Please stop staying afk on elite onslaught.

[Starcanum]

1 minute ago, Tora.Prime said:

Dude, if you idea of "play" is do nothing just don't go public, go solo to do nothing as you like, public is for ppl that want to play with randoms players, not carry them

You're completely wrong on all levels.

My idea of "play" isn't "do nothing", if you'd read what I said, you would've understood it. My point was "if the squad without you is already at 100% and your personal input won't result in an increase of efficiency or gameplay quality for anyone else, it's fine to do nothing". Goes to show how pulling words out of context surprisingly deprives them of meaning.

Most of the people who go public and have any idea about human decency won't care about "carrying them" if they're already playing a frame that does everything that needs to be done.

People go public not to "play with random players", but to increase the number of spawns to kill.

Just now, AlMcFly said:

Cool.  So I guess my personal behavior in public, which always affects those around me, is nobody else's business but my own.  I'll remember that next time when someone disagrees with the way I am acting.  Oh wait, aren't you disagreeing with the way I am acting in public?  That's ironic.  

No idea why I keep replying to you while you keep ignoring what I'm saying and taking everything out of context. I'll copy-paste it one more time for the special people.

23 minutes ago, Starcanum said:

If there's no negative effect on the results you're getting, you shouldn't care about what the others have in mind.

People AFKing in ESO don't affect anyone around them. Damn you really do try your hardest to find a way to miss all my points just to make yourself feel comfortable and right.

[Tora.Prime]

hace 7 minutos, Starcanum dijo:

My idea of "play" isn't "do nothing", if you'd read what I said, you would've understood it. My point was "if the squad without you is already at 100% and your personal input won't result in an increase of efficiency or gameplay quality for anyone else, it's fine to do nothing". Goes to show how pulling words out of context surprisingly deprives them of meaning.

Most of the people who go public and have any idea about human decency won't care about "carrying them" if they're already playing a frame that does everything that needs to be done.

Saryn need that ppl kill the enemies affected by spore to spread, Equinox need to acumulate damage to nuke and teammate can contribute, Mesa can't kill furter then 50meters
what are you justify? there is never a reason to not play, and if you help the team can get more kill = more focus (that's a good reason to play ESO)
 

hace 7 minutos, Starcanum dijo:

People go public not to "play with random players", but to increase the number of spawns to kill.

I find people leeching even in sabotage missions, what that have to relate to get more enemies spawn? what's the point?

[Shifty_Shuffler]

I do love it when leechers try to justify their actions. Bottom line is DE doesn't like it.

[Starcanum]

 

20 minutes ago, Tora.Prime said:

Saryn need that ppl kill the enemies affected by spore to spread, Equinox need to acumulate damage to nuke and teammate can contribute, Mesa can't kill furter then 50meters
what are you justify? there is never a reason to not play, and if you help the team can get more kill = more focus (that's a good reason to play ESO)

Saryn only really needs to kill once in a while and with the latest QOL hotfix to the spore spread, it's easy to solo manage it and there's nothing a person can add.

Equinox only needs to stack about 10-30 kills worth of damage depending on the armor, which they're usually already set up to do with the high damage AoE weapons. Anything on top that a "leecher" would try to do would be an overkill. Technically I agree though, it can slightly speed up obtaining the threshold at which you can proc the 4 if the others are killing.

Don't see much of Mesa there, but I'd imagine that a 50m radius is usually enough to cover a good part of the map, and the maps where that's not enough have the spawns spread too thin. I don't think Mesa is super-efficient there due to the LoS though.

And focus has a cap anyway, so those 50 kills limbo could've gotten would only potentially increase the focus gained by less than 5%. Since focus is capped after 3-4 dedicated runs, it won't be enough to save you one run until it's about 25% contribution.

The reason "not to play" is that when your effort to try finding enemies to kill is going in vain with all the super-efficient squads, and you know that your lack of contribution won't be detrimental to anyone, there're better things to do than running around trying to find stuff to kill.

20 minutes ago, Tora.Prime said:

I find people leeching even in sabotage missions, what that have to relate to get more enemies spawn? what's the point?

