This game has serious free-rider problems and it's getting worse. A suggestion.

[Vahlnir]

Yoshi-P has gone on record saying tuning is designed to allow people who aren't aware of how poor they were performing to be carried without much issue. While not applicable to savage/ultimate, the goal by design is to complete the duty, not complete the duty as effectively as possible. They want casual players who aren't trying extra to be able to complete things, and that's why things are as easy as they are.

Personally, I'm perfectly okay with that. Do I wish that some people would try harder? Of course. But I'm not bothered one bit by the way a lot of content is designed.

[Ayuhra]

I think what the game needs is something like WoW's Mage Tower. Challenging solo content that rewards a very desirable aesthetic reward. To get it you need to know your class.

Gives people incentive to really learn their kits without having to throw them into Extreme or Savage content with a group.

[Vahlnir]

I think what the game needs is something like WoW's Mage Tower. Challenging solo content that rewards a very desirable aesthetic reward. To get it you need to know your class.

Gives people incentive to really learn their kits without having to throw them into Extreme or Savage content with a group.

So long as the content and/or rewards aren't removed like what happened to the Mage Tower, I'd be fine with something like this. It'd be fun.

[Wavaryen]

That's not how I feel, that's how it is.
There is no subjectivity here to say otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest.
You are rewarded for doing content, not for carrying people.

The content is design to be done by players who are less skilled or don't need to try. Content gets done by these people. The roulette is design to reward for you doing easy content and yes even carry people. So you can say dishonest all you want, but when the devs says it time and time again how they design df content, and how they encourages players just to have fun in it. Not to worry about being carried or not. I think you have your answer. Accept it and move on.

[Nethereal]

*snip*

I don't know why you think I care how the content was designed or why you're so hung up on that strawman.

If player 1 does more work than player 2 or vice versa and they both get the same reward then you're not getting rewarded for carrying anyone, they're being rewarded for doing the content.

I don't mind if you advocate for equity but don't don't hide behind equality.

[Alaeacus]

I'll always agree to the game having some sort of soft rating or grading system to help players see their shortcomings (and give score chasers a chance to SSS+ rank everything if they want to). And I absolutely agree to the game doing a better job of teaching players how to play.

However, though, and it always comes up in threads like this, I think we need to stop treating under performing players as leechers who intentionally free-ride to get clears and loot. You have no idea why a player is underperforming and, as others have noted, the only real and legitimate "fail state" for content is to not clear said content. Maybe a player doesn't even know they're not performing well. Maybe a player can tell they're not doing well but doesn't know why because the game doesn't tell them. Maybe they know they're not great but aren't dedicated enough to spend their valuable game time outside of the game researching on third party sources how to get better. Maybe they have legitimate and real mental or physical challenges that prevent them from performing better than they do. Etc. Or, sure, maybe they are just a leecher who doesn't care.

Almost all of these "innocent" scenarios you described would benefit greatly from what you suggested in the paragraph before: An in-game feedback system that grades your performance and overall contribution level. Ironically, the same people who say "this game will only ever cater to casuals" are the same people who chase you with fire and pitchforks if you mention anything remotely similar to a parsing tool.

There are many many people in this game adamantly against anything that would suggest one player is better than another. We live in a Participation Trophy era.

[Vahlnir]

Ironically, the same people who say "this game will only ever cater to casuals" are the same people who chase you with fire and pitchforks if you mention anything remotely similar to a parsing tool.

Honestly, it's not on those saying the game will largely cater to casuals. It's on those who just refuse to accept it. It's a fact, and one that the developers themselves have not been shy about admitting to. I'm also not one to grab my pitchfork every time a parsing tool is brought up, yet here I stand disagreeing with this mindset. I must be an anomaly!

[Rinhi]

I don't know why you think I care how the content was designed or why you're so hung up on that strawman.

If player 1 does more work than player 2 or vice versa and they both get the same reward then you're not getting rewarded for carrying anyone, they're being rewarded for doing the content.

I don't mind if you advocate for equity but don't don't hide behind equality.

look at their post history

[Roda]

I'll always agree to the game having some sort of soft rating or grading system to help players see their shortcomings (and give score chasers a chance to SSS+ rank everything if they want to). And I absolutely agree to the game doing a better job of teaching players how to play.

I will bring this up every time this discussion occurs. I want an end-of-instance grading scale that shows you how you can improve. It doesn't show anyone else's data to anyone else, just where you personally rank among your group.


(It took account of ties too)
(Dont' pay any mind to the bronze reward, it's not for individual performance, but for completing/not completing certain optional challenges in the instance, which is ANOTHER thing I want xiv to do lmao)

Give me a ranking of
#x in survivability. (How much avoidable damage you ate vs dodged)
#x in damage. (pretty straight forward. The game already tracks this *points to UwU*)
#x in teamwork. (Probably have to take into account job/role DPS, cards/strategem usage, and avoiding overheal for healers (whms could get overheal weighted less when using assize), DPS, interjects, Boss stability and party mitigation for tanks, and buffs and role utilities for dps. It would all be weighted differently depending on how much your role has to offer. (yes role, because if a brd has no chance of beating a similarly skilled sam on dps, then they should get somethin' on this ranking))
and then a time to complete.

Each section could have a mouse-over tip of something your play could improve with depending on how they were messing up in the run

Survivability: Remember to dodge out of the way before the cast is finished!" or "Avert your gaze when you see (picture of that eye gaze icon)"
Damage: mind your positionals / Always Be Casting, or even "make sure you use X ability!" if, say, a blackmage wasn't keeping enochian up, or a smn was letting garuda hang out during a boss
Teamwork: yeah it would have to be more personalized like "Use addle if you think a target is casting a magic attack!" or "Warden's paean can help cure what ails you or a teammate!".

Sure it would be some upfront cost in implementation, but damn would it be more useful to the general player than another stone sky sea (yeuck!)

It's just how streaming (used to) beat piracy. Ya can't beat these things by saying "oh golly gosh, pweeze don't use them". Ya beat them by providing an accessible means to their proper function in a place you can control. Proper use of a dps meter and logging sites aren't "to see how big your number is" it's to see feedback on what your doing, how your changes affect your performance, and how others who are performing better than you achieve that success. And that's why stone sky sea is not going to stop anyone from using logs, and why it's not going to help anyone who needs to improve. (well one reason why, the other reason is because it's optional and out of the way. Seriously stone sky sea is the worst.)

[Velnora]

In my experience, that's the very definition of "elitism". Deciding based on subjective reasons who should and shouldn't get rewards. It's a slipper slope and introducing any form of punishment invariably will go too far in the wrong direction. Maybe that wasn't the intention, but it's where I've seen such thoughts go toward.

I feel that hobostew nailed the issue, that it's just the over-arching structure of the groups for the instance that's the issue. Not being able to kick/remove seriously problematic people is a core issue that I agree, hopefully gets addressed in the future.

But to reiterate, anything involving punishment on one end and extra rewards on the other isn't a practice I ever want to see again. I saw that too much in WoW and it resulted in making the game unpleasant to play because if you weren't part of the top-tier, then you were considered garbage.

Someone performing at 80% of their job, vs someone doing 30, isn't "subjective".