Taming Leaching

[twospirited]

i've said it before and i'll say it again, lock AE access to requiring a 50 on your account before you can even enter into it, or any player created missions. this'd help curb PLs for new accounts at least.

 

same goes for contact missions in open world, put a level requirement to enter them so they can't be used for PL's either. or even put a level lock on zones so players can't go there w/o meeting the level req's to do so.

 

[biostem]

9 minutes ago, twospirited said:

i've said it before and i'll say it again, lock AE access to requiring a 50 on your account before you can even enter into it, or any player created missions. this'd help curb PLs for new accounts at least.

All that'd do is redirect new accounts to wolf, warrior earth, or radios in PI...

[twospirited]

Just now, biostem said:

All that'd do is redirect new accounts to wolf, warrior earth, or radios in PI...

yes, hence the 2nd part as well, level lock missions too. once there's a 50 on the acc't, that limit could be removed by having one ofc

[biostem]

1 minute ago, twospirited said:

yes, hence the 2nd part as well, level lock missions too. once there's a 50 on the acc't, that limit could be removed by having one ofc

Does that tech exist?  Would it not allow the team leader to select the mission?  You'd basically have to turn all content in TFs/SFs with some sort of minimum level requirement - I can't see them implementing this.  You are not going to force people into a preferred playstyle, short of implementing such draconian policies that nobody will want to play...

[Greycat]

23 minutes ago, twospirited said:

i've said it before and i'll say it again, lock AE access to requiring a 50 on your account before you can even enter into it, or any player created missions. this'd help curb PLs for new accounts at least.

 

same goes for contact missions in open world, put a level requirement to enter them so they can't be used for PL's either. or even put a level lock on zones so players can't go there w/o meeting the level req's to do so.

 

 

 

Absolutely not. Things like this have been *removed* over the years, after all, and teaming is better for it.

[twospirited]

Just now, Krimson said:

Or people could stop sticking their noses in how other players play, mind their own business and play their own toons.

that'd happen when players stop hating on new players not knowing how to play the game, cuzz they got PL'd to max level alll to easily

[biostem]

14 minutes ago, Krimson said:

Or people could stop sticking their noses in how other players play, mind their own business and play their own toons.

If you are playing solo and never team, then it is indeed "your own business" as to how you play when and where.  When you're teamed, that ceases to be the case.  Now, I'm not advocating for some sort of totalitarian domineering behavior on the part of the devs or others in the community, but the fact that you are on a team, by its very nature, necessitates that you compromise or at least adjust your behavior, even if just slightly...

[Rudra]

8 minutes ago, twospirited said:

that'd happen when players stop hating on new players not knowing how to play the game, cuzz they got PL'd to max level alll to easily

Your proposal still wouldn't do anything to correct that. Let's examine how your proposal will (not) fix the 'problem'.

 

Okay, so a player has to get 1 character to level 50 in order to access AE or be able to go into any game zone even if the mobs are +1 billion to them. (Exaggeration intentional.) So they play through the game and get to level 50. Now their next character just joins a farm and PLs to 50. And still has no clue how that character is played. And then they do the same for the next character and the next character and the next character.... Learning how to play a single character with specific powers from specific power sets won't even teach how all the different ways that one AT plays depending on the chosen power sets, let alone the other ATs.

 

And then there is the other problem of forcing a new player to get 1 character to level 50 before they can do anything in AE and they have to be the minimum level of the enemies for any given zone to enter. Say a new player decides to play the game because friends who have been playing a while invite this player, their friend, to join CoX and run around with them. Except the new player can't because they aren't high enough level to leave Atlas Park or Mercy Island. So in order for them to all run around together, the experienced friends have to all exemplar/malefactor down to level 1 and do all the starter missions with their friend. Or the new player just tells their friends 'have fun', logs off, and deletes the game because they can't play together.

[shortguy on indom]

[09:25] shortguy on indom: sitter looking for farm.

[biostem]

15 minutes ago, shortguy on indom said:

[09:25] shortguy on indom: sitter looking for farm.

 

I got your farm right here! 

[Triumphant]

15 hours ago, twospirited said:

i've said it before and i'll say it again, lock AE access to requiring a 50 on your account before you can even enter into it, or any player created missions. this'd help curb PLs for new accounts at least.

 

same goes for contact missions in open world, put a level requirement to enter them so they can't be used for PL's either. or even put a level lock on zones so players can't go there w/o meeting the level req's to do so.

 

I want to be able to power level to 50.  I want other players to be able to power level to 50.  Why should your preference take precedence over mine?

 

I'll tell you why my preference should take precedence over yours:  My way of playing still allows you to level slowly, as is your own preference.  Your way cuts off the other avenue of play and forces me to adopt your play style.

 

I don't want to be bullied by you.

 

P.S.  Also, I don't always power level.  When I'm trying out an AT or powerset that is completely new to me, I play normally to at least lvl 25 (and sometimes even higher) so that I can learn how to use the new AT/powersets.  But you don't get to tell me whether or not I decide to do it that way.

 

 

[PeregrineFalcon]

You know, so many people now days constantly talk about wanting to "punch a Nazi", but a lot of them will suddenly go all "Gehen sie an die arbeit, Kamareden!!!" the moment they see anyone doing anything in anyway that they don't like.

 

Why do so many of you want to control how people are allowed to play a video game? Do you get a percentage of the monthly sub fees? If you do then I definitely understand why you want to control how people play. But, if you don't get a percentage of Homecoming's monthly income then what is your motivation, beyond simple petty power-tripping, in wanting to control how other people are allowed to play a free game?

[lemming]

13 minutes ago, Krimson said:

What I would like to know is what percentage of the player base do complaints like this come from? So far as I know, MSR runs well enough that people keep doing it for some reason. If you have an MSR, and three players are complaining about leechers, but the other 45 players are having a good time, who's the real problem?