My entire point is, as I stated above, "you know that your lack of contribution won't be detrimental to anyone". And the enemy spawns was a point that was related specifically to the context of ESO. If the people intentionally afk in sabotage which makes the mission take longer, that's the bad kind of leeching. If an afk person makes you capture 3 hydros instead of 4 in one night, that's the bad kind of leeching. If the only "bad" thing is that your pride is hurt about the fact that someone did nothing while you just ran around watching everything around you die, that's not the bad kind of leeching.

 

11 minutes ago, Shifty_Shuffler said:

I do love it when leechers try to justify their actions. Bottom line is DE doesn't like it.

I do love it when people try to take the rules out of context and common sense and justify the witch hunts with those rules. Rules are meant to keep people from harming others, and leeching in this context doesn't harm anyone.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Starcanum

[Alaeacus]

48 minutes ago, Starcanum said:

If there's no negative effect on the results you're getting, you shouldn't care about what the others have in mind.. People AFKing in ESO don't affect anyone around them. Damn you really do try your hardest to find a way to miss all my points just to make yourself feel comfortable and right.

The "negative affect" is not always a metric-based, goods-based, mission-efficiency-based, end-results-based factor.  

The "negative affect" is a social one.  Analogy: 

• PersonA is asked to group up with PersonB to complete an assignment. 
• PersonA thinks 90% of the project can be completed by PersonB, because PersonA knows how superior PersonB is at this task. 
• Thus, PersonA shows no initative, and doesn't explain to PersonB why they are showing no Initiative. 
• In contrast, PersonB thinks everyone should contribute a fair share of work regardless of individual skill. 
• PersonB is angry with PersonA, and PersonA doesn't give a sh*t.

You are PersonA in this scenario.  You only care about the result, and it has to be a quantitative result.   You don't care about the social impact the behavior has.  Just because YOUR result is more efficient to the goal, you don't give a sh*t how it makes PersonB feel.  You think all PersonB's should p*ss off because they are clearly wrong.  

Sometimes "contribution" is more for gesture, than it is for quantitative efficiency. This "gesture" leads to future grouping as it shows respect.  All PersonB's of the world are insulted that you aren't even making an attempt at trying to aid, whether or not it is needed.   Thus, nobody wants to invite you for the future because they "perceive" you as non-contributory, and likely lazy. 

This is what you are clearly not understanding.  There is CERTAINLY a "negative effect" even if you don't agree it is a "negative effect".  It doesn't matter what you think when the three other people perceive it as negative.  

Edited June 12, 2018 by AlMcFly

[Shifty_Shuffler]

13 minutes ago, Starcanum said:

I do love it when people try to take the rules out of context and common sense and justify the witch hunts with those rules. Rules are meant to keep people from harming others, and leeching in this context doesn't harm anyone.

Ok, so what is more unreasonable, you expecting the other 3 to carry you or the other 3 calling you out for not pulling your weight?

[Starcanum]

4 minutes ago, Shifty_Shuffler said:

Ok, so what is more unreasonable, you expecting the other 3 to carry you or the other 3 calling you out for not pulling your weight?

If the 3 are already doing everything without me, the latter is more unreasonable.

7 minutes ago, AlMcFly said:

The "negative affect" is not always a metric-based, goods-based, mission-efficiency-based, end-results-based factor.  

The "negative affect" is a social one.  Analogy: 

• PersonA is asked to group up with PersonB to complete an assignment. 
• PersonA thinks 90% of the project can be completed by PersonB, because PersonA knows how superior PersonB is at this task. 
• Thus, PersonA shows no initative, and doesn't explain to PersonB why they are showing no Initiative. 
• In contrast, PersonB thinks everyone should contribute a fair share of work regardless of individual skill. 
• PersonB is angry with PersonA, and PersonA doesn't give a sh*t.

You are PersonA in this scenario.  You only care about the result, and it has to be a quantitative result.   You don't care about the social impact the behavior has.  Just because YOUR result is more efficient to the goal, you don't give a sh*t how it makes PersonB feel.  You think all PersonB's should p*ss off because they are clearly wrong.  

