Final Fantasy XIV and a Culture of Enabling

[Dzian]

What is the solution and action that you guys actually want to be implemented?

In many ways all you really need is an actual learning curve. something that simple would go a long way to fixing many of the issues i beleive. some basic elements of challenge even in the msq and all content.

it would also add credibility to the story in some ways.. it's a total scene buster when the story does everything it can to paint a grim scenario or dark situation all hope is lost. the threat is tooo large..... omg the world is doomed.. and you roflstomp it without any clue whatthe hell is going on...

there's battles in the MSQ for example that practically impossible to fail. most memorable for me personally is one in 4.0 where you attack the bridge and mnaagoglamours the flag... got a knock at my door some couriers turned up to deliver some furniture. put my controller down went and dealt with that.. came back 10 maybe 15 minutes later expecting to be dead and nope, id won the fight.... i was literally afk auto attacking whatever i was engaged to when the door went. and still beat it....

a decent learning curve would also naturally kind of tier the duty finder in some sense. because players would need to be progressing up that curve in order to unlock the next piece of content rather than traveling along a long horizontal line that might have 1 or 2 slight hiccups along the way. and it remove a lot of the problems people have withparty finder groups as well as anyone who was able to proceed far enough to unlock a piece of content would at least have a minimum ability to participate.

basically what the game should do is help players rise up to the content or challenges in order to help them grow and develop. but what the game does is just bring every piece of content down to the lowest possible level. which causes problems because basically if your skilled enough to clear sastasha you're skilled enough to unlock ex trials and savage raids... because the learning curve is a horizontal line...

[linayar]

Hard disagree a single troll should not have hold over an entire group.

The only thing this would do is make trolls more rampant and make people less likely to queue roulettes without a full premade.

That assumes that "trolls" are only/always on the side of the minority. This equalizes the playing field regardless of the size of the party you queue with.

Tbh if they had a vote system like this I probably would just do full premade groups and most likely no longer help friends with pops and stuff if it is a duo. Granted for the most part now we mostly run in house groups anyways either through our discord, ls, or FC.

Though I will say your system would put an end to so called vote kick abuse. Though I personally do not see how not wanting to play with someone is abuse and making it harder for people to remove those they do not wish to play with. Though I get the intent of your system.

My proposal does not stop people from deciding who to play with, just prevents "tyranny of the majority" by equalizing the votes. It assumes that you will side with your friends, so your vote might as well be one.

Not wanting to play with someone is not necessarily abuse, but it still makes them have to redo a duty if they get kicked. So if you really don't want to play with someone and there is no majority, it's more fair to just vote abandon than kicking the minority. This is within the context that "differences in playstyle" is a valid reason to separate and vote kick someone.

[Awha]

That assumes that "trolls" are only/always on the side of the minority. This equalizes the playing field regardless of the size of the party you queue with.

My proposal does not stop people from deciding who to play with, just prevents "tyranny of the majority" by equalizing the votes. It assumes that you will side with your friends, so your vote might as well be one.

Not wanting to play with someone is not necessarily abuse, but it still makes them have to redo a duty if they get kicked. So if you really don't want to play with someone and there is no majority, it's more fair to just vote abandon than kicking the minority. This is within the context that "differences in playstyle" is a valid reason to separate and vote kick someone.

To a degree it does. In the current system premade or no it requires 2 votes out of 3 to pass. Since a duo premade could in theory be yield at the whims of one person. Putting them in a weird spot either a one leaves and gets a timer and they wait to queue together or they both just sit in the group and deal. Even through a manipulated vote worst case is someone has to requeue. In your system worst case for duo groups is one friend has to eat the timer and thus potentially both waiting to queue together or they both suck it up a deal. Though yes this is a fringe case unless I am misunderstanding your system for duo queues. Though I am also operating on the stance that a vote to abandon would never happen. I think I have seen it happen once during a mentor roulette.

Which I will admit can be manipulated in favor if the controlling party. Though in the end your system in my opinion causes a greater potential inconvenience for the most people in the group.

I will say that I would not be against your system if it was the requirement for removal before the standard 5 min timer is up. Though once those 5 min are up it should go back to the current system. Though in I think it should be easier to remove people from groups not more complicated. I think if we made the system far easier people would have an easier time just taking the kick in stride instead of seeing it as a inherently negative thing. The penalty for being vote kicked is not that bad. Though I get the idea in general I did play on JP servers for a tad generally the operate on the concept of not removing the person and just abounding the group to reform another one. Just seems like extra steps when just removing the element that does not mesh with players that are able to vote would be quicker and easier overall.

