Plea for Digital Extremes: PoE leeching.

[BETAOPTICS]

Hi there!

I am sure some of you have experienced this or read someone else experience this increasingly common problem. Leeching is a problem we've all come to witness in one form or another, and in Warframe I do think the developers have a somewhat functional anti-leeching system, you have to stay active within a certain amount of time or you lose rewards. But it isn't without its flaws. Players who can utilize tools like rubberband trick on console controllers or other devices, or players who use software like Macro's to ensure their character keeps repeating a move that triggers these games anti-leeching algorithms.

Unfortunately however with the introduction to the Plains of Eidolon, we have experienced a new type of leeching. This is where a player will go to bounties and use older tricks or alternatively they are actually actively playing the game but they aren't participating in the missions, instead they go off to do something else like fish or mine resources. Since you don't actually need to be present or active to get the rewards of bounties, and there is very little punishment for exploiting this system, it is no wonder it has been becoming an increasing trend. What has surprised me is that it isn't just some alternative accounts or anything, even high MR players like MR 17 and 24 have done this, and those players typically have invested so much time in the game that they avoid these penalties. To me this tells that doing this type of leeching is so easy and risk-less, that even players with high investments are willing to risk it.

Suggestion: Since Digital Extremes is planning to do more open world spaces in the future, I do think new kinds of anti-leeching methodologies are in place. One idea I have in mind is that in order to do the bounties and get the rewards, you have to be in the active presence of a relative area. So for example if you are in the defense mission type in the Plains of Eidolon, you need to stay relatively close to the objective area to gain the rewards of the bounties, similar to how affinity works in a way.

Potential issues: But this idea is imperfect. One of the problems I see is that certain mission types are more specific to an area and are not necessarily so static like defending the drone (Escort mission type). There is potential for losing rewards while actively participating unless the radius is finely tuned to what would be conceivably realistic combat are within the mission type. Another problem I do witness is the possibility that due to the large distances and various speeds, some players may not be able to reach the destination before another player has completed it. This happens frequently on Capture missions everywhere. This might not be the players own doing but simply the gap of power within players. I am not exactly sure how to solve this to be honest. Maybe the algorithm needs to see the player was heading to the target destination direction trying to reach the area of combat and get rewarded, though it can be tricky to code.

After discussion: Regardless of your own views, I do think most of us would agree nobody likes leeching from another player. I do think it is especially important for Digital Extremes to consider ways to encourage active participation in these new types of worlds they are building. Toxicity is not useful, not to player community, not to them, and as they continue on this new worldbuilding path some old methods may become defective so they need to adapt to ensure the game stays healthy experience. I am not saying my above suggestion is perfect, by any means, but if you think you have a better solution to offer then by all means I am all ears. Lets keep 2018 positive, constructive and productive.

- Cheers, BETAOPTICS! =)

[INight00]

A vote system would be great.
It initiates in the chat window and allows three players to vote off one player resulting in them being kicked.

The vote mechanic (click/ buttons) can be the same as when you link and item, you click on it to perform a command.

[MagPrime]

7 minutes ago, BETAOPTICS said:

Suggestion: Since Digital Extremes is planning to do more open world spaces in the future, I do think new kinds of anti-leeching methodologies are in place. One idea I have in mind is that in order to do the bounties and get the rewards, you have to be in the active presence of a relative area. So for example if you are in the defense mission type in the Plains of Eidolon, you need to stay relatively close to the objective area to gain the rewards of the bounties, similar to how affinity works in a way.

I heartily support this suggestion.  It rewards players that are actually participating.

 

7 minutes ago, BETAOPTICS said:

Potential issues: But this idea is imperfect. One of the problems I see is that certain mission types are more specific to an area and are not necessarily so static like defending the drone (Escort mission type). There is potential for losing rewards while actively participating unless the radius is finely tuned to what would be conceivably realistic combat are within the mission type. Another problem I do witness is the possibility that due to the large distances and various speeds, some players may not be able to reach the destination before another player has completed it. This happens frequently on Capture missions everywhere. This might not be the players own doing but simply the gap of power within players. I am not exactly sure how to solve this to be honest. Maybe the algorithm needs to see the player was heading to the target destination direction trying to reach the area of combat and get rewarded, though it can be tricky to code.

Maybe use the Hijack mechanic - the moving target gains shields based on players proximity and that will "tag" them as participating?

Sorry, words are hard atm, migraine is trying to happen.

[phoenix1992]

Weren't we supposed to appreciate leaching?

[o.0-]

I have a question, can we not already press ESC, click on "Leave Squad" to create a new instance on the Plains? Does that break Bounties?

A previous group may have to invite with the current system, but I think it may be better to have a stronger link with grouping.

So two players want to PuG together, they can be linked together, so that they could have a Confirmation prompt on such actions and stay together as necessary.

With the same for up to four players, as sometimes a player forgets to un-Select Public, for Invite Only.