There's a vocal group that thinks that everyone needs to play the way do.  (And hardly any of them agree with each other)

 

Most people I feel just follow the lead, some listen to instructions, and for the most part the active players keep it under control.   And sometimes it's not really the players, they're playing, but there may be a distraction at home, and sometimes their system isn't as responsive.

 

Then there are a few people that just want to cause problems.  Those are the only ones I get concerned about, but player notes are your friend.

 

[Oklahoman]

48 minutes ago, Krimson said:

What I would like to know is what percentage of the player base do complaints like this come from? So far as I know, MSR runs well enough that people keep doing it for some reason. If you have an MSR, and three players are complaining about leechers, but the other 45 players are having a good time, who's the real problem?

 

When I ran zoned MSRs I would get tells pretty much every raid that Player X is AFK and not participating. With a zoned MSR, a non-participating participant pilfers a place for a potential participating participant, so I get it. I haven't had a single tell like that since running instanced MSRs.

[Seed22]

On 6/13/2024 at 10:51 AM, PeregrineFalcon said:

Why do so many of you want to control how people are allowed to play a video game?

It has to do with a lack of control in their real lives so they figure they could come here and try to control others without realizing they’re even MORE powerless here.

 

A funny and sad situation all around to be sure.

 

*Some will claim ad hominem blah blah blah but it’s really not. I’ve seen this type of behavior elsewhere IRL and the reasoning resembled my remark, and what’s happening here looks awfully familiar so…see a shovel call it a shovel and all that

Edited June 15 by Seed22

[Seed22]

On 6/13/2024 at 11:39 AM, Oklahoman said:

 

When I ran zoned MSRs I would get tells pretty much every raid that Player X is AFK and not participating. With a zoned MSR, a non-participating participant pilfers a place for a potential participating participant, so I get it. I haven't had a single tell like that since running instanced MSRs.

That makes perfect sense to deal with. Absolutely kick those kind of players as they’re legit leeching for sure

Edited June 15 by Seed22

[biostem]

2 minutes ago, Seed22 said:

It has to do with a lack of control in their real lives

I would argue that it is even broader than that;  If you have a limited amount of leisure time, you may not have the luxury of stopping to hash out various difference in playstyles and/or place expectations on others;  "I'm familiar with the AT or powersets you are using, or with this TF, and therefore you should be able to perform at [insert some arbitrary level of performance]"...

[Seed22]

8 minutes ago, biostem said:

I would argue that it is even broader than that;  If you have a limited amount of leisure time, you may not have the luxury of stopping to hash out various difference in playstyles and/or place expectations on others;  "I'm familiar with the AT or powersets you are using, or with this TF, and therefore you should be able to perform at [insert some arbitrary level of performance]"...

I can totally understand that. But as a person who has had limited time in the past(and soon to have limited time again in the future) I feel I’d rather just leave and not bother trying to control the other person’s play. 
 

I may gripe and make a note not to team with them in the future but I’m not going to go to the forums and call for a feature to be removed(removing or nerfing AE) because of them, then spiral and try and tell others how to play “the correct way” 

 

 

Edited June 15 by Seed22

[biostem]

3 minutes ago, Seed22 said:

I’d rather just leave and not bother trying to control the other person’s play. 

I'd imagine that some folks fall victim to the sunk-cost fallacy, and would rather rage and vent than cut their loses and move on, as you pointed out...

[arcane]

16 hours ago, Seed22 said:

That makes perfect sense to deal with. Absolutely kick those kind of players as they’re legit leeching for sure

I dunno; I’ve been kicked from multiple MSR’s in the past for participating then going to the bathroom. Back when I was on Indom years ago where the nightly leader was a real stick in the mud.

[tidge]

20 hours ago, Seed22 said:

*Some will claim ad hominem blah blah blah but it’s really not. I’ve seen this type of behavior elsewhere IRL and the reasoning resembled my remark, and what’s happening here looks awfully familiar so…see a shovel call it a shovel and all that

 

I always thought an ad homenim attack had to be pointed directly at a specific person... such as "Of course it is a bad idea, it was made by @GenericHero222"

 

There have been occasional random posts accusing forum participants of ad hominem attacks, but less than half the time do I think there has been an argument made ad hominem.

 

Of course, this is just the kind of thing we can expect @tidge to write, so nobody should believe it.

[CrusaderDroid]

An ad hominem attack substitutes a personal attack in place of logic or reasoning. It's actually really narrow - for the fallacy to be committed, someone has to be targeting a personal characteristic of the other side, then use that as proof that their argument is wrong.

 

It isn't ad hominem if the other side throws insults as long as they use proper logic as a rebuttal instead of the insults. If someone claims "Empathy is the best support set", and someone else replies "You're a complete imbecile, Empathy gives up too much utility compared to other sets for negligible gains in healing", that's not ad hominem. Possibly rude, but not ad hominem.

 

Similarly, if the reply to "Empathy is the best support set" is "You're a complete imbecile"...that's still not ad hominem, because it doesn't look like there's even an attempt to refute the claim.

 

If the reply to "Empathy is the best support set" is "Well, you have to be a complete imbecile to think that, so you're wrong", that would be ad hominem - using an insult as a rebuttal instead of logic or data.

 

You can enjoy this if you want more reading on this particular fallacy.

[Luminara]

I have a strange urge to create a futuristic space monkey character named Hominem A.D.

[Bionic_Flea]

I went in game to check if Rikti Monkey was one of the available Aether costume options.  It is not, and now I am greatly disappointed.

 

@Cobalt Arachne, please hear our prayers and give us space monkeys!

[shortguy on indom]

.

Edited July 28 by shortguy on indom
...