Stricter requirements for Mentors.

[UkcsAlias]

The other option is quite simple, Dont have negative commendations and have 'has left instances before completion x times as a 'insert role' mentor' as the demotion point.
This way the mentors that actively dodge in mentor roulette would be punished and the others would be rewarded.

If only 10% of instances are the 'anoying' duties. this wont do a thing. After a single dodge, the chance to again face the same is 10%. Odds that are still worth leaving for them.

Instead they should make the reward progress reduce significantly upon leaving. If that is for example -5. Then it takes them 5 roulletes to be equal again. Even if its 5 easy duties, thats usualy still 100-120 minutes spent gaining absolutely nothing. The 30min leave penalty wont harm them as they can just spend that time gathering or crafting and make gil that way. Which for them might simply just be worth it as its less anoying.

Reducing that to -1 after half an hour also makes the waiting time for that anoying duty less. As those 30 minutes still save 50 (80-30) minutes then compared to instantly leaving. Taking time away this method is a harsh enough punishment as there is simply just no gain on the rewards. And maybe upon failure after 60mins, you get a permission to leave once and not get a set back to avoid this happening too often? Just to at least give a certain reward for trying.

And note, the -5 here can be tracking something to unlock, or simply hold back the roulette rewards for 5 duties. And not reset weekly either. It might mean they will never join the roulette again because of it (hey, the punishment worked! we got rid of someone that doesnt want to mentor at all), or they will be anoyed.

And yes, this will hurt the one that might have a sudden interuption here. But i think that if players face these too often anyway, that its again their own personal issue. The game is allowed to be harsh here. You queue, and therefor you say you are willing to spend this potential 90min when facing a very anoying duty.

Removing mentor status entirely is either a permanent (and therefor harsh) penalty, or a temporary one (which some people might not care about). And could punish the one that are bad/unlucky at planning too much (yes, parents playing games is a thing, and these things can in some cases end up very quickly several days in a row). Simply making their progress go backward is enough of a penalty, as that way they can at least restore the situation. Too many setbacks will prevent them from queueing anyway until they know its safe enough again.

[Raven2014]

We don't need conditions or rewards just give people the option to sign up for mentor like in 11 and get an M symbol. Also create a world chat instead of NN and then anybody can answer anyone's questions.

I don't need another channel I have to avoid Gil sellers and club advertisers.

[anw]

I wouldn't put it past people to negative comm others based off a dislike of their name, Adventurer Plate or glamour choices.

- Why would we want to add more roles and more ways for people to be a mentor if the issue is too many people only becoming a mentor for the perks? Proving your skills doesn't mean you're going to become an amazing mentor who wants to help and be there for the right reasons. You could be #1 in all of NA and still be an absolute trash person who's only in it for the flex.

I came from a game with a somewhat toxic reputation where the report tool was fast, easy to use and handed out automated bans. The knowledge that you could get players silenced, suspended & banned was so great that people would report others for anything they felt like and I did it too. You can list a million things you could report someone for but it all boils down to being at the wrong place at the wrong time. There's a few mentors I see in our NN who are a bit grating and I can ignore them easily enough but you give me a tool to vote negatively on them being a mentor while playing on another character/account? Well. I hope my willpower to do the right thing would overcome my biases but can't say the same about everyone, especially when it's easy enough to get a little flock of mentors by queueing multiple extremes in DF.
XIV's systems are fairly positive interaction focused and that's good, takes a bit of the grating toxicity and rage you see in other games away and instead we get what people refer to as "toxic casualism" etc and the GCBTW meme but I'd take that over the alternative.

You put a negative comm system in the game and oh baby are you going to see people have fun with it. Especially with the proposed ability to have mentorship removed for a time period. Look at this thread, look at the way people view mentors and clown on them, that raw reputation & dislike and give them a tool where they can vote negatively and exploit the games own systems to disrupt people?
Well why not.

2nd half of your post is pretty solid too.

