Ideas to reduce DF disagreements

[Veis_Alveare]

A while back someone made a thread mentioning how they wished PF had some different settings for when they were trying to farm things which allowed the requirement of more than one clear to join. I don't remember it exactly but between that being in the back of my mind and all the talk of the differences in playstyle lately I've been thinking... can we do something like this for DF?

As a caveat there is already a 15 page thread titled "elitism and casualism" and if you'd like to discuss the merits or downsides of either please head over there, that's not what this thread is for. This is my attempt to put a band aid on what I see as a bad bad thing many people encounter on a daily basis.

The way I see it we have three main groups of players in the game for the purposes of content we fill (on NA/EU at least) via DF. We've got people who expect big pulls and competence(Group A), people who tend to go with the flow of wherever they're thrown (Group B) and people who will expect things to be taken slowly (Group C). I'm trying to not use any disparaging language for any of the groups here, hence generic names.

Group A and Group C don't get along great. Whether you've got a tank from Group A doing fullpulls but dps or a healer from other groups unable to keep up or maybe a pair of players from A or C who will vote kick other players who don't play like them at the end of the day people have different standards that they're holding other players to whether that's by expecting competence or expecting for their own incompetence to be catered to.

So I was thinking what if these preferences could be flagged in DF, similar to being willing to join in progress?

Yes, players with only one or the other side chosen would invariably experience longer queues - that would be a trade they'd be consciously making. The game would default to both options chosen but at some point later on (perhaps around 50, as things begin to open up?) there would just be a reminder to select whichever you'd prefer.

This would have basically zero impact on the Group B people, they'd have both selected by default and they'd still be able to be paired with anyone. For people selecting only A or C they could have their preferences accepted by their teammates and, if those teammates didn't actually want to play that way, they'd have an actually valid reason for vote kicking instead of falling back on the old "differing playstyles" but being unable to fully articulate the issue in chat.

You joined a Group C party and will only chain pull? Well, that's now a viable reason to kick you. You joined Group A but you're a zero dps healer? Gurl, bye.

Let me be very clear - I wish that artificial barriers between sections of the playerbase weren't a thing I was considering. If we were all able to just talk to each other and give/take advice like normal people while adjusting and respecting those around us this wouldn't be an issue. Sadly... we can't. Or don't. I'm not sure which.

SE has created a game that basically has two separate games going on within it - that is their mistake. You can't put content like TEA in the game and expect the people completing it to also be willing to sit in their 'expert' roulette for thirty minutes because internet strangers want to take things slow. Conflict will arise. I think this is a way to cut out some of that friction and let us all play the game we want instead of playing the game we may be forced to by others.

And just because I'm sure it'll be one of the first responses - yes, I'm aware everyone could just accept everyone they get paired with in DF no matter what. I'm sorry that I've got a full time job and don't haves a limitless amount of time to spend carrying people through basic content. If you want to do that third would not inhibit you directly in any way, it would only reduction your exposure to "elitism" which very much seems like something you guys would like.

So... thoughts? Alternative ideas? I'm curious.

[Driavna]

On paper is not a bad idea but my own experience tells me that people are going to join those groups that are more likely to clear stuff. So, we are going to have some players wanting to join groups they do not belong, just like already happens with PF.

I can create a clearing party for X content, not a practice one, and people can still join without any experience hoping for a free clear. Or the other way around, with people expecting a clear and rage when we wipe.

[Seraphor]

On paper is not a bad idea but my own experience tells me that people are going to join those groups that are more likely to clear stuff. So, we are going to have some players wanting to join groups they do not belong, just like already happens with PF.

I can create a clearing party for X content, not a practice one, and people can still join without any experience hoping for a free clear. Or the other way around, with people expecting a clear join and rage when we wipe.

While this is undoubtedly an issue, I don't think TCs suggesting would be impacted in quite the same way.

What they're advocating isn't directly related to the ability to clear the content, rather person preference as to how that content is dealt with.
If you want to go slow, you're not going to choose option A, and if you abhor single pulls, you'll tick off option B. If you're versatile, you'll select both.

In practice, it's not too dissimilar from language settings.
The only issue is people ticking both for quicker queues when they're not genuinely 'versatile', like how people select all languages to get quicker queues.

[Driavna]

While this is undoubtedly an issue, I don't think TCs suggesting would be impacted in quite the same way.

