Low Qualification For End Game Missions.

[Tenno29543]

2 hours ago, Noamuth said:

Quote the entire sentence, please, first, and second, if they were meant to be taken together, I wouldn't have put them into individual lines, in a bulleted list.

Is English your second language?  'Cause I'm getting that impression. 

again,... you did not reply to my full reply

[MagPrime]

Just now, BigBlackCook said:

again,... you did not reply to my full reply

Nor are you responding in full to my comments.  

To be honest, I'm done.  This entire idea isn't healthy for the game and you're asking for the wrong reasons.

[taiiat]

12 hours ago, .Jet. said:

Being MR 4 I can easily solo Sorties. Being MR 15+ you should be able to drag all your team easily.

using an alternate account is disingenuous as it doesn't represent what the system (while certainly imperfect) does completely intend to gauge - likeliness of player understanding and experience.

19 minutes ago, BigBlackCook said:

people worked hard for their high MRs

no they didn't. nobody has. not a single Player. because there is no 'hard work' involved in doing so.

Edited July 7, 2016 by taiiat

[Tenno29543]

3 hours ago, Noamuth said:

Nor are you responding in full to my comments.  

To be honest, I'm done.  This entire idea isn't healthy for the game and you're asking for the wrong reasons.

Of course, if you have the bias from the start, nothing i said would help would it? o and when did i read "i am done", that's right, from my older posts about the topic.. so you are contradicting your self again. Going bak to your points.. you told me to not influance how others play while suggesting changes in MR qualification.. explain to me how you're not contradicting your self again?

Edited July 7, 2016 by BigBlackCook

[Evanescent]

38 minutes ago, taiiat said:

using an alternate account is disingenuous as it doesn't represent what the system (while certainly imperfect) does completely intend to gauge - likeliness of player understanding and experience.

no they didn't. nobody has. not a single Player. because there is no 'hard work' involved in doing so.

With Draco around, make that a certainty.

Farming bunches of XP does not game-mechanic expertise make.

[Tenno29543]

3 hours ago, Evanescent said:

With Draco around, make that a certainty.

Farming bunches of XP does not game-mechanic expertise make.

u ned a lot of draco rounds to get from mr 0 to 12 or over.. Yes, running draco does not mean a player is good but can you say every high rank is a draco runner? on the other hand, does it make lower MRs  more experience than higher MRs? Plus, if you run a lot of draco chances are you have good gear.

Edited July 7, 2016 by BigBlackCook

[Incrodon]

As a MR16 [or seventeen, I forget at times], I feel like I should Say I get along just fine in nightmare raids despite having no Corrupted/Prime Mods, hell I have next to no augments or completed mods aswell or even forma'd anything; I blame 600+ hours of the only damage mods were 45% elemental mods and that firerate and multishot mod.
I know that I am a rather, rare case as most my rank are fully kitted out while I'm still using a barley modded Wyrm Prime but the point I want to make is, people with high mastery ranks are only more garenteed to have such equipment.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Incrodon

[Tenno29543]

2 hours ago, Incrodon said:

As a MR16 [or seventeen, I forget at times], I feel like I should Say I get along just fine in nightmare raids despite having no Corrupted/Prime Mods, hell I have next to no augments or completed mods aswell or even forma'd anything .
I know that I am a rather, rare case as most my rank are fully kitted out while I'm still using a barley modded Wyrm Prime but the point I want to make is, people with high mastery ranks are only more garenteed to have such equipment.

dat is exactly what i am trying to say.

[(PSN)WiiConquered]

12 minutes ago, BigBlackCook said:

u ned a lot of draco rounds to get from mr 0 to 12 or over.. Yes, running draco does not mean a player is good but can you say every high rank is a draco runner?

No, but what we can say is Mastery Rank has weak correlation to how effective a player is, which is exactly why people are shooting down your suggestion. If you know many high rank people run Draco, and it doesn't make them good, then why would you punish players who may be just as good if not better, but didn't use Draco?

[Evanescent]

1 minute ago, BigBlackCook said:

u ned a lot of draco rounds to get from mr 0 to 12 or over.. Yes, running draco does not mean a player is good but can you say every high rank is a draco runner? on the other hand, does it make lower MRs  more experience than higher MRs? 

