work like that. Truly, what a conflicted community.

There's a really big disparity amongst the things you're likening to one another here.  A frame's existence (should someone merely dislike it) is not an automatic threat the the balance of a given game's gameplay.  A _______'s existence (should it be vastly more effective than other choices in its category) is a threat to the balance of a given game's gameplay.

 

Games are designed with an intended minimum degree of challenge.  Developers don't necessarily want players to be able to succeed at a task with their eyes closed and by operating the controls with their feet.  Things that are legitimately overpowered can very easily cause that absurd thing I said above to be more than doable, hence the call for nerfs being reasonable there.  This is why "don't like it don't use it" cannot be a thing in regards to game balance.

 

However, it's a different case when you're calling pure bias of enjoyability into account.  For instance, a lot of players find Banshee to be bad or lacking.  On the contrary she's a very powerful but not gamebreaking frame.  Allowing players to just ban her from existence means Banshee players cannot just hop into normal matches.

 

What you've said is like comparing a motorcycle to a sea cucumber.  There's no conflict involved within these two things because they're entirely different in every concievable way.

[Metalgearfox]

Not gonna lie, I've always hated this idea in and of itself.  There are a lot of frames that end up with a bad rap, sometimes even for hilariously off-point reasons based on nothing more than things not hitting the meta.  Would you believe me if I told you Loki was once considered to be a very weak frame?  Now imagine if players had been allowed to blacklist Lokis from their games, it's just bad news all in all.

 

There are always going to be non-favorable things involved with playing with randoms in an online game.  It's the nature of the beast really.  Now of course it's good to have appropriately usable countermeasures to report folks who cause legitimate problems in one's matches, but there's no justifiable reason to let folks just ban others from using stuff.

 

Mesa being able to auto-fire with one's brain set to off is of course problematic, however banning Mesas from games will also hurt those who don't operate under these sorts of playstyles as well.  This is why I'm opposed to this non-solution, it's not going to fix anything.  Beyond that, what kind of conflicts would arise should players end up in a match with different folks having different blacklisted frames?

 

All stuff like this does is perpetuate more frame hatred amongst the playerbase, and that's not something we need more of.  Mindless and endless 4 spam stuff is surely a problem, no question there.  But this isn't a good solution for that problem as far as I'm concerned.

 

We do have that choice, it's called using the recruiting channel.  Random public matches don't need pointless bias filled restrictors upon them.

If DE makes a frame so odious to play with that I end up considering logging off rather than sticking through it, there should be a way for me to opt out of that S#&$.

 

Now, you say that "mindless and endless 4 spam stuff is surely a problem" but DE isn't doing anything about it (they are making it worse) and large swaths of the population seem to enjoy this farmville eske play style.

 

DE has a profit incentive to keep those players in game.

However, DE shouldn't subject me to their BS.

Let those people play with each other and let the people who actually like using guns, aiming, moving ect play with each other.

[Bobtm]

If DE makes a frame so odious to play with that I end up considering logging off rather than sticking through it, there should be a way for me to opt out of that S#&$.

 

Now, you say that "mindless and endless 4 spam stuff is surely a problem" but DE isn't doing anything about it (they are making it worse) and large swaths of the population seem to enjoy this farmville eske play style.

 

DE has a profit incentive to keep those players in game.

However, DE shouldn't subject me to their BS.

Let those people play with each other and let the people who actually like using guns, aiming, moving ect play with each other.

But like I noted, where does this leave players like me who utilize Mesa without doing an impersonation of a stationary turret for the entirety of a match?  Not every Ash is gonna smack Bladestorm all day, not every Saryn is a chronic Miasma spewer, not every Excalibur is a javelin addict.

 

Then you've even got frames like Limbo, Volt, or Banshee whom players regularly misconstrue as being weak/useless to a team scenario (for reasons I can't even begin to comprehend) and yet we can be assured many will blacklist them.  I can't imagine how difficult it would be for an Ember player to just hop into a map in a higher leveled map.  By the time they did get a hit it'd likely be 4 Embers due to rampant closed-mindedness amongst the community.

 

Beyond that, there's the underlying issue with these blacklists that I made a note of before and that's the fact that everyone is going to have a different listing set here.  If it only picks based on who's hosting, you're still going to inevitably end up with mindless 4-spamming Mesas anyways should you be unlucky enough to join a host who doesn't blacklist Mesa.

 

One can't just slather it on and say, use everyone's blacklists either since there's a strong possibility that, through the cross-listings, that you'd end up with every frame except the first two to join banned.  Unlikely of course, but possible.  And there are other oddities involved, meaning the only viable way to implement it is to have it host reliant.

