|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 28, 2014 4:54:57 GMT
I've done some thinking and here is what I have come up with. We completely ignore this rule, pretend this whole fiasco was all a bad dream, and take any blacklisting complaints and issues as they come, on a case by case basis with the understanding that banning is a possible outcome for bad behavior. That's pretty much exactly what Cata suggested above, and I'm frankly leaning that way at this point. I don't have the time to hassle with administrative headaches, and any rule not involving them is going to be oppressively broad. I think the !anon settings will stay as they are, for now, though. Funky
|
|
|
Post by bazukar on Mar 28, 2014 5:17:05 GMT
Aside from the silly parts, Elaborate please, so that I may endeavor to avoid silly friviolities in the future when attempting to post constructive feedback.
|
|
|
Post by Twilight Semner on Mar 28, 2014 5:30:29 GMT
Just the bad dream part, really. It was a good suggestion. Unfortunately, it's hard to ignore some of the bad stuff that came up as a response to this. So the idea of ignoring it and pretending it just didn't happen seemed kind of silly. Didn't mean to suggest that your post wasn't, on the whole, constructive. My apologies.
|
|
|
Post by CataclysmicDeath on Mar 28, 2014 10:43:40 GMT
Assuming we do auto-runshouts, though, which runs should get them? Thoughts from anyone welcome, but I'm not looking for answers like 'all x runs'. I'm looking for very specific runs, with reasons. I'm thinking thids, for example, should be excluded, as people like to farm it. Funky Obvious ones that spring to mind are Cania, Nessus, All Abyss Prince fights, Pelor and Elysium, Aboleth runs as these are major end game tags that can be extremely hard to get parties for. Immo, it's a lowbie tag and easy enough for vets but not necessarily for newer players. Also Rona as this run, although not exactly a major end game tag it is a run that can be hard to get a party for. Cata PS. Did I just have a bad dream or did Bazukar and I actually agree on something? I suddenly feel light headed :-P
|
|
|
Post by Yojimbo on Mar 28, 2014 12:24:44 GMT
I would consider adding Hive to the list simply as while there are those able to solo/dual box it the run is not a simple one and can be rather long.
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Mar 28, 2014 13:21:18 GMT
What was the rationale for the auto-shout system exactly?
I'm having some difficulty viewing an automated laziness-enabler such as this to be helping to provide positive behavior reinforcement. The game already suffers drastically from the ability via Webdash for us to "slack" and just sit afk or not logged in and wait for some runshout. Enabling this behavior is not beneficial; and if the supposed motivation behind all this is to have a more inclusive community with more runs and more participation, then we should learn from the recent history: having immediate and instant access to what everyone is doing at all times in the game actually had some downsides as well despite making things easier and cooler.
Just my feeling: already the game is hurting from 9/10 players watching, lurking, waiting for something to happen, while 1/10 is sitting ingame trying to shout 9 spots for the run.
If you want these blacklisted nubs to actually be useful and productive (so we won't want to blacklist them anymore) then further allowing them to slack/leech endgame runs without even needing to lift a finger at helping form/schedule the rune is not going to prove a useful incentive.
|
|
|
Post by Yojimbo on Mar 28, 2014 13:38:13 GMT
The problem at the heart of this thread is that runs were being done with out shouts and which excluded many people or at least that is as I understand this also these runs were being done with all players in !anon status. The disabling of !anon status solves the 3rd part of the problem a party running all !anon the 2nd part where people were being excluded is what the rule in the OP is really aimed to address leaving the first part of the run not being actually shouted. The idea then is that is the system shouts a run has begun it notifies others who might be interested so that they can run over and try to join up as long as there isn't some other reason they can't or won't join the group.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 28, 2014 15:04:34 GMT
What was the rationale for the auto-shout system exactly? I'm having some difficulty viewing an automated laziness-enabler such as this to be helping to provide positive behavior reinforcement. The game already suffers drastically from the ability via Webdash for us to "slack" and just sit afk or not logged in and wait for some runshout. Enabling this behavior is not beneficial; Why not? It eases run formation. You could take nearly anything that makes run formation speedier and make this same argument, but it doesn't seem, to me, to stand up under scrutiny. People are able to join runs without the cost of sitting around on the server twiddling their thumbs. Sure, that disincentivizes thumb-twiddling, but presumably the lurkers do still want to play, and someone is eventually going to call a run. Again, though, you have failed the charge in the op: all you're doing is complaining, rather than offering an alternative you consider to be superior. Example: Bonus 10% xp for the run caller, to incentivize the calling of runs. And yes, since this thread has been unusually prone to trollish antics (I actually got called out for using a compound noun formation yesterday by someone apparently unfamiliar with it, for saying 'idiot rant', rather than using the adjective 'idiotic' - think 'fire truck', guys), I'm just going to say up front: yes, I know that neither disincentivize nor incentivize are actual words. I still use them, and people still know what they mean. Mission accomplished. Moving on... You see to be confusing a lot of distinct issues here, but the thrust of your point seems to be that transparency is bad. I completely reject that. I could write, quite literally, at least a 20 page essay on why that's one of the most backwards things I've read on this board this year. Sadly, I have neither the time nor the inclination to cure you of such bizarre notions. Go read J.S. Mill's 'On Liberty' (contending that that vigorous open debate will cause the truth to out). If you're trying to make some other point, then I guess I'm just not understanding you. The blacklistings in this case had nothing to do with noobishness. Read the thread. Further, no one is talking about allowing them to leech. Read the OP. Funky
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2014 16:11:08 GMT
Auto-shouts for all layers of Hell, Abo part 1 + 2, Ely and POP would be my vote.
