Preventing One Rusher From Ruining It For Everyone

[MXXVI]

Oh I see, that line about saving face was a placeholder for drastic edits. Okay.

 

Let's address your (very delayed) edits:

 

Firstly, I'm not going to bother to respond to your apparent anger and confusion concerning your favourite passage. I've tried to offer some middle ground, but you seemed to have settled for "NOPE. WRONG." so whatever.

 

Secondly, your example:

 

"3 people join 1 person, then sit by the door laughing at his inability to open the door.  Yes the OP's suggestion is devoid of problems isn't it."

 

 

That situation is not problematic. If 3 people join, and move slower than 1 person... there is no problem. That 1 person has to wait. He's been outvoted.

 

If they're doing it to troll him... then he can leave the game. They get hit with host migration and possible disconnect, he can find another group. That's just part of PUG life. And that's not even a likely scenario, now is it? Do you really think 3 people trolling 1 person is going to be a common occurrance?

Edited June 24, 2013 by MXXVI

[WhisperByte]

@MXXVI

And that's why those playstyle options should be accompanied with the implementation of Blacklists. Sure it wouldn't be instantaneous but after couple of weeks of bad matches players would encounter fewer and fewer trolls

[Kachocalvo]

"That system (assault or explore groups) should not be enforced, it should be a choice for the player : if you choose assault but want to look every corner of the map, you can't blame the rushers,you are in the wrong party,same goes for the other case."

 

I er... I think you may be missing the point. If you implement this game mode, and don't enforce it, then you'll have just as many complaints on the forum. Because the "explore" game mode will be full of rushers showing off, and the "assault" game mode would be full of trolls slowing people down.

 

Selfish people are gonna be selfish unless you actively do something to correct their behaviour.

 

Ok, let's start with this idea: there are a lot of people out there playing this game that are no morons or trolls. Some of them want to play as rushers, others want to play as explorers. If you give them the opportunity of mating with people with similar playstyles, their gaming experience will improve.

 

Of course, then you have trolls and moros. It's inevitable, they exist. You'll play some games where someone shouldn't be and will ruin it all. But if this happens less frequently that now, It'll be an improvement anyway.

 

Anyway, I think enforcing the rule won't be a good idea. And I prefer to think that there are way more people playing this game that are no morons or trolls.

[MXXVI]

@WhisperByte -

 

You'll have to forgive me if I've failed to read a thread on this subject, but how would these blacklists work?

 

I assume it would be like putting people on ignore?

 

Like, you blacklist someone, and from then on, the game won't let you join them, and won't let them join you?

 

 

@Kachocalvo -

 

Oh, don't get me wrong; I'm open to the idea that people could be shown the light and change. But the issue we're talking about here stems from the fact that people who are being selfish asshats are messing with mission progress, right?

 

So would a gamemode convince them to stop being selfish? That's what I'm getting at.

 

And yeah, I'm not a fan of enforcing the rules. Because that kinda thing gets messy. But there are ways in which the game can... self-regulate, in the background, so that people instinctively lean towards behaving.

Edited June 25, 2013 by BoogieMan82

[SynisterDoom]

good idea :3

[WhisperByte]

@MXXVI

Exactly. Just an additional matchmaking filter. But just for random matching. So you could still play with blacklisted people in a premade squad

Edited June 24, 2013 by WhisperByte

[CaptainHammer]

OK, well I just think yellow doors are the simplist way to solve this. Is there really a scenerio in which they are a bad idea for boss entrances? If your alone it lets you open it solo.

 

I don't think we should prevent rushers or even try to cater to explorers. The scenerio I am presenting is just one in which less then half of the players want to rush, this prevents a single person from doing so. If there are 2 rushers then this does nothing, if there is a single person rushing this does nothing.

 

The Devs will never split the playerbase so I don't think assult and explore choices are viable and the system for implementing them are too much.

 

Yellow doors are a simple, effective, and elegant way to solve the problem.

[J.C.Santos]

sadly i am with this guy.

