Qol Host Privileges & Changes/lobbymaking Suggestions

[Noteybook]

Okay, I've been here long enough to realize that there isn't exactly a whole lot you can do about bad players. I mean, unless you have a frame that can antagonize them enough to keep them in line. (I'm not encouraging trolling, btw. Except with friends. ;) )

 

So, in light of recent changes and nerfs to frames due to said bad players (Peacemaker Spam, WoF spam where it isn't necessary, etc, etc), I believe we need to change lobbymaking. For example, we all remember when Mesa first came out, people who would spam Peacemaker on places like Sechura and thus rob teammates of having any fun killing anything. Or how WoF works now, where an Ember can just afk and kill everything, rendering the rest of the team pointless. (Please note I am NOT advocating any frame nerfs-nerfing frames doesn't fix the problem of bad players, it only punishes players who genuinely love a frame)

 

So, with all this in mind, I have a 3 step solution. 

 

1] Give hosts the option to kick players

 

Why host and not votekick, you ask? Because votekick on it's own is very easily abused( See L4D, L4D2, etc). But, if the host is trying to make a specific game setup and there is someone refusing to listen, why should the host not be able to kick them? Think especially when it comes to Raids and Void missions, where specific setups are needed.

 

But what if the host is a $&*^? Well, then, that mission was kind of already fubar, so you don't exactly lose that much out of it. (Also, you should get rewards up to X point if you yourself get kicked, so you don't have someone really being an &#!).

 

2] Give hosts a more dedicated lobbymaking UI

 

This speaks for itself, just a QoL suggestion. I think of games like Killing Floor 2/Padyday in terms of lobbymaking, with how slick the lobby itself looks, and how hosts have more options to change difficulty/map/other settings. What we have right now for Raids so far is a GREAT start! If we could improve on that more, for regular gameplay, I think that would be good direction for further changes.

 

3] Give hosts the option to say which frames they do/don't want in a lobby

 

Okay, this one might sound mean-but how many of you have been in a high level mission, and someone brought a frame that had no business being there? Like Mag on Ceres, or Frost on Infested? It's detrimental to the team when there is a lack of frame synergy to the current mission/objective.

And, yes, this doesn't always matter as much on lower levels, but on higher level missions such as Derelicts, Void, and those level 40+ planets, your guns can only account for so much. How much nicer would it be if you could say, "I don't want to play with X frame because it detracts from what I'm trying to do" ? I know many of us had that feeling when Mesa came out, with Peacemaker. And Ember right now.

 

 

tl;dr All in all the reason I even made these suggestions is that I've seen a lot of people expressing how much they dislike X or Y frame because they are so effective at killing, that it renders the rest of the team pointless. Instead of nerfing the frame itself, and taking fun away from players who have sunk time and money into that frame, why not instead address the problem of bad players, and players who are irresponsible with their powers?

 

I mean, I like playing Ember. I like her WoF-but I know it's really annoying for some people, because they'd like to get some kills in, too. That's why I don't spam it unless it's in an appropriate situation. Same for other frames that are very effective at killing. I don't want to see a frame nerfed because of irresponsible players, I want those players to be held accountable instead of everyone suffering because of them.

 

If anyone has any better suggestions, please share them, because I'd like to find a solution that works well for everyone.

[Morty2989]

Nothing would make me happier than seeing option #3 implemented.

 

There are so many players trying for so many different things in so many different areas, I really don't see the problem with it. Hell, I'd take a percentage XP hit for the match just for being allowed to black list some frames here and there. 

 

I know someone is going to throw a fit about driving a wedge between the player base with something like this but if you are the AFK WoF Ember who plays nothing but, well...you are the problem. XP might be shared but the rest of us would like to play the game too. I have't logged 2k+ something hours over the last three years so I can sit there and watch you do nothing on the other end of the map while you're AFK.

 

There are what, 25 or so different frames right now, minus prime variants? I don't think letting people who are really bothered on specific maps in certain scenarios filter out a pet peeve or two WHILE THEY ARE HOSTING hurts anything at all.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Morty2989

[Magnulast]

This should only be implemented for Tool-frame. 

There is no doubt.

 

I will always black-list rhino, limbo, and atlas.