That is a very tricky argument. Just as you defend that not all high MR are draco farmers not all MR 4s are useless. From my experience I rarely run with MR 4, the difficulty acts as a gear check in itself.

[TheLexiConArtist]

You realise nothing mechanically prevents a player from entering Sorties, no matter what their MR is, with a completely unmodded frame and weapons, right? As long as their Warframe is rank 30, it doesn't care.

 

If you want to tighten restrictions, then there's a few far more fundamental steps that need to be taken first.

 

That said, I can see a few things on that "soloing sorties at MR4" player that clearly paints the exception rather than the rule for what someone likely has at such a rank. Notice the suspicious lack of mod showcasing? Hell, I doubt I even had Rage, QT and Beserker, much less fully ranked and used, at MR4; to say nothing of toting a beefed-up Nikana Prime on a Warframe that directly benefits from melee. I still don't even have Life Strike, which I see on there too.

It's just not the realistic expectation of what an MR4 is likely to have. If you have all that stuff modded up to the eyeballs, and you weren't deliberately staying low-MR, you most likely will already have naturally gained more Mastery than that. Assuming you even bother doing your Mastery tests, which you aren't forced to either...

Edited July 7, 2016 by EDYinnit

[(PSN)Final_Dragon01]

Dear lord,

*predicts next thread closed for non-constructive posts*

Anyway, in my small attempt to bring some semblance of reason to this thread, let me start with saying there is no hard and fast way of determining the quality of a player.  Time played, mastery, and mod collection are all bad absolute measurements with obvious flaws.

The OP has a point in that 'real' (looking at you @.Jet.) mastery rank 4 players cannot in any real way contribute to sorties and raids.  Sadly OP responded with anger rather than logic to the replies so the topic got derailed.

OP is correct that 'real' mastery rank 4 players cannot contribute to raids or sorties.  However, I do see an issue with allowing access to such content.  If new players want to turn Warframe into Dark Souls that's up to them.  The point I think OP missed was that most of the time veteran players pull unskilled players to and through content.

He is also correct that veteran players pulling people through content is poor preparation for the unskilled players actually completing that content under their own power.

My suggestion would be a mentor system so the unskilled player can borrow power temporally from a mentor so they can 'skill up' while they rank up.

But seriously guys how can we better train our new player for sorties and raids?

[(PSN)abbacephas]

4 hours ago, (PS4)Final_Dragon01 said:

But seriously guys how can we better train our new player for sorties and raids?

This is a game where you learn by doing. The only way for new players to get better at sorties and raids is to actually go in and do sorties and raids. Sure, running around doing regular missions gives new players a taste of what happens in sorties and raids (by simply doing similar mission types). But the actual challenge of these so called 'end game' activities can only be appreciated by doing them. As such, veteran players (and please note, I'm not saying high MR players, because I'm sure we all agree that means diddly squat) have to be willing to teach new players by taking them on sorties and raids. 

 

If a player wants to bemoan the follies of allowing low MR players the opportunity to face these challenges, a number of suggestions have been put forth in this thread (viz. using invite only mode, running these missions with friends or running them with clanmates and not PUGing them) as to how they can avoid them. 

 

The OP needs to recognize that they are not the be all end all of this game and that they were once a 'low MR' player as well. If it were not for the charity of more veteran players, they probably wouldn't be where they are today.

[TheLexiConArtist]

2 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

If it were not for the charity of more veteran players, they probably wouldn't be where they are today.

Good catch on the 'probably', because some of us, as you said, learned through doing, entirely on our own, or with similarly unknowing buddies.

Sadly, you fell into the fallacy of "opt-out". The excuse to go solo/private to not have a detriment to your game is invalid and I could (and have) write many posts as to why.

 

The correct solution is opt-in; to create stricter matchmade restrictions that better enforce Reasonable Expectations for any given member of a public group, while allowing these restrictions to be bypassed by a private group where the members know what they're letting themselves in for.