While it's kinda of a rude move to just super rush, you have to think that maybe,that "jerk" is a dude that has only10-15min of playtime every 6 hours.

And he needs blueprints or drops from the boss.And MAYBE he had done that level 10.000 times.

Look, everyone here has his goals.None of them is "better" or more "important" than the other.If you really hate to rush,you can solo.If you can't solo for too high difficulty grab friends.

I hate when i have to run for the 100.000 times to the hyena for control module,and someone just goes around chilling, killing every useless mob or security camera, BUT i respect their will to enjoy more than me the mission, so i don't type bad words or don't mark drops.Since a boss take quite some times, Anyo and Vor apart, you should be able to reach that place in time, and IF you see the boss fight starting, get a move, or don't complain,really.

 

I'm sorry but I have to reply.

I understand you may have only 10 - 15min playtime because (although it's not the same amount of time) I do have little to no time at all to play. But that doesn't make me wanna rush through missions with a team that actually wants to do the mission at their own pace. When I want to rush through missions, I just grab my loki and pick up some stamina, speed and energy mods and I solo the missions I need. It's faster and I don't bother anyone with my impatience.

Rushing through missions means you are using your team a decoy for mobs, because you are basically leaving tons of enemies behind for your teammates to deal with while you go kill the boss and loot him. By doing this you are actually making  harming other people's game experience and boss hunting since, like many people have already mentioned, the boss mark on the minimap disappears and the boss room becomes harder to find and the loot dropped by the boss you killed just ends up falling where god-knows-where. So it's just selfish.

Saying that "if you hate to rush, you can solo. If you can't solo for too high difficulty grab friends" is actually something people that want to rush should do. By rushing you already kill the boss by your own, so what is the point of doing it with other people that want to just play those missions at their own pace? I see no point for it but to just make of you team, as I said, decoys for enemies which is just despicable.

Also, It's kinda hard for a Rhino to keep up with a Loki or other Warframes that are clearly using speed mods or are just ignoring enemies and leaving them to your teammates to take care of. Also, going down the elevator without waiting doesn't help to "get a move".

 

Introducing the "Explore/ Assault" function would be a treat for me and anyone that disapproves rushing in public. Although I don't see how it could work really. But I like the whole introduction of a "Boss door" that can only be opened by the presence of all teammates.

Edited June 24, 2013 by J.C.Santos

[MXXVI]

@WhisperByte -

 

Well that would certainly tend to the wound a bit... so yeah, on those terms, I'd definitely back a "blacklist" option. It's something that should be in the game regardless, I think.

 

 

@CaptainHammer -

 

I agree.

 

I mean, we've had a lot of debate in the past about the efficacy of the yellow doors as "speed bumps" to keep the group together, but in this situation, I think they'd be a pretty good solution.

 

Contrary to Enot83's weird 3-man troll team scenario, as you say - if solo, no change. If 2 out of 2 want to rush, they can do so. But if 1 person tries to start the fight early, it won't let them.

 

In an ideal world, a "boss door that can only be opened by the presence of all teammates" - to quote J.C.Santos - would work. But I think the old "yellow door" system is, as CaptainHammer says, the most elegant.

[Kachocalvo]

@Kachocalvo -

 

Oh, don't get me wrong; I'm open to the idea that people could be shown the light and change. But the issue we're talking about here stems from the fact that people who are being selfish asshats are messing with mission progress, right?

 

So would a gamemode convince them to stop being selfish asshats? That's what I'm getting at.

 

Ok, we're talking about two different things. I don't expect people to change. I just found the idea of segregating players into two categories when mating for games interesting as it makes the mating system much more useful (I'd like to stop being put in rushing parties as I don't like to play that way).

 

I really don't like the idea stated by OP for a single reason: The rusher that gets forced to stay at the blocked door maybe is not rushing to tick off other players. He just got caught with the wrong people for him. So it the game gives him the option to be with others like him, a lot of these problems will fade away.

