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

[Awha]

Ignoring my stance on the subject I have to ask.

At the core what reason why should a party by the developers stance fail as a group or succeed as a group when in practice maybe only one person poor level of skill is the factor that is causing the wipe. It seems that people feel that the group is obligated to carry their person across the finish line if they do not want to quit and reform the group.

The reason as to why they may not be able to perform is largely irrelevant we as the players do not know and I willing to bet for the most part do not care why a player is unable to meet the fundamental requirements to clear the content in terms of player skill.

Unless are we saying that we should just assume that everyone who is unable to pass a certain mechanic has an impairment that prevents them from playing to a certain level that is considered normal within the game? Isn't that using disabilities or limitations as a crutch which based on this forums many do not approve of. I am greatly confused as to what people want really.

I get Yoshi-Ps stance and this is why I just silent kick and call it at day.

[DPZ2]

Ignoring my stance on the subject I have to ask.

At the core what reason why should a party by the developers stance fail as a group or succeed as a group when in practice maybe only one person poor level of skill is the factor that is causing the wipe. It seems that people feel that the group is obligated to carry their person across the finish line if they do not want to quit and reform the group.

You may, of course, choose to kick the player. Just don't get all sanctimonious about it.

Unless you queue with a preformed group of 3/7 other people, there is no "group". There is you and a bunch of strangers of varying skill levels seeking a common goal. How you approach that goal yourself says more than any 'leet skillz' you might possess.

[Awha]

You may, of course, choose to kick the player. Just don't get all sanctimonious about it.

Unless you queue with a preformed group of 3/7 other people, there is no "group". There is you and a bunch of strangers of varying skill levels seeking a common goal. How you approach that goal yourself says more than any 'leet skillz' you might possess.

The strangers form a group with the assumed goal of clearing the content. That shared goal is the banner under which the group was formed. Sure it might just be a temporary alliance but it is one nonetheless. Though not sure if the sanctimonious comment was aimed towards me if I may ask in what way am I being sanctimonious with my stance?

Personally, I feel that if you're viewing the game in terms of a job where you're trying to produce something and you're constantly measuring your own productivity relative to other players' in order to later make a case to some imaginary in-game boss that you deserve a promotion and/or raise, you're just going to have a bad time. The way I see it, when I'm playing the game, I'm a hero fighting the boss, and I hope that I can contribute enough to the group to enable it to kill said boss. Sometimes my contributions fall short of my potential, and other times my comrades fail to contribute to their full potential. As long as we kill the boss, though, I call it a victory, and I'm happy with that. I don't dwell on productivity or lack thereof. I get more than enough of that IRL, and I don't need it in my game. I don't think about fights in terms of who's carrying who. I just want to defeat the boss. If the group wipes, I will pipe up with suggestions on things we could have done better, but other than that, I'm happy to have the opportunity to perform heroic feats, and my party members falling short is simply an opportunity for me to display further heroism.

That is fair I get that stance, everyone has different means of enjoying a hobby I tend to go above and beyond when it comes to my hobbies. Though this just makes me wondering is the fear of abuse which from a statistical side is far less likely to happen when you compare the possibility of negative experiences with parsing against neutral and postive encounters. Couldn't both sides coexist if GM's just did their job, or is the potential for harm which again from a pure numbers perspective would be rather small in the grand scheme verse the amount good providing such tools especially if they had an ingame one for those on console?

[DPZ2]

Though not sure if the sanctimonious comment was aimed towards me if I may ask in what way am I being sanctimonious with my stance?

The Christian tenet "when you pray, go to your room and close the door" helps to avoid sanctimonious display.

You personally haven't been that person, since your comments indicate you initiate a kick when necessary and then are silent. So, no, it wasn't aimed at you.

The vibe I get from a number of folks who are reading and posting is that they'd be more than happy to explain, in great detail, the whys and wherefores of a vote kick to another player in-game if they could get away with that behaviour. They are certainly not silent in the forums. Although I have to wonder where they have such bad luck in instances, as I've never had reason to kick someone except for disconnecting and not coming back in a reasonable amount of time.

Of course there was that one time when our tank deliberately quit after apparently getting the gear drop they needed from the first boss fight in the Vault ...

[Ronduwil]

Ignoring my stance on the subject I have to ask.

At the core what reason why should a party by the developers stance fail as a group or succeed as a group when in practice maybe only one person poor level of skill is the factor that is causing the wipe. It seems that people feel that the group is obligated to carry their person across the finish line if they do not want to quit and reform the group.

Personally, I feel that if you're viewing the game in terms of a job where you're trying to produce something and you're constantly measuring your own productivity relative to other players' in order to later make a case to some imaginary in-game supervisor that you deserve a promotion and/or raise, you're just going to have a bad time. The way I see it, when I'm playing the game, I'm a hero fighting the boss, and I hope that I can contribute enough to the group to enable it to kill said boss. Sometimes my contributions fall short of my potential, and other times my comrades fail to contribute to their full potential. As long as we kill the boss, though, I call it a victory, and I'm happy with that. I don't dwell on productivity or lack thereof. I get more than enough of that IRL, and I don't need it in my game. I don't think about fights in terms of who's carrying who. I just want to defeat the boss. If the group wipes, I will pipe up with suggestions on things we could have done better, but other than that, I'm happy to have the opportunity to perform heroic feats, and my party members falling short is simply an opportunity for me to display further heroism.

[StriderShinryu]

I am greatly confused as to what people want really.

I can't speak for everyone, but for me it's pretty simple.