Veteran players should choose to teach newer players how to Sortie, not be forced to do so by arbitrary matchmaking. Additionally, veterans in public games have a high likelihood of bringing the cheesiest strategies available (pre-LoS Blind Mirage on Interceptions, for example) which give the newer players zero productive experience out of the mission.

Edited July 7, 2016 by EDYinnit

[(PSN)abbacephas]

7 minutes ago, EDYinnit said:

The correct solution is opt-in; to create stricter matchmade restrictions that better enforce Reasonable Expectations for any given member of a public group, while allowing these restrictions to be bypassed by a private group where the members know what they're letting themselves in for.

Is this not the express purpose of the Recruitment Chat: To tailor your requirements when hosting a match? You enter a public forum, state the mission you are running, define the criteria by which you want to run the mission, and then recruit a squad accordingly. By imposing restrictions on a public group you are, by definition, creating a private group. The fact that a group is public means that it is free of restrictions. 

[TheLexiConArtist]

1 minute ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

Is this not the express purpose of the Recruitment Chat: To tailor your requirements when hosting a match? You enter a public forum, state the mission you are running, define the criteria by which you want to run the mission, and then recruit a squad accordingly. By imposing restrictions on a public group you are, by definition, creating a private group. The fact that a group is public means that it is free of restrictions. 

Wrong. The purpose of a private group is to tighten or relax existing (public) guidelines; these existing guidelines that should be set to give unknowingly matched players the best chance of having their fellow players fall within a set of reasonable expectations. That they should neither have to carry, nor be carried by (unwillingly; a.k.a. being marginalised by others) people they didn't choose to fulfil such roles.

 

In a properly designed public matchmaking system, you should neither be given a liability nor made irrelevant.

It's why you see gear and level limitations on public dungeon matchmaking in MMORPGs, both lower and upper limitations to ensure a player should be able to do their job and clear the content (as far as the mathematics go, skill and competence can be another question entirely) without having so much raw power (through overlevelling) that they prevent others from contributing.

[(PSN)abbacephas]

15 minutes ago, EDYinnit said:

In a properly designed public matchmaking system, you should neither be given a liability nor made irrelevant.

It's why you see gear and level limitations on public dungeon matchmaking in MMORPGs, both lower and upper limitations to ensure a player should be able to do their job and clear the content (as far as the mathematics go, skill and competence can be another question entirely) without having so much raw power (through overlevelling) that they prevent others from contributing.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that if, say, a player is MR6, they get matched with players who are +/- 2 (as an example) MR levels relative to them (so within the range of MR4 - 8). Or if a player is MR15, they would get matched with players who are within the range of MR13-17?

[Tenno29543]

16 hours ago, (PS4)WiiConquered said:

No, but what we can say is Mastery Rank has weak correlation to how effective a player is, which is exactly why people are shooting down your suggestion. If you know many high rank people run Draco, and it doesn't make them good, then why would you punish players who may be just as good if not better, but didn't use Draco?

it does mean that if u got a nice MR you are got a better chance of having better gearthen a low mr.

[Tenno29543]

7 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

This is a game where you learn by doing.

hm.. maybe they should atleast have decent gear before going into end game missions?? idk bout u but i have noticed that mr4s dont have the best gear.

[TheLexiConArtist]

43 minutes ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that if, say, a player is MR6, they get matched with players who are +/- 2 (as an example) MR levels relative to them (so within the range of MR4 - 8). Or if a player is MR15, they would get matched with players who are within the range of MR13-17?

I was speaking in an overarching game-design sense - see my post earlier in the thread where I already pointed out how MR is far from the first port of call in any endeavour to fix up the matchmaking expectations.

MR doesn't mean all that much in the end - that's why it's more important to aggressively balance power outliers than to just stick something on a bigger MR restriction. Plenty of MR21/22 players still don't feel happy when their missions are trivialised by randomly matchmade Synoid Simulors and Tonkors mindlessly AOEing everything down before they get to do much themselves, so even tight matchmaking MR restrictions and higher MR locking on weapons wouldn't work to enforce a positive experience in that case.

Edited July 7, 2016 by EDYinnit

[(PSN)abbacephas]

@EDYinnit,

I am in total agreement with you regarding MR. I was just using it as an example as it is one of the more tangible things in-game.