If there is to be a rule I would frame it as follows:
1. Do not trigger the auto-shout unless you are intending to do the run.
2. If your party is 3 or more you MUST accept additional players if they are of eligible level and sufficiently tagged UNLESS you are passed map 1 of the run or in the case of the Abyss have entered the starting portal.
3. If you allow one player to join/port in later during the run you MUST also allow others to do so if they can UNLESS you are on the final map.
4. Bots MUST be dropped in favour of real players UNLESS the bot is the only one of a core class (meaning Bard/Druid/Arcane or Cleric).
5. You MAY veto a player joining by unnanimous vote of those in the party but the person vetoed must be told so they can if they wish report this to the DM Team. Players continually vetoing for childish reasons will be dealt with appropriately.
6. Silly attempts to circumvent the rule will be dealt with on a case by case basis.
7. Be kind to one another
Kratlin
|
|
|
Post by magecat on Mar 28, 2014 16:33:15 GMT
Perhaps putting a "Shout-o-matic" in the staging areas would not be amiss.
The device could be used to call runs using a dialog, including the fact that the "run" is actually a farming expedition. That would allow you to normalize behavior and make it easier and less dependent on a caller, as anyone could use the device.
It should also be relatively light on dev time.
|
|
|
Post by Yojimbo on Mar 28, 2014 17:18:53 GMT
I am not as on board for the PoP simply because it won't say which run it is as well it could be a Pazuzu hunt which I haven't heard of but isn't unfathomable not to say people won't want to join that but it would be akin to a farming run.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 28, 2014 18:14:52 GMT
Auto-shouts for all layers of Hell, Abo part 1 + 2, Ely and POP would be my vote. If there is to be a rule I would frame it as follows: 1. Do not trigger the auto-shout unless you are intending to do the run. 2. If your party is 3 or more you MUST accept additional players if they are of eligible level and sufficiently tagged UNLESS you are passed map 1 of the run or in the case of the Abyss have entered the starting portal. 3. If you allow one player to join/port in later during the run you MUST also allow others to do so if they can UNLESS you are on the final map. 4. Bots MUST be dropped in favour of real players UNLESS the bot is the only one of a core class (meaning Bard/Druid/Arcane or Cleric). 5. You MAY veto a player joining by unnanimous vote of those in the party but the person vetoed must be told so they can if they wish report this to the DM Team. Players continually vetoing for childish reasons will be dealt with appropriately. 6. Silly attempts to circumvent the rule will be dealt with on a case by case basis. 7. Be kind to one another Kratlin I think that's a pretty solid formulation. I'm still leaning towards the Cata solution at this point, as I don't want players to have to remember complex rules. A lot of this is already covered in the server rules by the bit about them being designed to mirror common courtesy, but that has already proven insufficent for some. As with any rulemakeing, there is a constant give and take between arbitrariness and specificity, with reasons pulling in both opposing directions. Funky
|
|
|
Post by Bad on Mar 28, 2014 18:45:03 GMT
I was thinking of a way to incentivize inclusive party behavior:
Current 10 man run xp is 1 mil for instance. Bump it by 15-25% depending on the run thus: 1.15 - 1.25 mil. Then subtract 10% for each member below 10 The “bonus” xp would have groups welcoming new arrivals with open arms.
The main snag I see is rampant botting. Though an ip check and possibly activity benchmarks (Based on HGX type kills, damage, helper scores.) would make botting for xp more challanging.
Also there is a rule against keeping a bot in party when a live person wants a spot which would be reinforced via the activity benchmarks for bonus xp.
These types of incentives should likely be used on runs where we want to encourage larger parties (Abyss, Hells, Abo, Ely).
|
|
|
Post by Yojimbo on Mar 28, 2014 20:30:31 GMT
Perhaps bad instead of bonus XP a penalty applied to leeching players the biggest hurt is this would hit bots pretty hard but would certainly discourage the use outside of having the open space or need to do so. There would need to be a set of parameters of when and how much of a penalty a player incurs for their inactivity and ways to clear the penalty. I could make a thread on such an idea if there is support for it though I admit this seems like something that would require much dev time and there are many more important things to develop at the moment. I also know this would impact me negatively but if it provides a boost to the community then I believe that it may result in a net improvement for all. I am not opposed to improvements to current XP numbers though along with a change which would reduce some characters XP gains.
|
|
|
Post by Twilight Semner on Mar 28, 2014 20:41:16 GMT
That sounds like a lot of dev time wasted. The far, far simpler solution is something akin to Cata's solution where the rule is enforced temporarily when blacklisting gets out of hand.
|
|