Leaving M+ group should give you DESERTER

[Orange Joe]

You're ignoring the nuances and trying to lump it into one giant group. It's not like all reports go into the same paper shredder like you're making it sound.

And you realize you and your friends would end be being the banned ones for exploiting the system if you manage to pull it off after appeals, right? Like, c'mon. This is just being dishonest at this point.

Don't know why you are bothering at this point. If he isn't trolling we both know nothing will come of his reports at least not to the people being reported. Over time action may be taken on him for abusing the report system, but that is his problem.

- - - Updated - - -

It's laughable to think that "abusing reports" will do anything.

It's laughable thinking that reporting people for low dps will do anything

[lllll]

Don't know why you are bothering at this point. If he isn't trolling we both know nothing will come of his reports at least not to the people being reported. Over time action may be taken on him for abusing the report system, but that is his problem.

Lol, bro.

This is a guild consisting of people where we all know each other irl that we fall back to whenever we're not raiding with any guild:



We've been reporting people into bans since the automatic system was implemented. We started out on a friend to test if we can actually get someone banned by simply reporting him enough times and yeah, we could.

If someone wants to fuck with us, we'll fuck with them but we're most likely more than they are.

If I'm forced to play with someone I don't want to play with, they are gonna get it hard by everyone in that guild.

The only time any GM has intervened with our actions is when a friend was getting ganked in STV when lvling an alt and we got there and pretty much locked down whole STV, making it impossible for any horde to exist in the place and that was solely to warn us that we will get banned if we kept killing the quest NPCs so people can't pick up or turn in quests, lmao.

- - - Updated - - -

It's laughable thinking that reporting people for low dps will do anything

It will when they're hit by as many people as we are. The system is entirely automated. Besides, it's gameplay sabotage to do such low DPS.

[Orange Joe]

Lol, bro.

This is a guild consisting of people where we all know each other irl that we fall back to whenever we're not raiding with any guild:



We've been reporting people into bans since the automatic system was implemented. We started out on a friend to test if we can actually get someone banned by simply reporting him enough times and yeah, we could.

If someone wants to fuck with us, we'll fuck with them but we're most likely more than they are.

If I'm forced to play with someone I don't want to play with, they are gonna get it hard by everyone in that guild.

The only time any GM has intervened with our actions is when a friend was getting ganked in STV when lvling an alt and we got there and pretty much locked down whole STV, making it impossible for any horde to exist in the place and that was solely to warn us that we will get banned if we kept killing the quest NPCs so people can't pick up or turn in quests, lmao.

- - - Updated - - -



It will when they're hit by as many people as we are. The system is entirely automated. Besides, it's gameplay sabotage to do such low DPS.

Yeah...... this whole post is just pure bullshit. Have fun

[lllll]

Yeah...... this whole post is just pure bullshit. Have fun

You might not believe it but that doesn't make it bullshit.

[Rageonit]

If someone wants to fuck with us, we'll fuck with them

Shit man, so brutal. Proper gangsta stuff if I ever saw one! Can you maybe do it in a Jack Nicholson voice...?
No, really, you're just laughing stock.

- - - Updated - - -

You might not believe it but that doesn't make it bullshit.

There are all kinds of bullshit and yours is surely one of them.

[RobertoCarlos]

Deserter is a garbage debuff and should not be in the game full stop.

In pvp it never stopped Afker's it only caused headaches when you legit had d/c problems or the server had issues and you get booted and end up with debuff or someone was trolling in gen chat and got everyone to vote kick you and you get punished.

Players should not have that much "power" over other players when you dont even have to play with said players in the first place.

[Azharok]

You equate the usefulness of ilvl and r.io when forming a group. If you'd tried this only once, you'd know that this is not the case. R.io is vastly superior.

Yes, R.io does not tell the entire story, but just because it is not perfect, does not mean it is meaningless.

You state you encoutered "a few players" that were very bad wiht similar rating/ilvl compared to you. That shows that r.io IS meaningful, because you get less useless players, no?

I mean if you want to be all nitty picky. Bottom line is you can get to my rating without CCing mobs all that much, which is required to progress further. The problem is it only takes one bad player to screw the whole key over, and obviously you can't progress your io rating much if you run into them too much.

To that extent Rio doesn't mean much. You can brute force KSM pretty much, a couple of lucky runs of 15-16s boom you're 2k4. Maybe once you hit 2k6 you might be out of carryable territory (unless you're exceptionally good at the game).

So bad players + limited play time = slow progression. Of course the time available to me is my own fault. But it's kinda annoying that you'll spend 2 hours and accomplish nothing.