 

You are right in one thing - shelfish people will continue ruining other people games. But not everyone that does what the OP explained in first post are doing it to tick off the rest of the party. Some of them, as I said, just got caught with the wrong teammates.

[MXXVI]

Well, if 1 rusher joins 3 slow people, he should slow down. It's that simple.

 

But you raise a valid point about people wanting to join other rushers - at the moment it is entirely random.

 

So I think that's where new mission types should be implemented, rather than splitting existing content into two categories.

 

I dunno if you've read threads about this sort of thing, but people have suggested timed missions in which a ship is exploding or whatever, and you have to rush. Basically, a more heavily scripted, more intense version of existing "self destruct" timers.

 

 

Also, I think it'd be pretty cool if they added an actual "race" mission type - a training mission, in which you have to actually race your teammates.

Edited June 24, 2013 by MXXVI

[JusticeJack]

I'm sorry but I have to reply.

I understand you may have only 10 - 15min playtime because (although it's not the same amount of time) I do have little to no time at all to play. But that doesn't make me wanna rush through missions with a team that actually wants to do the mission at their own pace. When I want to rush through missions, I just grab my loki and pick up some stamina, speed and energy mods and I solo the missions I need. It's faster and I don't bother anyone with my impatience.

Rushing through missions means you are using your team a decoy for mobs, because you are basically leaving tons of enemies behind for your teammates to deal with while you go kill the boss and loot him. By doing this you are actually making  harming other people's game experience and boss hunting since, like many people have already mentioned, the boss mark on the minimap disappears and the boss room becomes harder to find and the loot dropped by the boss you killed just ends up falling where god-knows-where. So it's just selfish.

Saying that "if you hate to rush, you can solo. If you can't solo for too high difficulty grab friends" is actually something people that want to rush should do. By rushing you already kill the boss by your own, so what is the point of doing it with other people that want to just play those missions at their own pace? I see no point for it but to just make of you team, as I said, decoys for enemies which is just despicable.

Also, It's kinda hard for a Rhino to keep up with a Loki or other Warframes that are clearly using speed mods or are just ignoring enemies and leaving them to your teammates to take care of. Also, going down the elevator without waiting doesn't help to "get a move".

 

Introducing the "Explore/ Assault" function would be a treat for me and anyone that disapproves rushing in public. Although I don't see how it could work really. But I like the whole introduction of a "Boss door" that can only be opened by the presence of all teammates.

After thinking about it for some time.....i think you are actually right.

I will be more thoughtful of my eventual team when i rush, even if i never had problem to follow a rusher,even without my dear loki, i shouldn't make the mission miserable for the others,and i never immagined that the boss room waypoint disappeared after the boss death (I know,that is kinda of stupid from my side, but i never ever found myself behind.)

But i suggest a different solution : permanent boss waypoint (those on the map and those put by users).Why?Because i still known that lot of us suffered the one guy being very VERY slow in mission type like spy,especially alerts.Or on hostage missions.

And imagine that with doors to open too.

Edited June 24, 2013 by JusticeJack

[MXXVI]

I can certainly agree to permanent boss waypoints... or at least, a loot waypoint for important loot (like schematics) that stays until you pick up the item.

 

I mean, it doesn't solve the bigger problems, but it would help ease a lot of smaller ones (like when the loot flies off in a random direction, and nobody notices)

[Enot83]

Well, if 1 rusher joins 3 slow people, he should slow down. It's that simple.

 

But you raise a valid point about people wanting to join other rushers - at the moment it is entirely random.

 

So I think that's where new mission types should be implemented, rather than splitting existing content into two categories.

 

I dunno if you've read threads about this sort of thing, but people have suggested timed missions in which a ship is exploding or whatever, and you have to rush. Basically, a more heavily scripted, more intense version of existing "self destruct" timers.

 

 

Also, I think it'd be pretty cool if they added an actual "race" mission type - a training mission, in which you have to actually race your teammates.

I can't help but laugh.