That way it's easier to come and go as players please and does not need to develop other sorts of systems.

 

[BETAOPTICS]

4 minutes ago, INight00 said:

A vote system would be great.
It initiates in the chat window and allows three players to vote off one player resulting in them being kicked.

The vote mechanic (click/ buttons) can be the same as when you link and item, you click on it to perform a command.

I've heard a lot of players suggest this and personally I am undecided. Voting system in theory is great because it allows instant solution and is a good detox to unwanted behavior overall. A problem with vote-kick system is abusing it, and the misleading nature of this exploitation. In games where penalties are associated, a player who has had the misfortune of playing with a toxic majority may get unfairly labeled as toxic themselves simply because they were the minority, and as a result be punished for this. That does not create good gameplay experience, it promotes a social environment where people are more inclined to be cynical of strangers and so on so froth. I honestly wish it wasn't so because most people are awesome. It is the small minority of players that create the problems for everyone else that I am concerned of. Do you agree or disagree, any additional thoughts?

[BETAOPTICS]

3 minutes ago, phoenix1992 said:

Weren't we supposed to appreciate leaching?

Hahhah, I suppose we shouldn't. :D

[BETAOPTICS]

4 minutes ago, SPARTAN-187.Thanatos said:

I have a question, can we not already press ESC, click on "Leave Squad" to create a new instance on the Plains? Does that break Bounties?

A previous group may have to invite with the current system, but I think it may be better to have a stronger link with grouping.

So two players want to PuG together, they can be linked together, so that they could have a Confirmation prompt on such actions and stay together as necessary.

With the same for up to four players, as sometimes a player forgets to un-Select Public, for Invite Only.

That way it's easier to come and go as players please and does not need to develop other sorts of systems.

 

That's not a bad idea to be honest. Though I do wonder how players would feel about additional loading screens. They can be obnoxious in the Plains of Eidolon as is sometimes. Perhaps I am being paranoid, this idea isn't half bad at all in my personal opinion. Though my question would be if its wise to ' punish (excuse my clumsiness of words here) ' the active players and let the exploiting player hold so much power, especially if they don't really suffer anything from the process other than players leaving every now and then when they realize one of the players is using them as a wagon.

Edited January 8, 2018 by BETAOPTICS

[shoopypit]

I think it might be easier for open world areas to do auto sharing. If someone is just fishing instead of bounty hunting, maybe every other player should also be reward fishies

[INight00]

16 minutes ago, BETAOPTICS said:

A problem with vote-kick system is abusing it, and the misleading nature of this exploitation.

Yes there will be problems, but aside from the afk measure of a player not moving, if anything the vote can be made to need all 4 votes.
If the vote goes: yes, yes, no, yes. Then the player is not afk and will not be kicked, if it is: yes, yes, yes, - . Then they must be afk...
However, a player could easily be clicking 'no' then sitting back and watching/ leeching.

Edited January 8, 2018 by INight00

[o.0-]

4 minutes ago, BETAOPTICS said:

That's not a bad idea to be honest. Though I do wonder how players would feel about additional loading screens. They can be obnoxious in the Plains of Eidolon as is sometimes. Perhaps I am being paranoid, this idea isn't half bad at all in my personal opinion. Though my question would be if its wise to ' punish (excuse my clumsiness of words here) ' the active players and let the exploiting player hold so much power, especially if they don't really suffer anything from the process other than players leaving every now and then when they realize one of the players is using them as a wagon.

Well, it depends on how the systems work, as the idea is to avoid assuming the motives of others and strengthen existing systems in the process.

For example, if we could have something on the Plains for gaining Bounties like a Communication Terminal to start off Bounties that would be one benefit there to groups that choose to start off a new instance. So, if players come across a consideration they do not favor, they then create a new instance and go to the Terminal to Start or even Continue the Bounty.

So, in general, I'd rather not pass judgement on others and simply look to build on whats already available. I've done the Leave Squad on the Plains due to communication that others wanted to explore some, and so I agreed and left, keeping what I collected when I got back to the Gates.

 

Ah the Gates and the Market, which is another aspect, although I think its really cool that so many players can be in a Cetus instance, could there be a bit more separation?

So the idea here is the docks where we get off the Lander could have a populous player lobby where players can chat and group and an instance transition into the Market area. Then the Cetus Market could be instanced in a similar fashion to the Plains so groups could have better loading to the Market and back to the Plains. As there seems to be so much going on that different systems slow to load everything, I feel that if something like this could be done, the experience players have could see improvements overall.

Things like that is what I've been imagining, reading all the feedback on what we have so far.

[DarkSkysz]

A better solution for that could be the blacklist...if the matchmaking worked fine and never ever teamed you with those S#&$ty leachers, we will not need a bad vote kick system and also never teamup with a leacher again.

[Snib]

Two things: I don't know if it's still a thing but what used to happen was that "free roam" players did get thrown into bounty groups every so often through no fault of their own.