 

AoE spamming is a problem which we agree on, but we don't see eye to eye on this proposed solution.

 

If it really does end up being host reliant (since it's otherwise impractical), how is it really any different than just having players run private sessions with their own preconcieved rules?

__________

 

As a sidenote;  We can't really say DE is constantly and only incentivizing 4-spamming here.  They've made repeated attempts to reign it in, and are slowly (very slowly) making headway there.  Granted it's been a painfully slow proccess but hopefully we'll get to a point where "Homer's drinking bird" goes by the wayside in its entirety.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Bobtm

[TheVanguardKing]

As much as I wish I could have done this to novas back in the day, i think this would be a pretty terrible idea.

 

Considering they are nuking the star map to increase player density (among other things), dividing the player base based on every players whimsy would be counter productive.

[Metalgearfox]

But like I noted, where does this leave players like me who utilize Mesa without doing an impersonation of a stationary turret for the entirety of a match?  Not every Ash is gonna smack Bladestorm all day, not every Saryn is a chronic Miasma spewer, not every Excalibur is a javelin addict.

 

Then you've even got frames like Limbo, Volt, or Banshee whom players regularly misconstrue as being weak/useless to a team scenario (for reasons I can't even begin to comprehend) and yet we can be assured many will blacklist them.  I can't imagine how difficult it would be for an Ember player to just hop into a map in a higher leveled map.  By the time they did get a hit it'd likely be 4 Embers due to rampant closed-mindedness amongst the community.

 

Beyond that, there's the underlying issue with these blacklists that I made a note of before and that's the fact that everyone is going to have a different listing set here.  If it only picks based on who's hosting, you're still going to inevitably end up with mindless 4-spamming Mesas anyways should you be unlucky enough to join a host who doesn't blacklist Mesa.

 

One can't just slather it on and say, use everyone's blacklists either since there's a strong possibility that, through the cross-listings, that you'd end up with every frame except the first two to join banned.  Unlikely of course, but possible.  And there are other oddities involved, meaning the only viable way to implement it is to have it host reliant.

 

AoE spamming is a problem which we agree on, but we don't see eye to eye on this proposed solution.

 

If it really does end up being host reliant (since it's otherwise impractical), how is it really any different than just having players run private sessions with their own preconcieved rules?

__________

 

As a sidenote;  We can't really say DE is constantly and only incentivizing 4-spamming here.  They've made repeated attempts to reign it in, and are slowly (very slowly) making headway there.  Granted it's been a painfully slow proccess but hopefully we'll get to a point where "Homer's drinking bird" goes by the wayside in its entirety.

Pretty easy solution.

Only give players 1 ban pick per player.

 

So I could put "mesa" as my black list. four players, even without overlap, leaves, what? 12 other frames?

[Bobtm]

Pretty easy solution.

Only give players 1 ban pick per player.

 

So I could put "mesa" as my black list. four players, even without overlap, leaves, what? 12 other frames?

While I'm still 100% opposed to the concept in question, this metered approach is more reasonable.  It's no stretch of the imagination to see players singling out some frames for the wrong reasons.  Throwing everyone who uses X in the same boat purely due to generalizations and whatnot.

 

Like noted, I'm an example of a Mesa who sees her 4 as a thing only to be used in a panic situation when things are becoming overwhelming rather than a constant stream of boringness.  I personally see a lot of Rhino players who, for lack of a better word, are absolutely horrible at this game.  Always rushing off with the thought that they can handle everything on their own and subsequently failing spectacularly to do so.  Then whining when nobody is near to assist them.

 

Even given this blacklist option, I'd still not ban Rhinos from my games as I'm aware of the fact that there are capable Rhinos out there.  Playing a random matchmade game means I may run into that particular breed of unicorn.

 

All in all, I just feel like these types of things are entirely in contradiction to what a random match is supposed to be.  They're there for folks who just want to jump in with anyone without worrying about team composition or the like.  Restrictions and such are the reason Private matchmaking options exist.  Doesn't mean my viewpoint is right or that this couldn't be a thing.  But I'll always be a voice against this type of suggestion each time it pops up on the forums.

[Kayblis]

So you'd rather sabotage a potentially good group/ruin the game for pretty much everyone because you hate a frame?

Talk about being obnoxious...

[nms.]

There's a really big disparity amongst the things you're likening to one another here.  A frame's existence (should someone merely dislike it) is not an automatic threat the the balance of a given game's gameplay.  A _______'s existence (should it be vastly more effective than other choices in its category) is a threat to the balance of a given game's gameplay.

 

Games are designed with an intended minimum degree of challenge.  Developers don't necessarily want players to be able to succeed at a task with their eyes closed and by operating the controls with their feet.  Things that are legitimately overpowered can very easily cause that absurd thing I said above to be more than doable, hence the call for nerfs being reasonable there.  This is why "don't like it don't use it" cannot be a thing in regards to game balance.