[Relapses]

But like I said, if a problem exists and is as prevalent as people here make it seem (which I don't see) then the focus should be on allowing the remaining players to complete their key in a timely fashion.

This got me thinking a bit.

What about something which scales the key down 20% if a player bounces? Give this option to the group leader after they yeet an Alt-F4/leaver and make it so that the run no longer counts towards IO. Even though this won't impact IO, the main reason to complete the run stays (mostly) intact and it won't feel anywhere near as laborious as it does currently. You'll get one piece of gear that's 3 item levels lower but I think that's a small price to pay to actually, y'know, complete the run. (The leaver is no longer eligible for loot if you take this option, too.) If the group wants to complete with 4 in the timer to obtain IO they'll have to keep the scaling.

[Cyi]

Good lord. I thought pvp players were petty and vane but you M+ players take it to another level. Do you don’t time it, spend 15 minutes and complete the task you signed up for.

Not only did you agree to complete it but the more experience lesser skilled players might get the better.

[TOM_RUS]

I don't see why not. I hate leavers.

[Biomega]

Good lord. I thought pvp players were petty and vane but you M+ players take it to another level. Do you don’t time it, spend 15 minutes and complete the task you signed up for.

Not only did you agree to complete it but the more experience lesser skilled players might get the better.

You can value your time any way you choose. If you choose to spend the extra time after losing out on your reward because you want to teach lesser-skilled players how to get better, that's great, and that's admirable, and anyone who chooses to do so is being morally virtuous.

But you can't DEMAND time from OTHER PEOPLE. They have to GIVE that time, freely. It is incumbent on everyone involved to honor that donation, and respect that it can be revoked. That this sometimes means you also lose time you invested is regrettable, but is the preferred outcome over forcing other people to commit even more.

Shared activities are implicit contracts in which you all contribute something towards a shared goal. If people stop contributing adequately, or if that goal is no longer shared (e.g. because it becomes unattainable), then the contract is dissolved.

What's on Blizzard is setting things up in a way that makes the failure scenarios 1. less common and 2. less painful. There's numerous things they could do to facilitate that (like, say, abolish the horrendous key system in the first place) but the core covenant behind cooperative play still needs to be respected by the players first and foremost. On all sides of the deal.

[Nite92]

I mean if you want to be all nitty picky. Bottom line is you can get to my rating without CCing mobs all that much, which is required to progress further. The problem is it only takes one bad player to screw the whole key over, and obviously you can't progress your io rating much if you run into them too much.

To that extent Rio doesn't mean much. You can brute force KSM pretty much, a couple of lucky runs of 15-16s boom you're 2k4. Maybe once you hit 2k6 you might be out of carryable territory (unless you're exceptionally good at the game).

So bad players + limited play time = slow progression. Of course the time available to me is my own fault. But it's kinda annoying that you'll spend 2 hours and accomplish nothing.

My god. Just do log analysis and don't use r.io.

But claiming r.io is meaningless is just not true. It has so much more info than ilvl, or do you deny this as well?

[Cyi]

You can value your time any way you choose. If you choose to spend the extra time after losing out on your reward because you want to teach lesser-skilled players how to get better, that's great, and that's admirable, and anyone who chooses to do so is being morally virtuous.

But you can't DEMAND time from OTHER PEOPLE. They have to GIVE that time, freely. It is incumbent on everyone involved to honor that donation, and respect that it can be revoked. That this sometimes means you also lose time you invested is regrettable, but is the preferred outcome over forcing other people to commit even more.

Shared activities are implicit contracts in which you all contribute something towards a shared goal. If people stop contributing adequately, or if that goal is no longer shared (e.g. because it becomes unattainable), then the contract is dissolved.

What's on Blizzard is setting things up in a way that makes the failure scenarios 1. less common and 2. less painful. There's numerous things they could do to facilitate that (like, say, abolish the horrendous key system in the first place) but the core covenant behind cooperative play still needs to be respected by the players first and foremost. On all sides of the deal.

Well I disagree and perhaps it was growing up the way I did playing sports that makes me that way. The contract is the run, not some explicit guarantee of advancement unless it was agreed to prior, which most are not. By your logic, each player should be able to bail at their leisure when the run wont produce the exact results they were hoping for which for each person is different.

I equate this much the same as a sports game. Everyone is going to have a bad day, make mistakes, cause a loss, but the team doesn't just throw their hands up and walk off the field in disgust. They typically power through even when the loss is a given and try to learn from the mistakes that got them there.

Is it easier to just walk away, sure, is it right and what's best in the long run, I say no. If it was, modern sports would be far less interesting.

[Anchorite]

That makes 0 sense.

As long as I invited people through the Group Finder, it's the same thing. Just opens 4 people to being victimized by a troll or some impatient douchebag, and there should be consequences for it. Hopefully they are coming.