 

Disagrees with me, then uses the exact same scenario as the problem, the 1 person would not likely find themself in that situation when given a way to flag their playstyle, they would not be required to change their playstyle to avoid the problem.  It's that simple.

 

To others, another thing to point out with the OP's idea, that lends itself to contradiction of a well working team, looking at this from the perspective of a team working together for a common goal.  This slows that team down for allowing team mixs that use a faster frame or more adept at movement player to move ahead calling elevators as an example.  It also slows down teams who are completely fine with reaching a boss, beginning work on it as other join in or arive after its been killed.

 

The proposed changes by many eliminate these options, in an effort to solve a problem, as such they are not exactly well thought out designs for addressing issues, while at the same time still leaving themselves open to problematic scenarios, that can be brought up in most types of solutions.  The problem of using this as some others have pointed out, is regardless of any number of various solutions those people will still exist.  If a solution allows those players to exploit maliciously their implementation on such a ridiculous level that you've only shifted the problem or inadvertantly created an entire new problem that is worse so than what you were striving to solve, again this is a design that lacks foresight.

 

The solution by the OP doesn't solve any problems other than their own view of what the problem is.  It doesn't lend itself to flexibility or addressing concerns of other players who enjoy certain existing aspects.  Perhaps other solutions on their own do not provide singularly the same level of a "fix", but this is not a comparison of which proposal does the most, since doing the most can also mean doing the most damage as well as doing the most "fixing".

 

Starting with options for allowing players to opt for what type of playstyle they are looking for in online play retains flexibility, giving the option for blacklisting allows players to avoid others who blatantly and maliciously ignore this, as would it benefit even in the OP's proposal, the blacklisting does more for other scenarios, like those illustrated by afk team members during the past weekend event.

 

Ultimately, had the OP been playing with people who wanted to play with him, the way he wanted to play.  This thread, would not exist.

Edited June 25, 2013 by BoogieMan82

[CaptainHammer]

There isn't a big enough player base to split the users up. Devs won't go for it

[mogamu]

This gave me an idea. All doors leading to bosses should require more than one person to open. This works out well for everyone. Rusher can’t ruin it for a group that doesn’t feel like rushing, and a group that’s really rushing will have more than one person in the lead.

 

+1

[Enot83]

There isn't a big enough player base to split the users up. Devs won't go for it

This is assuming that the player base only consists of those playing in online mode currently, rather than the notion that there may be a great deal of players who also are playing, but in private to avoid exactly what occurs in this thread.

 

I'd also like to know what basis of information you have to support this, since if there is good solid evidence of how many online vs non-online players there are etc this could either build a case for or against it.

 

In addition, you do realize that online, private... etc already divides the player base, and is implemented.

[MXXVI]

I can't help but laugh.

 

Disagrees with me, then uses the exact same scenario as the problem, the 1 person would not likely find themself in that situation when given a way to flag their playstyle, they would not be required to change their playstyle to avoid the problem.  It's that simple.

 

Sounds to me you have a bone to pick not something intelligent to argue about with my statement.  Why don't you PM me so it can be resolved outside of the thread. 

 

 

What the heck are you even on about?

 

I've just spent what... an hour or more sitting here, debating stuff on these forums in multiple threads... everything I've written in this thread has been long-winded, detailed, and thought out. I've considered every solution presented; I've agreed about many. I've explained, in detail, the flaws I've seen in some. I've admitted lacking knowledge, and asked for confirmation where applicable. 

 

Nobody else, even when disagreeing with me, has had this stubborn inability to actually debate which you seem to possess. The way you cling to things we've already dissected and considered is astonishing.

 

So okay, I will make one last attempt to clarify your latest lingering, beleaguered point:

 

1) We have already established, and agreed, that the root issue here is people misbehaving. That is, behaving contrary to the group vote. That is, 1 person moving slower or faster than the other 3.

 

2) The immediate issue is not the act of them joining a game, but rather, their actions once in the game, and their inability to adhere to the group behavioural pattern.