 

I use valkyr on spy missions(I have a 99.9999% chance to perfect a vault on all missions), and if someone ONLY allows loki or ash, this system is broken.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Magnulast

[djternan]

There should absolutely be a kick option for host in pre-formed squads but this option should not be available to public matches.  If you make your own squad through recruiting and someone doesn't want to switch to the frame you asked for you should be able to kick them without having to reform the squad.

 

I will agree that WoF and Peacemaker spammers are not fun to play with but that may be the play style that person enjoys using.  When you entered a public match you took the risk of getting people you don't agree with though.  You can always leave the mission and start a new one, play in solo, or get a group of like minded people to go with you.

[Morty2989]

 

I use valkyr on spy missions(I have a 99.9999% chance to perfect a vault on all missions), and if someone ONLY allows loki or ash, this system is broken.

 

Which is fine but you're assuming every player on every spy is going to limit things. I'm sure the majority of people do not care.

 

And in regards to djteran's thoughts on the matter. I don't appreciate the notion that we just have to deal with people wanting to be uncooperative because that's their 'style'. Why do I get the short end of the stick? I have plenty of friends who play but we can't always get a full four person team going and all it takes is one random on that fourth slot and things are ruined. If the majority of players are ok with the open lobby then you can enjoy the company of the small percentage I don't want to associate with, deal?

Edited November 2, 2015 by Morty2989

[HowDenKing]

[...]

I will always black-list rhino, limbo, and atlas.

[...]

if someone ONLY allows loki or ash, this system is broken.

That is the reason why Option #3 is a bad thing.

There will be too many ppl that will simply ban every frame expect the 1-8 frames they want for that mission and everyone who could do the mission just as good with any other frame will be told to go and fk himself.

 

Also... why blacklist rhino, limbo and atlas? rhino cuz casuals? limbo cuz of the possibility of a troll? can't even think of a reason for atlas, as his wall has been nerfed to let ppl walk thru.

Edited November 2, 2015 by HowDenKing

[Noteybook]

There should absolutely be a kick option for host in pre-formed squads but this option should not be available to public matches.  If you make your own squad through recruiting and someone doesn't want to switch to the frame you asked for you should be able to kick them without having to reform the squad.

 

I will agree that WoF and Peacemaker spammers are not fun to play with but that may be the play style that person enjoys using.  When you entered a public match you took the risk of getting people you don't agree with though.  You can always leave the mission and start a new one, play in solo, or get a group of like minded people to go with you.

 

You're right, there needs to be a separation of pre-formed squads and public matches. It would be great if, like you said, if the host could kick in a pre-made lobby without having to reform the squad.

 

That is their right to play that way, and I'm not advocating they change it. Maybe, instead, a player can have an option to not play with X frame online? So, if I'm playing public matches, I could have a frame filter for X or Y frame so I don't get put in a lobby with them. Although I'm not sure how that'd translate to people joining the lobby I joined, since there are so many frames anymore.

 

 

This should only be implemented for Tool-frame. 

There is no doubt.

 

I will always black-list rhino, limbo, and atlas.

 

I use valkyr on spy missions(I have a 99.9999% chance to perfect a vault on all missions), and if someone ONLY allows loki or ash, this system is broken.

 

I know I have some frames I'd like to blacklist from my games. Or even players! (you can mute them and ignore but not blacklist them from your games? That'd be a nice option!)

 

I'm not sure how you'd work out the kinks between different players not wanting certain frames in their games. There are a TON of people that play WF though, so the player pool is thankfully not so tiny. I'm just trying to figure out an option that helps people deal with things they don't like instead of constant nerf threads.

[Noteybook]

That is the reason why Option #3 is a bad thing.

There will be too many ppl that will simply ban every frame expect the 1-8 frames they want for that mission and everyone who could do the mission just as good with any other frame will be told to go and fk himself.

 

There are a lot more people that play WF then you think-and with the new starmap rework coming up, people will actually have more of a reason to play the starmap, so it won't be as dead as it is right now. I know right now it's very hard to find pub squads for certain parts of the starmap, but with this rework there should hopefully be major improvements to that.