1.) I want players to stop treating other players as "the enemy" just because they aren't playing up to their standards when they themselves are the ones choosing to do casual content with a randomly selected group of players. Just because they aren't playing as well as you want them to, it doesn't mean they're intentionally trolling you, leeching from you, wasting your time, ruining your game experience, etc.

2.) I want players to be more open to actually being considerate and helping others who are clearly struggling rather than hiding behind the blatant and embarrassing excuse of "try to give advice = get banned" when that basically never happens.

3.) I want the game to do a better job of teaching players how to play and what is intended from their role without forcing them to do research outside of the actual game, and this can come alongside some content in the game acting as a hard lock (like requiring a Hall of the Intermediate before doing any level 50 MSQ content)

[Nethereal]

2.) I want players to be more open to actually being considerate and helping others who are clearly struggling rather than hiding behind the blatant and embarrassing excuse of "try to give advice = get banned" when that basically never happens.

It's a strike, 3 and you're out(permanent ban). They are permanent and will never be removed. A ban is highly unlikely.

"Helping someone" or "offering advice" in-game at the possible expense of getting a strike on your account will never be worth it. I will however extensively help people via discord. In-game though? I'll explain what things do at most.

You're more likely to get 2nd hand reported from what I've seen.

[Krotoan]

"Helping someone" or "offering advice" in-game at the possible expense of getting a strike on your account will never be worth it.

If you are risking getting a strike with your help or offering advice, then I have some perception on how you are phrasing or implementing that help and advice. If phrased correctly and you do not escalate (let bad responses go, you don't need to reply) , then there is absolutely no reason you should ever get a "strike".

In my experience anyway.

I think the toxic narrative of "Help and risk being reported" needs to die. It's very easy to stay within guidelines and rules AND still interact with people.

[Nethereal]

If you are risking getting a strike with your help or offering advice, then I have some perception on how you are phrasing or implementing that help and advice. If phrased correctly and you do not escalate (let bad responses go, you don't need to reply) , then there is absolutely no reason you should ever get a "strike".

In my experience anyway.

I think the toxic narrative of "Help and risk being reported" needs to die. It's very easy to stay within guidelines and rules AND still interact with people.

There's definitely a wrong way to help or offer advice to someone but you can't stop people from perceiving things a certain way. Like I said you're more likely to get 2nd hand reported than from the person you're actually conversing with.
There are people in this game who get offended for "teaching" sprouts and will say "you are the reason people don't like to tank" when explaining to sprouts that pulling mobs until you die isn't a bad thing, you won't know your limits unless you try, proceed troll your run by pulling mobs for the tank when they don't get their way and then not see the hypocrisy of their statements.

I personally don't find a reason for knowledge to be kept secret so I'm not going to go out of my way to whisper people after the fact.

It's not toxic, it's the reality of the situation. I wouldn't mind offering all the help in the world if strikes went away. But I don't know how long I'm going to play this game and I'm not risking a permanent strike on my account for nothing.
I have no strikes, and I refuse to give anyone a chance to give me one. That said it's not hard to converse with people casually on non-confrontational issues.

Teaching is confrontational in this game.

[Krotoan]

There's definitely a wrong way to help or offer advice to someone but you can't stop people from perceiving things a certain way. Like I said you're more likely to get 2nd hand reported than from the person you're actually conversing with.
There are people in this game who get offended for "teaching" sprouts and will say "you are the reason people don't like to tank" when explaining to sprouts that pulling mobs until you die isn't a bad thing, you won't know your limits unless you try, proceed troll your run by pulling mobs for the tank when they don't get their way and then not see the hypocrisy of their statements.

I can't stop someone from absolutely taking something the wrong way but I can make sure that objectively my statements and assistance are non-threatening, non-abusive, non-aggressive and use "clean" language. People CAN report you for anything but as those reports are investigated by human beings, it's exceedingly unlikely you will actually be dinged for something completely innocuous. 2nd hand reports don't count. GM's themselves have said unless the thing happened to you, the report doesn't count. People reacting badly is bad and happens for sure, but the important part is how you react back to that. As long as you don't escalate or break rules, you can just report them for being .. well.. jerks.

I personally don't find a reason for knowledge to be kept secret so I'm not going to go out of my way to whisper people after the fact.

I'm.. not sure what this means. You want to share the right way to do it but don't think you should have to "whisper" to make sure it's a 1 on 1 interaction?

It's not toxic, it's the reality of the situation. I wouldn't mind offering all the help in the world if strikes went away. But I don't know how long I'm going to play this game and I'm not risking a permanent strike on my account for nothing.
I have no strikes, and I refuse to give anyone a chance to give me one. That said it's not hard to converse with people casually on non-confrontational issues.

Teaching is confrontational in this game.

The reality of the situation is there are a few very weird narratives people run that affect how people interact. I say toxic because that's exactly what they do: they poison the minds of people who hear them and believe it. They make people afraid to even talk to anyone because "if you talk to anyone you'll eventually get banned". They make people confrontational because "the community is actually really toxic underneath and just limited by rules" so people assume the worst intentions. They make people choose certain servers because "Everyone on that server is an ERP-er and will try to drag you into it".

The list goes on.

Sure you can avoid ever being in a car accident by never driving anywhere (well.. realistically you can't cause people might still crash into YOU.. but .. metaphor) but you will miss out on the fun and convenience of driving by doing so. This is the same mentality behind never ever giving advice or helping people.

I'm not going to force you, but I will say that in 10+ years I've never had one conversation with a GM that wasn't because I personally submitted a ticket and I do my best to advise people when I see "problems".

Sometimes it's taken badly (sometimes surprisingly badly), but most of the time it's met with either silence or adjustment and rarely "thank you!". So far it's never been followed up by a GM conversation.