Only people disagreeing with this are the chronic leavers, and they know they would be most affected.

I think I've maybe left keys 4 or 5 times, but if you introduced legit penalties I would just stop pugging keys, or if it were a bad run that wiped to the second boss 8 times I would just afk until they kicked me.

- - - Updated - - -

Simple fix. Have a vote to quit dialogue box. And give it a cool down to initiate so clowns aren't spamming it the first then they die.

How much time should I be setting aside for a key then? Usually I expect an hour, but if I'm penalized for leaving should it be an afternoon to complete a 10 that we'll never finish because someone refuses to vote to disband?

[Biomega]

Well I disagree and perhaps it was growing up the way I did playing sports that makes me that way. The contract is the run, not some explicit guarantee of advancement unless it was agreed to prior, which most are not. By your logic, each player should be able to bail at their leisure when the run wont produce the exact results they were hoping for which for each person is different.

It depends on what the shared goal is. It doesn't have to be "the piece of gear at the end". It could simply be "having fun together", in which case you stop when it stops being fun. That's up to the participants, and of course this is usually all an IMPLICIT covenant, not some explicit, hashed-out contract.

And the same is true for team sports, by the way. If you all meet after school to play some baseball, and everyone suddenly decides to instead just sit there and read comic books, you are under no obligation to stay - you came onboard for baseball, that was the shared goal. That goal is no longer in play. Your obligation ends. Of course the actual mechanics of implementation get more complicated and more tangled as you expand the frame of reference - big difference between a game of baseball with friends after school or a professional ballgame, for example.

I equate this much the same as a sports game. Everyone is going to have a bad day, make mistakes, cause a loss, but the team doesn't just throw their hands up and walk off the field in disgust.

And neither do people in WoW if they have a 'team' the same way you're positing here. You need to keep the frames of reference comparable. If instead of playing with a team you just wander into a park somewhere and play with random strangers, and THEY keep screwing up and making the experience miserable... that's a VERY VERY different situation from having an established team you've been playing with for a long time.

It's the difference between bailing on a random PUG, and bailing on a guild run.

[Anchorite]

It's far from that, people are just assholes.
I did a +12 on my alt pala yesterday, was late and no healers really signed so took the first one.
He let the rogue die a couple times but we didn't have any wipes. Just before 3rd boss he just goes afk (we're still gonna time it). We finish trash and thinking he maybe DC.
Doesn't come back, we 4man the boss, still just afk's.
We do last boss and wipe at 5% with 1 min left on timer.

Had he just not afk'ed? We would almost 2 chest it. Instead? We failed the key...

I also think if you cant dedicate 30 min win or lose on a run? You just shouldn't do it.
They really need to punish you for leaving before the timer ends. Make it unable to queue for 1 hour.
Would make wonders for the pug scene.

I would just stop pugging keys

[oplawlz]

The system would take a lot of work to get right. You'd need a vote to kick system that refunded the key if the guy getting kicked didn't own it, escalating penalties, and tracking for people abusing the system. Blizzard isn't going to do any of that because they couldn't charge you for it.

- - - Updated - - -

I would just stop pugging keys

I doubt it.
But many more people would start pugging keys. Only reason my friends and I don't is because people can waste our time/key with no consequences.

[Niwes]

I dunno, I'd say your idea isn't that great.

Let's consider the scenario that Bob wants to time the key but the group decides nah we just want to finish the key regardless of time. The vote happens but Bob is outvoted. So now Bob is "forced" to stay in a group that can take as long as they need to finish the key.

So Bob is "punished" by having his time wasted by the other 4 people and since Bob doesn't want the "marker debuff" he stays in the group but he doesn't have to play well. He could play poorly and bringing his misery to others. Oops Bob stood in fire... Oops Bob proximity aggro'd extra mobs... Oops Bob forgot about his interrupt or DPS CD and does less DPS than the healer

Maybe the vote comes up again and now everybody else agrees to "surrender"... No they still want to push on? Ok Bob still stays and suddenly seems to use RP walk everywhere...and so on.



Is it easy to implement? Are you a coder? Do you have extensive experience in the code that WoW runs on which is now over a decade old? Also let's not forget the bureaucracy of a company the size of Blizzard.

Considering how difficult it was to add 4 slots to the original backpack, I don't think any "fix" would be easy to do.