 

I see that Option 3 can be problematic, but at the same time there ARE some frames right now that will take the fun out of other players' hands. How do we fix that? I hate frames getting nerfed, and the only other option is a type of votekick or filter so people can play at peace. I want people to be more accountable because the lack of accountability is getting frames nerfed due to spamming(See: Mesa).

 

There are going to be people that hate a frame no matter what and are going to want that filtered, but there's nothing to be done about that.

[Magnulast]

That is the reason why Option #3 is a bad thing.

There will be too many ppl that will simply ban every frame expect the 1-8 frames they want for that mission and everyone who could do the mission just as good with any other frame will be told to go and fk himself.

 

Also... why blacklist rhino, limbo and atlas? rhino cuz casuals? limbo cuz of the possibility of a troll? can't even think of a reason for atlas, as his wall has been nerfed to let ppl walk thru.

I hate rhino, that's why, I honestly don't mind limbo but...he's limbo. Atlas.....well...I forgot the reason.

 

 

You're right, there needs to be a separation of pre-formed squads and public matches. It would be great if, like you said, if the host could kick in a pre-made lobby without having to reform the squad.

 

That is their right to play that way, and I'm not advocating they change it. Maybe, instead, a player can have an option to not play with X frame online? So, if I'm playing public matches, I could have a frame filter for X or Y frame so I don't get put in a lobby with them. Although I'm not sure how that'd translate to people joining the lobby I joined, since there are so many frames anymore.

 

 

 

I know I have some frames I'd like to blacklist from my games. Or even players! (you can mute them and ignore but not blacklist them from your games? That'd be a nice option!)

 

I'm not sure how you'd work out the kinks between different players not wanting certain frames in their games. There are a TON of people that play WF though, so the player pool is thankfully not so tiny. I'm just trying to figure out an option that helps people deal with things they don't like instead of constant nerf threads.

If we can get a poll, maybe that could prove a huge point in proving that this system is not corrupt.

 

 

 

NOTE* I use a valkyr with overextended on, I use a lot of melee with the combination of paralysis. Why does no one play zephyr(I use her 40% of the time)?

 

I want to have a fun time, not  some restricted measure to restrict frames, but to restrict skill.

Jk, screw restrictions. mr0 on raids!

 

I honestly hate restricted raids, so it's not my interest to approve of this, It's like parkour 2.0 vs. tipedo coptering, we didn't know if parkour 2.0 was much slower than tipedo. However parkour 2.0 was just fine or even better. 

 

As long as this system is under-powered i'm fine with it. MR8 cannot restrict a MR9 perhaps?

Edited November 2, 2015 by Magnulast

[Morty2989]

To be clear, yeah I'd appreciate any of the above as HOST options, I kind figured that went without saying. If everyone filled out a hate sheet and the matching making had to account for that, good lord.

[Noteybook]

I hate rhino, that's why, I honestly don't mind limbo but...he's limbo. Atlas.....well...I forgot the reason.

 

 

If we can get a poll, maybe that could prove a huge point in proving that this system is not corrupt.

 

 

 

NOTE* I use a valkyr with overextended on, I use a lot of melee with the combination of paralysis. Why does no one play zephyr(I use her 40% of the time)?

 

I want to have a fun time, not  some restricted measure to restrict frames, but to restrict skill.

Jk, screw restrictions. mr0 on raids!

 

I honestly hate restricted raids, so it's not my interest to approve of this, It's like parkour 2.0 vs. tipedo coptering, we didn't know if parkour 2.0 was much slower than tipedo. However parkour 2.0 was just fine or even better. 

 

As long as this system is under-powered i'm fine with it. MR8 cannot restrict a MR9 perhaps?

 

 

To be clear, yeah I'd appreciate any of the above as HOST options, I kind figured that went without saying. If everyone filled out a hate sheet and the matching making had to account for that, good lord.

 

 

Maybe have it host-only, then. While MR restrictions sound good, I feel like that mind end up being needlessly complicated.

 

Maybe have this only as a host's option-and have an option for a player to slect "start new lobby as host" when doing a node? As well as having just the public matchmaking that we have right now.

[Magnulast]

Well, my aweSOME opinion on this is simple, if we don't have the data on how many people approve of this we cannot place it in the game. This system is only restriction based, and there is no benefit to this system, if you type a few more words into the recruiting chat I don't see this as a issue.

