Gravitus

Ok yes...you did mention the carrot being too small or too big on what would happen.......perhaps if the carrot was too big it would cause what you suggested to happen.....too small and things really don't change from the way they are now. I mean it's all quite philosophical on what would actually happen......maybe there is a middle ground and its just something to experiment with. From my own experience this is what I have seen on Excelsior. During prime times when there is a lot of people online, you won't generally run into a "lack of people to join groups" in fact the groups will be ran multiple times. I've only generally seen this as an issue during the late or early hours of the game.

I've already addressed that.

Suggesting an improvment doesn't necessarily indicate I think there is something wrong with it now. Think of it as a QOL element. You mean the exact same thing everyone else gets for putting in less effort? I would categorize that more as a philosophical reward than a tangible one. You're not getting anything beyond what your teammates are getting...in fact, there are many cases because of RNG you get rewarded less than someone who just asked to join because the RNG gods smiled on them on not you. Ah but I have... Not anymore than the AE system could be gamed. No system in this game is "air tight" there will always be cons. I read through the last thread and saw the 2 biggest concerns were people fighting to be leader and the system being manipulated by passing the star around. Taking those into consideration, I further suggested systems that would mitigate those 2 chief concerns and all I seem to get back is..."it can still be gamed" without anyone actually explaining anything. I'll let the devs make that choice. I'm not a dev and I'll wager you aren't either. I have no idea how easy or hard that would be to implement. And I think we can both agree you don't have to be a dev to qualify to post something in this forum. And what's the worst that can happen? You don't get something extra, sorta like now.

I mean, that happens now. I believe you said in the other thread that it wasn't a big enough "carrot on a stick" to incentivize more TFs or groups being started. Did you change your position?

Logic would dictate that whoever took the initiative to recruit and form the team would lead it. I couldn't possibly imagine some rando joining and demanding to lead for the "reward" when the other person took the initiative to recruit. But even if that did happen. if you programmed the game to where the one who started the TF is the only one eligible to receive the finished TF reward, it would negate arguing over the star moving aorund.

It’s all subjective and unless you can read minds, you’ll never actually always know why someone got 1 star. But is it possible someone could grief someone to be an ass? Sure, but then you’re left with the system we got now. Worst case, a good team lead gets unfairly rated and they get what they currently get….. nothing. So where is the downside from what we got now? AE awards tickets for player rated content. What if someone writes a good story and someone else gives a bad review just to be a dick? I’m sure it’s happened but I think most people tend to rate things fairly. The system I’m proposing would take all the reviews given by each team member , not just 1. So unless you think the worst of the CoX community and think the other 7+ team members would rate a good lead low just to be a dick…that’s a hard sell. But even if you didn’t subscribe to that, with the logic you’re presenting, we should take the AE award rating system away as well.

So if you’re worried about bad players being rewarded, maybe at the end of the TF a pop up box could appear (similar to AE when you finish player created content) where you can rate 1-5 stars. And perhaps the reward could be scaled based on the average score given by the team? I don’t think it’s practical to research pages of topics to see if I’m repeating a month old topic. Perhaps programming could be implemented where only the person who starts the tf as leader and ends as leader is eligible to receive the extra reward?

Some people just don't know how to let go.

I think we can all agree that forming and leading a team IS extra work. That being the case. Should team leads be rewarded with extra merits or drops? Not only would this be more fair imo, but I think to a degree it would incentivize folks to initiate activities more often which is good for everyone. Obviously, Leagues would offer higher tier rewards vs running a TF. This is just a rough draft idea. I'm not sure how to quantify such rewards, but I wanted to at least get a conversation going and not put the cart before the horse.

Depends. 90% of the game is easy enough to where the team is gonna win no matter what. So I generally don’t pay it any mind. Now if I was going for a master badge of some stripe that’s when I tend to pay attention to everything .

For the sake of argument, let’s say it is a mental health issue. What does that say about the people such as yourself who think that and proceed to hit the “reply” button?

Agreed

So by saying the team lead committed an immoral act somehow translates into me calling people who disagree with me immoral? How did you come up with that? I guess you missed the part where I said being on a team is INDEPENDENT (since bolded words might help you as well) from actually being in opposition to the team. You're hung up on the word team instead of what's actually being explained to you. YIELD definition give way to arguments, demands, or pressure. The word you're looking for is resisted. If I resist something, it doesn't mean I then made the person who was trying to get me to yield, yield. All I did was tell you semantics work on dumb people. Did I call you or anyone else on the thread dumb? Cool story bro, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Yielding is a verb, I'm literally taking no action, therefore no one can yield to me. That would be like you putting a gun to my head and saying, "if you don't give me $100 I'm going to shoot you" If I don't give you the $100 that doesn't mean I committed suicide. That's basically what you're saying. Take your own advice? I mean I ended my conversation with you, you chose to intervene in a conversation I was having with someone else. And I also said I was going to post again after. Do you just stop reading posts when it suits you? No one forced you to respond. Log Off or Block

Ok but that's if you avoid collecting a reward altogether. If your goal is to collect the reward, you have more control over GF not affecting you, than you do in the PVP zones from getting ganked.