Sometimes "contribution" is more for gesture, than it is for quantitative efficiency. This "gesture" leads to future grouping as it shows respect.  All PersonB's of the world are insulted that you aren't even making an attempt at trying to aid, whether or not it is needed.   Thus, nobody wants to invite you for the future because they "perceive" you as non-contributory, and likely lazy. 

This is what you are clearly not understanding.  There is CERTAINLY a "negative effect" even if you don't agree it is a "negative effect".  It doesn't matter what you think when the three other people perceive it as negative.  

Alright, that finally starts to make more sense than your previous posts. I agree that some people value the attempt at contribution. Public ESO, however, is a gamemode that's about efficiency, not about expecting contribution from one another. What you've explained is an example of a mindset that stands behind the complaints, and it is logical from their point of view too, so because of this post I won't be disregarding those complaints as plain dumb and illogical, thanks. However, I'll keep trying to sway people to my point of view, because in my opinion, if fewer people care more about those gestures than efficiency, it'll be best for both the people who are efficient and those who stay afk because of being inefficient.

[Shifty_Shuffler]

3 minutes ago, Starcanum said:

If the 3 are already doing everything without me, the latter is more unreasonable.

And there lies the problem. Glad I am not your employer.

[Starcanum]

1 minute ago, Shifty_Shuffler said:

And there lies the problem. Glad I am not your employer.

That's your point of view, not "the problem". But glad I could clarify the differences of our points for you.

[-.SP.-G43riel]

28 minutes ago, AlMcFly said:

The "negative affect" is not always a metric-based, goods-based, mission-efficiency-based, end-results-based factor.  

The "negative affect" is a social one.  Analogy: 

• PersonA is asked to group up with PersonB to complete an assignment. 
• PersonA thinks 90% of the project can be completed by PersonB, because PersonA knows how superior PersonB is at this task. 
• Thus, PersonA shows no initative, and doesn't explain to PersonB why they are showing no Initiative. 
• In contrast, PersonB thinks everyone should contribute a fair share of work regardless of individual skill. 
• PersonB is angry with PersonA, and PersonA doesn't give a sh*t.

You are PersonA in this scenario.  You only care about the result, and it has to be a quantitative result.   You don't care about the social impact the behavior has.  Just because YOUR result is more efficient to the goal, you don't give a sh*t how it makes PersonB feel.  You think all PersonB's should p*ss off because they are clearly wrong.  

Sometimes "contribution" is more for gesture, than it is for quantitative efficiency. This "gesture" leads to future grouping as it shows respect.  All PersonB's of the world are insulted that you aren't even making an attempt at trying to aid, whether or not it is needed.   Thus, nobody wants to invite you for the future because they "perceive" you as non-contributory, and likely lazy. 

This is what you are clearly not understanding.  There is CERTAINLY a "negative effect" even if you don't agree it is a "negative effect".  It doesn't matter what you think when the three other people perceive it as negative.  

the problem on your example is that, 
PERSON A didnt ask to group with B thats not how warframe works
He simply end up with Person B
If person B dont want anyone like Person A in his group, then Person B should have made the group before hand

Edited June 12, 2018 by -.SP.-G43riel

[Alaeacus]

3 minutes ago, -.SP.-G43riel said:

the problem on your example is that, 
PERSON A didnt ask to group with B thats not how warframe works
He simply end up with Person B
If person B dont want anyone like Person A in his group, then Person B should have made the group before hand

Um, in my analogy, neither PersonA or PersonB had a choice.  Someone else made the decision to pair them together, In Warframe, the game makes the decision to pair them together.  I think you misread my analogy.  

Also, you don't really understand analogies.  The argument isn't in the details of the form.  The argument is in the overall message.  

[zeebo69]

im gunna play limbo and constantly banish and stasis everything and follow around these leechers trying to do stuff then say " you joined public you cant complain"

its makes me so angry when people say "let people play how they wanna play"

[-.SP.-G43riel]

1 minute ago, AlMcFly said:

Um, in my analogy, neither PersonA or PersonB had a choice.  Someone else made the decision to pair them together, In Warframe, the game makes the decision to pair them together.  I think you misread my analogy.  