 

I was curious about your overarching game design statement and so I did a bit of digging. Scrolling down to the heading "Instance Matching" is this more along the lines of what you're thinking: http://tera.enmasse.com/game-guide/gameplay/groups

Edited July 7, 2016 by (PS4)abbacephas

[Chipputer]

Considering I still run into high MR people that think it's a good idea to take a Frost and crap globes all over Sortie defense (and most of them don't have the decency to destroy their old globes), I'd rather take that low MR that at least understands to stick with the objective and not actively be a burden.

Every MR4 player I've run into, lately, has tried their hardest. Every time I see a MR21 player, it's a toss up between them being a cheese-spamming player or, like today's Sortie 3, a Frost who casts a globe and then AFKs while the others do the work.

It's a low barrier for entry, but the mechanics of Warframe do not, currently, accommodate, making players wait for much longer to get into that end game content. Until they put some form of hard progression down that makes it matter that you're MR12 (besides just having access to syndicate primaries), there is no logical reason they should gate it any farther back than it is.

[TheLexiConArtist]

56 minutes ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

I was curious about your overarching game design statement and so I did a bit of digging. Scrolling down to the heading "Instance Matching" is this more along the lines of what you're thinking: http://tera.enmasse.com/game-guide/gameplay/groups

It's a concept, but that's an example of it in action. If it works.

It's still rarely perfect, as any late-expansion WoW player knows. The same structure of enforcing a minimum to get the best balance between reasonable expectation and letting players aim high is present, but other than levels, there's rarely enough to prevent massive overgearing, which means that some randomly-matchmade Timmy, Power Gamer in his full raid gear several tiers above whatever the dungeons you're running are equipping you to move on towards can kinda walk forwards and not care for the most part, leaving you uncontributing and unfulfilled.

 

Other games go the route of power throttling - your level 60 is now reduced to the power grade of a level 20 in this 15-20 content - but even that has issues. Does the player keep their mechanics and abilities from the higher levels? If so, they still have better tools than the legitimate lower-level players. If those are removed too? That player might feel choked and discomforted from how they've grown their playstyle, as if there was barely any point getting where they are if they're not even going to have access to all their hard-earned stuff most of the time.

(Played Guild Wars 2 for a while and felt something like this myself. Auto-throttling level in outdoors zones is jarring to me. Dungeons not so much though.)

 

So yeah, even the biggest names don't get it down to a science - it's an ideal, and a balance between the catchment of players that can try and the catchment of players that can do. But it does serve as a good baseline to understand why restrictions exist on public matchmaking, in a PvE example (because people love to claim false comparison when a PvP-focussed game is used in analogy).

Edited July 7, 2016 by EDYinnit

[(PSN)abbacephas]

3 minutes ago, EDYinnit said:

It's a concept, but that's an example of it in action. If it works.

It's still rarely perfect, as any late-expansion WoW player knows. The same structure of enforcing a minimum to get the best balance between reasonable expectation and letting players aim high is present, but other than levels, there's rarely enough to prevent massive overgearing, which means that some randomly-matchmade Timmy, Power Gamer in his full raid gear several tiers above whatever the dungeons you're running are equipping you to move on towards can kinda walk forwards and not care for the most part.

 

Other games go the route of power throttling - your level 60 is now reduced to the power grade of a level 20 in this 15-20 content - but even that has issues. Does the player keep their mechanics and abilities from the higher levels? If so, they still have better tools than the legitimate lower-level players. If those are removed too? That player might feel choked and discomforted from how they've grown their playstyle, as if there was barely any point getting where they are if they're not even going to have access to all their hard-earned stuff most of the time.

(Played Guild Wars 2 for a while and felt something like this myself. Auto-throttling level in outdoors zones is jarring to me. Dungeons not so much though.)

 

So yeah, even the biggest names don't get it down to a science - it's an ideal, and a balance between the catchment of players that can try and the catchment of players that can do. But it does serve as a good baseline to understand why restrictions exist on public matchmaking, in a PvE example (because people love to claim false comparison when a PvP-focussed game is used in analogy).

I think I understand what you're saying and it does make sense. Thank you for taking the time to explain it.