 

3) Segregating the gaming population would not actually prevent problematic stubborn or selfish players from remaining so. The kind of player who would adhere to the rules implied by these "game modes" is the kind of player who would not be misbehaving in the first place. The addition of "game modes" would serve to refine the matchmaking process, but it would not deal with the topic of this thread - that of players misbehaving.

 

4) This thread has already reached the conclusion that whether or not player segregation would be effective at preventing the buildup of forum hostilities between different play-styles, the simple "2 person door lock" solution has, perhaps, the most promise when dealing with Boss encounters, as it would prevent abuse, from either side of the speed fence.

 

5) And finally:

 

Write your post first, then post it. Don't write 84 words, and then edit it into FOUR HUNDRED AND SEVENTY.

[gaurdianaq]

While I don't have this issue due to playing solo, it's a good idea none the less.

[Phobonaut]

 

 

 

I like it!

 

Edit: A "don't care" button would be nice too. Sometimes, I just don't care about exploring and just wanna go with what everyone else wants to go with.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Phobonaut

[scavenge]

Weird, I explore at great speeds :/ Guess I'd choose explore.

[CaptainHammer]

There is a diffrence between sticking with the group and melting through enemies to quickly reaching a boss and one jerk who rans past everything leavel slower frames to get eaten up.

[bluehawk1976]

In reality, change the exit waypont from a diamon with a ! to a diamond with an E. Leave the boss waypoint up.

Or, you could you know, not play online? And play with your friends who apparently think just like you do for boss farming?

Well this was fun to read. But before you start a topic in the forum if you learned how to use the private or invite only function. That would be great.

Play solo/private and have your online troubles magically disappear.

It seems that you all think friends grow on trees or you find them in Storage lockers in game.

How does a new player to the game supposed to find the like minded explorer if he can't meet them in a PUG?

PUGs are for all. Untill the Devs implement one of the countless ideas to solve this problem (personally I think choosing game style for pairing purpose is best) implementing the door idea is a good and easy one - requires half the squad to rush ahead at least,and will not slow down a group by one person.

I guess I would be okay with this. Extraction countdowns are a way to prevent one player from screwing over everyone else because they don't feel like finishing yet, it would be nice if there was a corresponding solution to the opposite end of the spectrum.

For the record, I am not against rushing in the least. I do it myself sometimes when I need to farm a rare resource. My volt is entirely decked out for speed. But when I do it, I do it by myself or with other players who are like-minded. The problem is, if you're going to rush, why are you bothering to join other players if you're going to solo the boss anyways? Oh wait, there's one reason-to leech off other players who are partway through to the boss, so that you just have less ground to cover. Basically, you're using others to save yourself time, and then screwing them over in the process.

I've read responses saying "too bad you don't like rushing, you could just rush too". How does that happen when I'm a loki or a volt, and can move about three times faster than your rhino? Even if the rhino tries to go along with it, they're going to be left behind, and they're going to miss out on resources and mod drops.

The mentality of "if you're playing public, you shouldn't complain about other players" doesn't really cut it. If you're going to be playing to one extreme or another(rushing as fast as possible, or taking as much time as possible and looting absolutely EVERYTHING), you should just be playing by yourself or with your friends. What's the point of joining public if you don't intend to actually play with your squad? Public should be balanced for cooperation, because that is the entire point of pubs.

Imo, placing a door on boss entrances is a MUCH better solution than slide cooldown was, because it allows players to play quickly if they want on their own or with friends, while still ensuring that newer or slightly slower players in pubs don't get $&*^ed over.

I agree completly. Edited June 24, 2013 by bluehawk1976

[Zeke01234]

I've got low level speed/stamina mods and I wasn't able to keep up more than a few times...probably some high level with max speed stuff anyways it sure was annoying to not get to boss rewards and having every mob grouped in front of me...so in other words +1

[Caernarvon]

leavel slower frames to get eaten up.

 

Using slide mechanics slower frames can go faster than the fastest frames if all those do is sprint.

Actually the slide dashing allows everyone to reach the same speed. Don't see your issue.