And the very simple solution to those actively leeching is to disable fishing and mining spawns in instances where the host is running a bounty.

Stay away from vote kick systems or other easily abused mechanics (even though the host in PoE already has the possibility to kick the entire squad).

[BETAOPTICS]

23 minutes ago, INight00 said:

Yes there will be problems, but aside from the afk measure of a player not moving, if anything the vote can be made to need all 4 votes.
If the vote goes: yes, yes, no, yes. Then the player is not afk and will not be kicked, if it is: yes, yes, yes, - . Then they must be afk...
However, a player could easily be clicking 'no' then sitting back and watching/ leeching.

Good point. I could see that working as well.

[BETAOPTICS]

27 minutes ago, shoopypit said:

I think it might be easier for open world areas to do auto sharing. If someone is just fishing instead of bounty hunting, maybe every other player should also be reward fishies

Maybe, but would this discourage group play and encourage maximizing resource gain by making one player do the bounties and the rest gathering resources?

[LuinCeltchar]

I stopped playing PoE because of leeches. I used to report them, but there are so many that only intervention from DE to prevent it will solve the problem. There are multiple possible solutions (voting leeches into their own instance, sharing the leech's resources with players doing the bounty, etc.), but it doesn't seem like DE cares. Maybe they'll take notice when Plains is a dead-zone, if it isn't already.

[BETAOPTICS]

7 minutes ago, Snib said:

Two things: I don't know if it's still a thing but what used to happen was that "free roam" players did get thrown into bounty groups every so often through no fault of their own.

And the very simple solution to those actively leeching is to disable fishing and mining spawns in instances where the host is running a bounty.

Stay away from vote kick systems or other easily abused mechanics (even though the host in PoE already has the possibility to kick the entire squad).

I think they still do? But I am unsure. Of course this doesn't really help if someone goes to the bounty and then heads out to the plains, getting matched to a team and instead of doing the bounty with them, they go to do other activities instead. Your suggestion is interesting. But what would happen to resource gains from actively playing? Maybe the few mined rocks some players take wouldn't be that huge of a loss for them, as most players don't mine or fish when in the Plains anyway. Who knows? Could work as well.

[DatDarkOne]

4 minutes ago, LuinCeltchar said:

I stopped playing PoE because of leeches. I used to report them, but there are so many that only intervention from DE to prevent it will solve the problem. There are multiple possible solutions (voting leeches into their own instance, sharing the leech's resources with players doing the bounty, etc.), but it doesn't seem like DE cares. Maybe they'll take notice when Plains is a dead-zone, if it isn't already.

Uhhh, why would that stop you from playing PoE.  Is it the groups?  I mean I play PoE just fine solo and love it better that way.

[BETAOPTICS]

See you guys are coming with lots of valuable feedback and great ideas. Greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work. =)

[Snib]

16 minutes ago, BETAOPTICS said:

I think they still do? But I am unsure. Of course this doesn't really help if someone goes to the bounty and then heads out to the plains, getting matched to a team and instead of doing the bounty with them, they go to do other activities instead.

I'm not sure you understood. What was happening was that players who had not elected to do any bounty but just wanted to mine/fish got thrown into bounty groups without wanting to. Can't fault those players for the many bugs in the game.

16 minutes ago, BETAOPTICS said:

Your suggestion is interesting. But what would happen to resource gains from actively playing? Maybe the few mined rocks some players take wouldn't be that huge of a loss for them, as most players don't mine or fish when in the Plains anyway. Who knows? Could work as well.

I suppose you'd have to chalk that up under the category of not having your cake and eating it, too. I'd say it's a small drawback compared to the risk associated with the other suggested solutions.

[djternan]

They should add a vote kick but only for the plains.  The leecher would just be put into their own instance and would have to finish the bounties themselves.  I haven't seen this issue come up anywhere else but at least half of all bounties I do have someone leeching.

[_Vortus_]

2 hours ago, phoenix1992 said:

Weren't we supposed to appreciate leaching?

The types of Leech you appreciate and which you do not are subjective.   And there are many types.  Do they hinder, help or are they a neutral existence.   I'm of the opinion, more for me on enemies when they are there.   To each their own.

[schilds]

If it bothers you that much: Enter mission area, start timer, leave squad. Finish the bounty solo.

[MagPrime]

A thought occurs; something like this should only be applied to Public Matchmaking.  The reason being; I'm perfectly happy to divide and conquer with my friends and family.  My cousin likes to go fish while my boyfriend and I run the Bounties.  This doesn't bother me, it's because we're going for the social aspect as much as anything else.  But when it's a total stranger....no, thank you.  

[shoopypit]

2 hours ago, BETAOPTICS said:

Maybe, but would this discourage group play and encourage maximizing resource gain by making one player do the bounties and the rest gathering resources?

Maybe. You could halve the resources shared .…