Also, you don't really understand analogies.  The argument isn't in the details of the form.  The argument is in the overall message.  

you cant make analogies that dont fit at all and say that someone who argues against it is because they didnt understand LOL

[Alaeacus]

1 minute ago, -.SP.-G43riel said:

you cant make analogies that dont fit at all

Pleas stahp.  It's a 1:1 analogy.  You misread, nothing more.  Both persons were put together in a group by a third party.  

3 minutes ago, -.SP.-G43riel said:

and say that someone who argues against it is because they didnt understand LOL

I explained why you didn't understand.  

26 minutes ago, Starcanum said:

Alright, that finally starts to make more sense than your previous posts. I agree that some people value the attempt at contribution. Public ESO, however, is a gamemode that's about efficiency, not about expecting contribution from one another. What you've explained is an example of a mindset that stands behind the complaints, and it is logical from their point of view too, so because of this post I won't be disregarding those complaints as plain dumb and illogical, thanks. However, I'll keep trying to sway people to my point of view, because in my opinion, if fewer people care more about those gestures than efficiency, it'll be best for both the people who are efficient and those who stay afk because of being inefficient.

This is the point I was trying to make from the beginning, though I was being lazy and initially not wanting to fully flesh out what those points were.  I also agree with your final sentence, though without communication, we will never know the intentions of our teammates.  I am very anti-communication.  If you explain why you are afk-bubbling in one spot, I might be more inclined to not care.  If you are just silent and motionless, I'm going to think you want everyone else to do the work for you, and just receive free stuff without effort.  

[Shifty_Shuffler]

17 minutes ago, -.SP.-G43riel said:

the problem on your example is that, 
PERSON A didnt ask to group with B thats not how warframe works
He simply end up with Person B
If person B dont want anyone like Person A in his group, then Person B should have made the group before hand

the problem with your example is that,

Person B didn't ask to group with A thats not how warframe works

He simply ended up with Person A

If Person A doesn't want anyone like Person B....oh wait Person A relies on Person B.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Shifty_Shuffler

[-.SP.-G43riel]

9 minutes ago, Shifty_Shuffler said:

the problem with your example is that,

Person B didn't ask to group with A thats not how warframe works

He simply ended up with Person A

If Person A doesn't want anyone like Person B....oh wait Person A relies on Person B.

your example only shows again, like the one Mcfly did originally, that PERSON B should have made a group before hand just like i said... its not that hard to understand that

Edited June 12, 2018 by -.SP.-G43riel

[Shifty_Shuffler]

24 minutes ago, Starcanum said:

That's your point of view, not "the problem". But glad I could clarify the differences of our points for you.

Nope, that is the problem, you think it is unreasonable for people calling out leechers, when in fact the unreasonable one is the person expecting the other 3 to do the work for them.

If this was a group of friends or a group that have agreed to take it in turns to go afk, then fair enough as it was agreed beforehand. But this isn't the case you are presenting here, you simply took the liberty to take the lazy route and let the others do the work for you. It doesn't matter if the other 3 were doing fine, they would do much better if you pulled your weight too. And why even log in if you are not even going to play? Oh yeah, you still want the rewards for doing sweet FA.

[Shifty_Shuffler]

2 minutes ago, -.SP.-G43riel said:

your example only shows again that PERSON B should have made a group before hand just like i said... its not that hard to understand that

It also shows that the problem is Person A.

[Alaeacus]

1 minute ago, -.SP.-G43riel said:

your example only shows again, like the on Mcfly did, that PERSON B should have made a group before hand just like i said... its not that hard to understand that

You've now changed your argument.  You are now arguing "Make your own group", which means: stay out of Public.

The person I was arguing against supports afk in Public.

Your points don't belong in this conversation.  

[-.SP.-G43riel]

Just now, AlMcFly said:

You've now changed your argument.  You are now arguing "Make your own group", which means: stay out of Public.

The person I was arguing against supports afk in Public.