Also remember the underline reason why this problem (people leaving) exists is because there is no social contract holding players accountable to each other. You NEVER VERY RARELY see this kind of behavior in groups formed with friends or guildmates.

i try to give a quick reply:

1)
your first scenario shows exactly one of the advantages of the design: your scenario will rarely happen. because the mentioned design put value into „consider first what to do with which ppls“. the design soft-enforces that your Bob-type player will not even start running with the other 4 player types, if it is not clear that all have the same „how we handle it“ in mind. (sorry, it’s my bad english)

here is why: the other ppls wanna make clear, no one leaves, because they just wanna finish the dungeon. if a player (in your case Bob) leaves, the grp is punished by wasted time and depleted key. lets call this typeA-Punishment. also Bob (and this is the difference to the actual design) need to prevent joining a group he end up with „i have to leave and acceppt the marker-debuff“. so Bob will think twice which grp he joins and he will also make sure before the run that its a timed run. lets call this typeB-Punishment. and thats exactly the difference to actual design:

ONLY in a system where you have an A-Punishment AND a B-Punishment you make groups more matching and prevent actively whats happens in m+ today on a daily base. as long as one of both parts has no penalty (i.e. can just leave), as long the system will suck. like it does today. so the simple answer is: after a short amount of time your described scenario simply will happen no longer very often and becomes just non existing naturally.

one of the design flaws of actual system is: only 1 of 2 player factions get punished (regardless which point of view you take). this results always in a „free to test“ scenario for the other faction. which means „if my choice sucks, i quit, because only the other faction has penalties then“. thats the design flaw of actual design.

2)
i am a professional software developer since 23 years. but i do not have any special insight into the wow code. the statement is solely based on my own experience in software development, since i have rather much of it (i am not just the monkey coder type or just know 1-2 languages). i did a lot of stuff in a different companies and have a rather solid imagination how and what to do to implement such stuff in wow and how wow internally works. but this does not mean i am right. nonetheless i can nearly gurantee you (i would bet my car and my house) that this is very doable for Blizzards engineering team, without lots of investment or problems. i dont wanna say „trust me“ because i can not proof it, but…

- - - Updated - - -

you are right it will be 2 things, though not the 2 you think - after someone starts the vote and people will vote no he will sit down to afk or follow someone and go do whatever else, untill someone else looses patience and take the punishment, resulting in 1. MORE wasted time than someone simply leaving and 2. someone else being punished rather than person who decided to blow it...

as for why blizz dont implement it, its not lazines, its just they are not idiots, and can see big negatives and zero positives of such system...

im astonished that after 31 pages about "issue" thats barely worth mentioning people still come up with new terrible ideas how to completely screw the whole system up, while failing to solve the original "issue"... its really beyond my wildest imagination...

that’s quite fair of an issue. but imo the described system offers easy to implement options for exactly that cases. way better than today. there are 3 easy to implement solutions come instantly into my mind. and i am way too lazy to type them down here with lots of text (just no time for it). but you can call this „my cheap exit strategy“. it’s fine to me.

what i find way more important here: described game design takes nothing away or makes anything worse, what already exists today. in the worst case it just not improves (in some rare cases) things. in the best case it makes things a lot better. but the system will never end up worse than today. lets take your scenario. what exactly is more worse in that scenario when using the mentioned game design. the 1min until the grp stops when realizing „he sit down afk to not become marker debuff, so one of us has to deplete“? its EXACTLY the same as today + 1 minute. and i trade that minute against „in 80% of all cases the system leads to a better m+ experience“ EVERY day, tbh.

[Nymrohd]

This got me thinking a bit.

What about something which scales the key down 20% if a player bounces? Give this option to the group leader after they yeet an Alt-F4/leaver and make it so that the run no longer counts towards IO. Even though this won't impact IO, the main reason to complete the run stays (mostly) intact and it won't feel anywhere near as laborious as it does currently. You'll get one piece of gear that's 3 item levels lower but I think that's a small price to pay to actually, y'know, complete the run. (The leaver is no longer eligible for loot if you take this option, too.) If the group wants to complete with 4 in the timer to obtain IO they'll have to keep the scaling.

Wouldn't it be easier to just let players hit pause in a dungeon if need be? So add a Vote to Pause and if the dungeon is paused, your characters get locked in place and nothing moves (your CDs stop ticking down as does the timer etc). You can still chat, you can enter LFG and look for a new person if it is what is needed. Add a small penalty to pausing (equivalent to 1 Death?) so people don't abuse it. If someone leaves the group, you automatically get paused. It would solve so many issues beyond just leavers (crying children, screaming elderly parents, irritable bowels?)

[chiddie]

I would just stop pugging keys

This.

Also, the easiest fix is not forcing people to do content they don’t wanna do but they HAVE to do because it’s the only way to have a power progression.

Stop enforcing M+, give other solo ways to get best gear and leave M+ to the ones that really care and enjoy the way they are implemented.