Though I also fall into the camp that the reason for removal is moot. So I have a bias.

[linayar]

To a degree it does. In the current system premade or no it requires 2 votes out of 3 to pass. Since a duo premade could in theory be yield at the whims of one person. Putting them in a weird spot either a one leaves and gets a timer and they wait to queue together or they both just sit in the group and deal. Even through a manipulated vote worst case is someone has to requeue. In your system worst case for duo groups is one friend has to eat the timer and thus potentially both waiting to queue together or they both suck it up a deal. Though yes this is a fringe case unless I am misunderstanding your system for duo queues. Though I am also operating on the stance that a vote to abandon would never happen. I think I have seen it happen once during a mentor roulette.

Which I will admit can be manipulated in favor if the controlling party. Though in the end your system in my opinion causes a greater potential inconvenience for the most people.

I will say that I would not be against your system if it was the requirement for removal before the standard 5 min timer is up. Though once those 5 min are up it should go back to the current system. Though in I think it should be easier to remove people from groups not more complicated. I think if we made the system far easier people would have an easier time just taking the kick in stride instead of seeing it as a inherently negative thing. The penalty for being vote kicked is not that bad. Though I get the idea in general I did play on JP servers for a tad generally the operate on the concept of not removing the person and just abounding the group to reform another one. Just seems like extra steps when just removing the element that does not mesh with players that are able to vote would be quicker and easier overall.

Though I also fall into the camp that the reason for removal is moot. So I have a bias.

Whenever there is a conflict of interests, someone could lose out every time, so while my proposal won't change that, I think it's still a better system.

The reason why is exactly what you said about making it easier to remove people from the group. I think it should be the opposite. The situation where we lose out on the vote to kick and have to decide on whether to leave and eat the penalty or stay, that is a choice we are making for ourselves. Being kicked is a choice someone else is making for us. So we should make it harder for other people to decide our fate.

This does not change the idea behind the vote to kick system in that, if we are not wanted by the group, we will still get kicked. It's just done with less bias on the part of friends queueing together.

-----

That said, maybe we could connect the vote to kick system and the vote to abandon system a bit. Let's say you are in a queue with one friend for a dungeon and you decide to vote kick someone. Your duo group gives 1 vote for "yes" and the third party individual gives one vote for "no", so the vote fails.

If that happens, then the player who initiated the vote to kick has a one-time chance to initiate a special vote to abandon for a limited time after the kick has failed.

With this special vote to abandon, then the person who is the subject of the vote to kick cannot vote, but everyone else votes individually now, so in the dungeon scenario, it'll be the duo's now two votes versus the third party's still one vote. If it passes, no one gets the penalty and everyone can requeue right away.

But since everyone votes individually now for the special vote to abandon, if the subject of the kick has more friends than the one who is trying to kick, they could still fail the vote to abandon, so the kick initiator still has the chance of having to choose to stay or leave and get the penalty.

[Rinhi]

Then you're not reading between the lines. There are many small thinks that hint towards most of this just OP being elitist and angry at the 'rabble' - amongst them would be their repeat phrasing of underperforming players as 'leeches' and 'parasites', their advocacy for DF tiering and automatic kicking of their hated underperforming players. Their insistence that they're 'average, not even that good' when their numbers paint an entirely different matter -- 99s, >75s. Their assertion that they're being 'taken advantage of' by the 'great community' and that '50% of people in DF are bad'.

the OPs humble brag aside, how are they wrong in the sense that many players do not know how to play their f-ing job adequately? why are you arguing in defense of people who actively refuse to play better and shun any kind of advice?
and again you are implying OP and others are losing their mind or sleep over it which is frankly insulting and doesn't help your argument one bit, it just makes you look childish and petty
why are people so against others wanting the average player to (want to) get better? I don't get it

[linayar]

why are people so against others wanting the average player to (want to) get better? I don't get it

Personally, I'm not. But wanting others to get better is not the same as helping others to get better. And I don't necessarily blame them for not wanting to help, as people have their own reasons to play and limited time to play.

But that's why making your own group is always the best choice if you're not comfortable with the way the "average" player per your own personal anecdotal experience plays. This goes for everyone, but generally, the duty finder tends to favor those who are not as critical about others while the party finder tends to favor those who are more critical of others, so making your own group is more suitable for the latter type of players, although running with friends also helps every type of players.

[Vinupra-Rosa]

the OPs humble brag aside, how are they wrong in the sense that many players do not know how to play their f-ing job adequately?