Your points don't belong in this conversation.  

i didn,t change anything, since the first page i said that
you can't complain such things when you are joining public groups, you cant control how random people play.
make your group before hand 

3 minutes ago, Shifty_Shuffler said:

It also shows that the problem is Person A.

How so? person A has no problem against Person B
Person B has a problem against A.
If B doesnt like that random A enter his team then B should have made a group before hand instead of joining with randoms

[Starcanum]

1 minute ago, Shifty_Shuffler said:

Nope, that is the problem, you think it is unreasonable for people calling out leechers, when in fact the unreasonable one is the person expecting the other 3 to do the work for them.

If this was a group of friends or a group that have agreed to take it in turns to go afk, then fair enough as it was agreed beforehand. But this isn't the case you are presenting here, you simply took the liberty to take the lazy route and let the others do the work for you. It doesn't matter if the other 3 were doing fine, they would do much better if you pulled your weight too. And why even log in if you are not even going to play? Oh yeah, you still want the rewards for doing sweet FA.

Again, it's nothing more than your opinion, nothing factual there. Those people are already doing the same amount of work, and by doing nothing you're not somehow increasing that amount. People in a workspace should expect others to cooperate, while people who are bringing the current meta builds to ESO shouldn't. In the case of ESO, the 3 wouldn't do much better if you pulled your weight, in fact, that's my entire point. That with the current meta builds, most of the tilesets don't let you contribute anything. Your hypothetical analogies hold no value because I'm not arguing quality, I'm arguing quantity. Of course there is a point where someone's contribution becomes noticeable and they do start doing "much better" with it and worse without it. This is why I specified so many times that I'm not defending the leeching in general, but saying that people should use it carefully depending on the context. In this specific scenario, your contribution does not improve the situation for the others. That is my point, not some ephemeral "I want *all* the work to be done for me and I'm not going to play".

[Alaeacus]

Just now, -.SP.-G43riel said:

i didn,t change anything, since the first page i said that
you can't complain such things when you are joining public groups, you cant control how random people play.
make your group before hand 

and I didn't respond to you, nor did I choose to respond to your argument.  I was having a conversation with someone else.  You injected yourself by quoting me, when that quote did not apply to your argument.  Thus, you do not belong in this conversation.  Don't quote me unless your point specifically related to the argument I am making.  We are talking about etiquette in "Public" play.  You suggesting to not be in "Public" is extraneous.  

[KIREEK]

You don't need to make a group specific for gameplay, when you enter the game you are obligated to play, you do not need to accept afk gameplay, you don't need to abort or quit, all you need to do is report.

The grind in warframe helps on the matter, in that they warn once and if you don't want to lose your hundreds of hours account, you will play.

If you are concerned about improving the community (something that player's aren't obligated to do), you can report and then support either makes the player helpfull in the future, or the player is removed outright.

Do not be concerned to warn the player ingame, it is not being toxic, you are not being disruptive or harassing, you are not doing false claims (we hope) and so, make your stance ingame without insulting the user, 20% of the times players will return to actual gameplay, if the player decides to report you because you are being toxic for example, ignore the claims, support has common sense and will deal accordingly, do not fear.

5% of reported players will have a tendency to outright leave the next time they meet you, they might remember the game or your name and they will quit instantly after seeing you again.

I have hundreds of reports done so i've seen pretty much all sort of reactions, entire groups and possibly clans even tried to counter report, the success rate of buthurt reported players is currently 0%

Edited June 12, 2018 by KIREEK

[-.SP.-G43riel]

Just now, AlMcFly said:

and I didn't respond to you, nor did I choose to respond to your argument.  I was having a conversation with someone else. 

you just did choose to do that right now, infact you did several times, and its a public forum, want privacy?
send PMs to that person, oh look its same way to solve "this afk problem"
making your own private group, haha neat

[Shifty_Shuffler]

10 minutes ago, Starcanum said:

This is why I specified so many times that I'm not defending the leeching in general, but saying that people should use it carefully depending on the context.

Why? Leeching is leeching, there is no grey area. Stop trying to justify such awful behaviour.

Anyway, it is clear we will never agree on this so lets leave it there.