[ElysiumDragon]

Just remove the Extreme Trials from the Mentor Roulette, and this issue is resolved. No one actively queues in like "I can't wait to spend a lockout teaching 7 other grossly unprepared sprouts to do fights with complicated mechanics and actual DPS checks"

[Vahlnir]

Just remove the Extreme Trials from the Mentor Roulette, and this issue is resolved. No one actively queues in like "I can't wait to spend a lockout teaching 7 other grossly unprepared sprouts to do fights with complicated mechanics and actual DPS checks"

Yeah. Some extremes are probably doable like this, but a significant portion of them are not ideal for the DF. Adding them to the Mentor roulette was just asking for a headache, in my opinion.

[Kaurhz]

I can see what the aim is, but it's pointless.

The purpose of the mentor system and mentors, in general, is to provide fundamental support to players and to answer basic questions regarding the game.

By the time players have reached Level 90, arguably even 80, they should be beyond the need for support.

The biggest issue with the mentor system is people's lack of desire to be actually useful and mentor properly, and I will preface this point by saying a knowledgeable peer does not always make for a good mentor or teacher.

Edit: If anything, and if it should go so far that a player's competence should be tested, then it should be on a hall of the advanced type system. Something that aims to test their individual competence, and ideally only at a fundamental level - e.g., Level 60 in sync'd, yet fairly rigorous duty.

[Kele_Star]

Specific mentor types might be a good idea.

For basic story dungeon and trial runs you could use the normal mentor tag.

Then for somthing like an extreme or savage you could have a raid mentor type for people who want someone to help them in that kind of content.

Finally you could have a crafting mentor someone whos an omnicrafter.

The biggest hurtle for the normal and raid mentors though is having a gauge of weather or not someone understands the mechanics of each dungeon. Code wise the only way i can think they would do that is have specific variables that sais whether or not the player is hit by a bosses attack or a special effect (like the crystals light in the darkhold) to try to read if the player knows what there doing or not but that doesnt take into the factor that the player could just be following another player who does know the mechanics. Hm...

[SassyAssassin]

Just remove the Extreme Trials from the Mentor Roulette, and this issue is resolved. No one actively queues in like "I can't wait to spend a lockout teaching 7 other grossly unprepared sprouts to do fights with complicated mechanics and actual DPS checks"

What do you mean you don’t plan on spending over an hour crying in Thordan extreme especially if you are EU and half the people can’t even understand a word you’re saying?
Mentor bad for not finishing the entire fight yourself, git gud or crown off.

[Packetdancer]

you actually think world chat would be better than NN.
Oh my sweet summer child

I mean, I'm pretty sure the whole reason Novice Network is restricted is because if you have a world chat, the gil spammers who currently stand in the starting cities and shout their RMT advertisements would do so on the world chat instead. Sure, you could ban them... and they'd immediately just make another free trial account that wasn't banned and resume.

Any time you want to know where a free trial restriction comes from -- can't use the marketboard, can't send /tell, can't start a party or create a party finder, etc. -- you really only need look at the gil spammers/RMT folks for the answer. By requiring them to actually pay for real accounts, it puts at least a small braking effect on how quickly they can come back after a ban-wave.

The reason that sprouts have to be invited to the Novice Network is almost assuredly specifically so the free trial gil spammers don't just create an account, join Novice Network, and start shrieking their URL about "best cheap loots ULT clears" or whatever. :/

[Packetdancer]

No one actively queues in like "I can't wait to spend a lockout teaching 7 other grossly unprepared sprouts to do fights with complicated mechanics and actual DPS checks"

*raises hand sheepishly*

I actually enjoy the times I get to teach ex trials in that roulette. It's kinda the entire reason I ever run mentor roulette. Some of my favorite mentor roulettes have been helping a group of seven sprouts get through Ultima Weapon EX, or Garuda EX, or whatnot. No, it doesn't always go smoothly, but I would much rather get a group of seven folks eager to kick some level 50 primal's butt than yet another instance of a Guildhest or "oh, I see I have backfilled a Castrum Meridianum party, again" (as used to frequently happen with the older 8-man variants).