If this is implemented on public, well, DE's servers are going to crash. We don't know if the star chart is going to be SO and SO. So we don't know if this idea is good or not, we cannot judge it by any point, or standard that is out there.

 

Mr locking is a jerk move(to everyone below another), hence we have to wait for the NEW MR.

same for star chart, we are waiting for a rework.

[MagPrime]

Okay, I've been here long enough to realize that there isn't exactly a whole lot you can do about bad players. I mean, unless you have a frame that can antagonize them enough to keep them in line. (I'm not encouraging trolling, btw. Except with friends. ;) )

 

So, in light of recent changes and nerfs to frames due to said bad players (Peacemaker Spam, WoF spam where it isn't necessary, etc, etc), I believe we need to change lobbymaking. For example, we all remember when Mesa first came out, people who would spam Peacemaker on places like Sechura and thus rob teammates of having any fun killing anything. Or how WoF works now, where an Ember can just afk and kill everything, rendering the rest of the team pointless. (Please note I am NOT advocating any frame nerfs-nerfing frames doesn't fix the problem of bad players, it only punishes players who genuinely love a frame)

 

So, with all this in mind, I have a 3 step solution. 

 

1] Give hosts the option to kick players

 

Why host and not votekick, you ask? Because votekick on it's own is very easily abused( See L4D, L4D2, etc). But, if the host is trying to make a specific game setup and there is someone refusing to listen, why should the host not be able to kick them? Think especially when it comes to Raids and Void missions, where specific setups are needed.

 

But what if the host is a $&*^? Well, then, that mission was kind of already fubar, so you don't exactly lose that much out of it. (Also, you should get rewards up to X point if you yourself get kicked, so you don't have someone really being an !).

 

2] Give hosts a more dedicated lobbymaking UI

 

This speaks for itself, just a QoL suggestion. I think of games like Killing Floor 2/Padyday in terms of lobbymaking, with how slick the lobby itself looks, and how hosts have more options to change difficulty/map/other settings. What we have right now for Raids so far is a GREAT start! If we could improve on that more, for regular gameplay, I think that would be good direction for further changes.

 

3] Give hosts the option to say which frames they do/don't want in a lobby

 

Okay, this one might sound mean-but how many of you have been in a high level mission, and someone brought a frame that had no business being there? Like Mag on Ceres, or Frost on Infested? It's detrimental to the team when there is a lack of frame synergy to the current mission/objective.

And, yes, this doesn't always matter as much on lower levels, but on higher level missions such as Derelicts, Void, and those level 40+ planets, your guns can only account for so much. How much nicer would it be if you could say, "I don't want to play with X frame because it detracts from what I'm trying to do" ? I know many of us had that feeling when Mesa came out, with Peacemaker. And Ember right now.

 

 

tl;dr All in all the reason I even made these suggestions is that I've seen a lot of people expressing how much they dislike X or Y frame because they are so effective at killing, that it renders the rest of the team pointless. Instead of nerfing the frame itself, and taking fun away from players who have sunk time and money into that frame, why not instead address the problem of bad players, and players who are irresponsible with their powers?

 

I mean, I like playing Ember. I like her WoF-but I know it's really annoying for some people, because they'd like to get some kills in, too. That's why I don't spam it unless it's in an appropriate situation. Same for other frames that are very effective at killing. I don't want to see a frame nerfed because of irresponsible players, I want those players to be held accountable instead of everyone suffering because of them.

 

If anyone has any better suggestions, please share them, because I'd like to find a solution that works well for everyone.

1} I'm always in favor of more player control.  In premade lobbies, giving the host the ability to kick players is logical.

 

2} Not familiar with any references here. 

 

3} Pass.  I main Mag and take her everywhere, why should I be punished by someone that has their head stuffed up the meta?  

 

Besides, 3 would be redundant with 1 in place. 

[DeMonkey]

1) In lobbies only. And only then. Mid mission, no. Keeping rewards earned up to that point doesn't stop someone kicking you right before extract causing you to miss out on the end of mission reward.

 

2) I don't see why not.

 

3) No. I think this is more an issue with bad players than bad frames. Mag is fine on Ceres for instance, she can still restore shields, she can still pull and her crush augment removes their armour.