The assertion that "50% of all players" are "leechers" is overblown. The DF is on average, painfully average. My last four DF runs had me consistently second on aggro list right behind the tank, and that's alright? The runs themselves were neither particularly bad or good. People did mechanics correctly and the run was finished in average time. Friends of mine also report the same general trend, with truly 'bad' runs with obviously 'bad' people being not that common just as the truly 'good' runs from being paired with all-good people being also not that common.

why are you arguing in defense of people who actively refuse to play better and shun any kind of advice?

I'm arguing in favour of not immediately assuming the worst of people for underperforming. My stance has been consistent - if someone is performing badly, offer help and offer it kindly. It is then their perogative on whether or not to accept help and, if they refuse and their stubbornness is causing the party grief you may remove them then. (But for the simple fact that they're 'underperforming'? There are too many reasons behind why that may be the case outside of sheer malice or laziness so that in itself is not kick-worthy)

and again you are implying OP and others are losing their mind or sleep over it which is frankly insulting and doesn't help your argument one bit, it just makes you look childish and petty

One simply has to look at OP's tone. In the matter in which they refer to 'underperformers' (and their humble-brag plays into this: if they seriously think that they are average, then it stands to reason their idea on what is 'underperforming' might also be higher than is reasonable). Also in the suggestions they made. Yes, they certainly do sound absolutely livid and seem to be losing sleep at the thought of being 'shackled with underperformers' who are naught but 'social parasites' that are 'part of this great community' and are 'taking advantage of them'.

why are people so against others wanting the average player to (want to) get better? I don't get it

Which leads me to think you're missing my point entirely. As I said earlier in this response, my one single consistent stance is help people; I do hold the sentiment of wanting everyone to be better overall. And if you are bothered enough by people who are "underperforming" by your standards to complain about them then by all means extend a helping hand and help them get better. Do this, and do this with the genuine intent to help (and not, like some people do, to lord over others) then a surprising majority of players will heed your help. My last week literally had me in three different DF runs with 'underperformers' and all of them took to advice quite well. And this is the only thing you can do with 'underperformers' if you do indeed want these people to get better.

There will be some who will be stubborn and go 'you don't pay my sub (tm)' and there is nothing you can do about them yourself other than remove them from the party if they are indeed being that big of a bother/hinderance to the party's performance. Complaining about them does nothing, and trying to raise a call of arms against these people will, again, do nothing but end up in dirt flinging threads like you see here. These people exist. Acknowledge and accept their existence and deal with them as appropriate when you encounter them in the wild.

And I did also raise a point in making the average player want to get better --- and that's by being a bloody role model. Show new/unskilled players how things are done. That is why I was vehemently against OP's tiered DF in the first place.

Going to get shit for this but I am one if those players that thinks if a tank is scared they should not be a tank.

草

[Tlachtga]

Being kicked is a choice someone else is making for us.

Getting kicked is a consequence.

One makes their choice prior to getting kicked. Either by bringing the group down or being unbearable to play with.

The idea of punishing the whole group because a single person falls into those categories is honestly backwards as hell, but at the same time, totally on brand for what I've come to expect from the XIV community.

[linayar]

Getting kicked is a consequence.

One makes their choice prior to getting kicked. Either by bringing the group down or being unbearable to play with.

Or for wearing gear that others may not like or being a race others may not like or for not joining in the party chat. It's a consequence that can be for any reason, making the direct cause of the kick someone else's reason and choice, not the choice of the person getting kicked.

The idea of punishing the whole group because a single person falls into those categories is honestly backwards as hell, but at the same time, totally on brand for what I've come to expect from the XIV community.

Except it's not punishing anyone. If someone should get kicked, they will get kicked. If you need the help of your friends to kick someone, then it's likely you're the one who's trying to punish someone.

[Tlachtga]

Or for wearing gear that others may not like or being a race others may not like or for not joining in the party chat. It's a consequence that can be for any reason, making the direct cause of the kick someone else's reason and choice, not the choice of the person getting kicked.

all incredibly niche hypothetical situations.

irrelevant really, and doesn't change the fact that the main two reasons for votekick remain being a detriment to the group, or being extremely unpleasant to play with. these are choices people make.

Except it's not punishing anyone. If someone should get kicked, they will get kicked. If you need the help of your friends to kick someone, then it's likely you're the one who's trying to punish someone.

honestly just sounds like your system is just trying to protect bad team players from the consequences of their actions. talk about having the cake and eating it...

the current system works just fine. SE gives us a tool to remove potential detriments to the party, and honestly, the playerbase is pretty responsible in its use.

It doesn't need to be changed, especially not to where a single person can turn a simple votekick scenario into a vote abandon.