 

However, it's a different case when you're calling pure bias of enjoyability into account.  For instance, a lot of players find Banshee to be bad or lacking.  On the contrary she's a very powerful but not gamebreaking frame.  Allowing players to just ban her from existence means Banshee players cannot just hop into normal matches.

 

What you've said is like comparing a motorcycle to a sea cucumber.  There's no conflict involved within these two things because they're entirely different in every concievable way.

I'm gonna keep it brief and say, that I agree with what you said. However, that applies to nerf threads that are objective with a valid constructed reason that considers almost all view points possible. Nearly all nerf threads have no basis at all, are based on limited exposure of levels in the game, based on sheer personal dislike, or on a completely personal view point of what the person believes is "right" for himself. So what I said, does apply to a lot of nerf threads. If not, for instance, feel free to let me know how just greedy pull itself lets you play the game with your eyes closed and with the controller at your feet at a 100-120 enemy range in t4, how it trivializes every aspect of the game at a proper level the frame is built for. And, how valid would the solution "if you don't want to play with a greedy mag, just, filter using the recruit chat" be. Considering the cases where the person will solo it, or will not have a full and optimal party. Have fun. I sense a typical reply in the sorts of "if you can't understand that then you are a ret*rd", possibly not from you, but I'll just go with it.

 

I suppose a major mistake from DE was giving us the tools to fight against lvl 100 enemies, but not moving that difficulty down to the 30-40 range nodes. Would love to see if the same arguments would roll around in that scenario. Another major, is not implementing a tier system to prevent overkill from overpowered builds at low levels. These two cause people to want all guns to do the same damage at the same rate, all frames doing the same damage or having the same damage reduction in the same fashion. I admit, my agreement with this idea is not based on this mythical balance, but because I'm tired of the same overly subjective 'reasons' for nerfs that have plagged the forums lately and in months before (soma/boltor prime). This will allow these people play in their own shut world.

Edited May 13, 2015 by nms64

[Metalgearfox]

So you'd rather sabotage a potentially good group/ruin the game for pretty much everyone because you hate a frame?

Talk about being obnoxious...

Upvoted 4 times by mesa players, no doubt.

 

Those who consider mesa groups "good groups" wouldn't have the game ruined by my having a banpick option.

They would just never end up grouping with me. 

[sushigut]

Playing with Mesas can turn a fun defense / inception / survival / excavation into forum browsing, facebooking, online banking...

 

Ending up with a Mesa in your party is pretty much the worst thing that can happen.

 

Could we get the option to screen out certain frames from being grouped with us?

 

Got the idea from the MMOchamp mega thread: http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1246597-Megathread-Warframe/page20

Would this not be in a way, taking a step back? Think about the huge amount of people who want a Gmag, Mesa and Nekros. Now think about the fact that you cannot join a big percentage of people who like that pairing. 

 

If this option were to be implemented, I feel like the community would be split into tiny little groups of bias. Excluding a community from each other just because one Warframe has a stereotype, is possibly the worst thing that could happen to this game

[sushigut]

Upvoted 4 times by mesa players, no doubt.

 

Those who consider mesa groups "good groups" wouldn't have the game ruined by my having a banpick option.

They would just never end up grouping with me. 

But Mesa is a popular Frame, you are shutting yourself away from quite a lot of people because you are biased amongst a certain type of player? Not every Mesa plays like a Turret you know, there are lots of viable ways to play as Mesa without even needing Peacemaker

[(PSN)Killmoves37]

I play Mesa almost exclusively and I don't think I've even used peacemaker in the last week. Your suggestion would make it really difficult to find a match. I'd probably just stop playing Warframe all together.

[tris1]

Loads of frames can do the same. Mesa isn't op though her damage falls of easily at higher level

[Yonm]

Matchmatching is already pretty bad as it is. The upcoming elimination of the majority of nodes may fix that, but THIS would only make it worse. There are just too many frames with the potential to ruin your gaming experience.

 

Aside from the obvious troll frames (Loki, Vauban, Valkyr), a lot of frames can just straight up steal everyone's kills with their abilities. If it's not Mesa, it'll be Saryn, or Oberon or even Ember. It'd be easier if you just banned abilities altogether, which would be a pretty interesting option in and of itself if you wanted a challenge, but not viable for regular match making at all.

 

This is also a terrible idea because it could work the other way. Unscrupulous players would just use it so they'd always get the best possible squad of frames together, no matter what they play. The only obvious solution is to just play solo, with friends, or go to the recruiting channel.