It was mostly sarcasm but since you brought up a point I disagree with I'll address it. You said free agency vs choice.....I agree that is valid distinction. However I don't think GF fits into the mold of being forced for 2 reasons: 1. You chose to enter into a team with the intention on collecting a certain reward. This means you accept the possibility that some powers or tactics maybe used not to your liking that effect the way you play. Similarly in PVP you enter the zone seeking an award of some stripe but accept you may be ganked. I see these as similiar. 2. You can actively stop GF from effecting you, you cannot stop people from actively ganking you. So when you tell me the person doesn't have a choice...I just showed you two choices they had to make to have GF effect them,

The claim was I was accusing those who did not agree with me on this thread as immoral, which wasn't the case. I did however accuse the team lead of being immoral in this instance. You are conflating two diffrent things entirely. It would be helpful if you knew where the goal posts were in this argument you're making. Semantics has everything to do with it. look up the definition of team. It's more than a single person. Me being on a team is independent of me being in opposition to the team vs a single team member. The fact you are unable to make this distinction is telling. I didn't give a command; therefore no one is capable of yielding or not yielding to me. Ad hom all you want, it won't turn your weak argument into a strong one.

I disagree, I don't think a single individual that I'm in violent disagreement with, obligates me to automatically yield. Even if we are on the same team. If a team lead tells me to do something that I think is a bad call, I'll ignore that request as well. Most of the time however, that's not the case. I got plenty of team-oriented badges to show for it. If more than one person asks, then I'll likely play ball even if it's a bad call OR if I see its really making something bad happen, I'll also cease whatever action. If we can't agree on what I consider fundamentals it may just be time to agree to disagree.

See how you ignored the context of everything else I said? I sure am... the claim/inference against me was I was calling people for disagreeing with me on the thread immoral. Let's try to keep up, shall we? Semantics don't work on people with an IQ over 76. It would be more accurate to say a team member and myself had a disagreement instead of saying the team. When you say "team" that comes with baggage and the optics that I'm going against several people and that I placed myself over the collective which is not what happened.

What team? You mean the 1 guy? You use the word cater but it doesn't mean what you think it does. It was a 1v1 disagreement. You keep blowing it up to more than it was. Stay on topic. 2 people had a disagreement...I made my points and the best you can come up with is "someone had a star" and "you don't always use the power" right...I don't use GF on closed maps like caves because I'm not a monster. Still feel good about trying to use that as a point of contention?

That's a very poor argument.

So that's a question, not an assertion of anything. See how it ends in a question mark? I am asking someone to make a case why its ok for to take an adverse action against someone when a solution exists that gives everyone what they want. Yes, I have the position that I was wronged, and an immoral action was taken against me. But I don't know, maybe someone will present a good argument showing me the error of my ways, which is why I didn't just assert that was the case. Your assertion that I'm just out here dry saying "People who don't use Null are immoral" is a gross misinterpretation of what was actually said...context is king. Simply using or not using Null has no morality attached to it in of itself. It's my belief that when you have the solution to give all parties what they want, and you forgo that option and instead take an adverse action against someone for your shortcomings is when it becomes immoral. That's a far cry from calling the people on the thread immoral which is what you are insinuating. Come on nothing...it was a disagreement between me and a SINGLE individual. Those are the facts. You've failed to connect the dots on how the team was hindered. Yup, and I gave him a bad review and complained in a public forum. What's your point? Never denied they had power to take action. Having the power to take action sure don't mean right though, does it? Funny you say that, I actually did a few days ago and someone said "cool story bro" I think I'll just play the odds and if it happens again, I won't bitch on the forums anymore about it. The best I can take away from this is at least it sparked discussion about GF in a huge way that maybe the devs will take another look at it again.

i know....just being silly....but......

There's one guy going around on Excelsior in RV at random times recently, offering 100mil to who can ever beat him.

Ha you fools! You fell into my trap! This post was a trojan horse for GF! How you going to sit there and be ok with PVP killing at will, citing it as part of the game but not extend the same logic to GF when you have Null available?