Explanation over leaving missions and failure to force proper play in mission

[Cronkonium]

Guys you've screwed up another million sets of games by simply failing to allow mission aborting in teams/squads when people aren't playing reasonably.

 

Waiting a minute for the mission to end is reasonable, but if forces everyone else. However, that's not my problem... You've yet again screwed up excavation missions 'especially with relics' due to people consistently throwing power into excavators, and then continuing a mission without much cause (i.e. without the focus of the mission being realised, namely to get reactant for relics here).

 

I really don't understand how despite 5 years on the outside and these missions existing for a good portion of them you have yet to allow players to leave when their teams are being ridiculous. If I've yet again missed something about how the intricacies of this poorly explained game work, then I'm sorry. But only partially. Because truly, you've have ended up forcing me to waste my time on ridiculous scenarioes.

 

Truly I consistently wish to hound you for wasting my time with quirks you make me do in order to injoy the game. But even they pale in comparison to these Oddly ''Buggy or Unfixed or Abuse Permitting'' basic, fundamental, inherent aspects and scenarioes of the game.

 

I know it's extra work, but if you're not willing to do it elsewhere please place separate queues onto the mission. Wherein which certain players for instance may queue as ''Resource or Insignia, etc.'' focussed... (i,e. name them as Resource Focussed). Or create a queue for ''Fast/Quick Playthrough'', etc. These are such simple ideas and they're 6 years behind, I do not understand, other players on other games would be rioting over issues plaguing games such as these. They as I would be willing to help, do what we can, because we're here to injoy the game not harass devs. A student or employee ends up doing their work more thoroughly/better often times if they're hounded by their teachers/profs or employers respectively. But in a scenario such as this, power should be in the hands of players ''TOO'' if you're going to work on a gaming model such as this. A professor who would help their student much like an employer helping an employee adapt would be reasonable in either situation, and it would/should be sought after... My explanation of ''I am willing to help'' follows the whole logic of the previous points in this paragraph. The only point beyond these ideas is that, I don't care about your 'Said Model' for/of this game and neither should any of the rest of us. It isn't an excuse here nor for any other game, as tbh. I really don't want that excuse to 'Continue to ruin Video Gaming' as it has already done to sports.

 

Ask for our help/advice, and not just about which weapon we want next. Ask us about how we'd like to spend our time too! Simple as that.

[MagPrime]

DE's already working on integrating solo departure.

[Omega-Shadowblade]

Your persuasive methods need work. This whole post is more a devbash than feedback.

[Ada_Wong_SG]

Sharpen your weapons, and go in solo, A sharp blade will cut better than 4 blunt blades.

[Cronkonium]

On 14/11/2017 at 9:59 PM, Omega-Shadowblade said:

Your persuasive methods need work. This whole post is more a devbash than feedback.

When it's a build-up over time then it really isn't dev bash in any respect... it simply looks that way. Seeing something over time that continually plagues something and doing nothing about it (i.e. me or other not referencing it to the devs) is our fault... But we don't do that, thus it's their fault should nothing be done about it. They take a policy first format to answering posts and CLEARLY it doesn't work. Thus change it. As I posted it's not just them who is here to do something/anything, it could easily be all of us who help inhance the game. But if it's not going to be taken that way then whose fault is it. Perhaps one would see most case by case situations here as not really ''Blameable'' towards anyone. It's when it builds up that it makes more sense that clearly something ought to change. And trust me, I'm was a Philosophy student so I sure as hell know what I say can be confusing, and especially so, now that I'm not writing this in any academically acceptable way (i.e. in essay format). But when you define yourself as ''Having a Forum'' you need to make sure that you're living up to the definitions of the terms you just subscribed yourself to. My argument is simply that they haven't lived up to that claim ''within the bugs section'' at least, since really all other sections of a forum are easy since you don't need centralisation as the public chat/discourse is already self-maintaining/sufficient with only minor occurrences of ''Chat Banning'' being required from any dev/forum operator.

 

Also to finally make things just quickly clearer, especially if you've read this far. We're people playing this game, they are people developing this game... Therefore when I have a problem while in-game; your website needs to be minimally accessible (it is for the most part), and the conversation that should eventually get built up should be a personal one if at all possible. Be direct and focussed on identifying/fixing the problems yes, but either be invested in fixing the problem yourself... or create a frontend that truly gives me the ability to provide you with all the detail and you can do it by yourself. So basically it's: ''I'm trying to help, but if you don't want it... don't simply shut me out. Just take what you need from me, and finish fixing the problem yourself if you'd like''.

 

The thing itself is simple (we have a forum, we exchange information, the problem gets identified and fixed). The META scenarioes of this process are nearly always complex. I've just done the theoretical work on the META-Structuring of the forum problems above for you. Transformation into instantiations of a process is all that remains.