What they're advocating isn't directly related to the ability to clear the content, rather person preference as to how that content is dealt with.
If you want to go slow, you're not going to choose option A, and if you abhor single pulls, you'll tick off option B. If you're versatile, you'll select both.

In practice, it's not too dissimilar from language settings.
The only issue is people ticking both for quicker queues when they're not genuinely 'versatile', like how people select all languages to get quicker queues.

This is just my opinion based on my own experiences: a certain playstyle is less likely to clear content and it's more dependant on others to help them. An example is 24m raids.

[AdamFyi]

We do have a function similar to what you’re suggesting in the Raid Finder. Granted, it’s very limited since choosing to be paired into a “Practice” run only lets you choose between “First phase” or “Final phase”.

If it were to be implemented, the function already exists — just needs to be reworked a bit to work for the Duty Finder. Though, there is a chance that implementing such an option may spike queue times for players with certain playstyles, which is something the devs probably don’t really want to happen.

[Risvertasashi]

We do have a function similar to what you’re suggesting in the Raid Finder. Granted, it’s very limited since choosing to be paired into a “Practice” run only lets you choose between “First phase” or “Final phase”.

If it were to be implemented, the function already exists — just needs to be reworked a bit to work for the Duty Finder. Though, there is a chance that implementing such an option may spike queue times for players with certain playstyles, which is something the devs probably don’t really want to happen.

And this shows exactly the problem. Even when raidfinder was used a bit, people didn't use it as intended. They'd join final phase practice or clear parties with no experience.

That said, I don't think it's a bad idea to try to find some solution. GMs giving people a blank check to kick anyone for "differences of playstyle" is a rather brutal cudgel they've given us to sort it out amongst ourselves.

[SenorPatty]

I can see this like the checkboxes for language preferences in DF settings. You could have them like: "Big pulls", "small pulls", "First time tank/dps/heal" "Lore exploration" and so on.

However, the cynic in me can't help but agree with Driavna's first post. It's similar to how people check all the language checkboxes in the DF settings to curb their queue time. I don't know the logistics of Group A and C but if we were to pretend for a minute that there's way more people in Group A than C, the latter would probably select all the preferences if they find their queue time unbearable.

[Brightmore]

I dunno, it's more a player issue than something that devs should meddle...
A fast clear is awesome, but I don't mind if as a tank I gotta do smaller pulls.
Same way, it's nice when someone that says "first time" challenge themselves.
What we need is to get out of auto mode and remember that there are people at the otherside. Talk, challenge, laugh... If fails, move on.
Doing 50 times the same thing is insane, do it mindlessly is not human.
After I brought my nephew of 10 yo to play, I always wonder if the otherside is a child, a person with physical challege or hell, a person that had a bad day.
I would rather have a fast run. But if the opposite occurs, I take my time to devour the design of the dungeon, toss some cheesy jokes.

[Veis_Alveare]

This is just my opinion based on my own experiences: a certain playstyle is less likely to clear content and it's more dependant on others to help them. An example is 24m raids.

I do think perhaps it would need to be limited to dungeons, as far as I'm able to tell when it comes to trials/raids and especially 24m raids it seems to be part of the encounter design that a fraction of the party being competent will allow for the entire group to clear.

I think this is why in some of the mechanically "tougher" casual fights you see comparatively less in the way of strict dps checks and stack markers - they kind of seem to expect that a portion of the group will be on the ground. I did a 17 minute e4n once that was essentially trio-ed between a DRK, BRD and myself on WHM because people just couldn't remain standing. Than god there was no "needing other people alive" mechanics.

Though, there is a chance that implementing such an option may spike queue times for players with certain playstyles, which is something the devs probably don’t really want to happen.

I agree that there would certainly be an increase in queue times. I think they could do a few things to help limit this like discounting your preference when queued via Mentor Roulette (because realistically you should be prepared to get anything) and matching playstyle over language, at least for Group A where it's unlikely much communication will be necessary.

I do think that ultimately the larger queue increase will happen in Group C and I admit it definitely bothers me less because I wouldn't be in there myself. I think it's fair overall though, if you're entering content with a mindset of "it can take however long it takes" and you're alright with things like single pulls and zero dps healers... do you have much room to complain about a few more minutes in the queue? In my opinion, no. You've always got the option to check the other box and play in a manner that more heavily favors a respect of yours and other players time.

That said, I don't think it's a bad idea to try to find some solution. GMs giving people a blank check to kick anyone for "differences of playstyle" is a rather brutal cudgel they've given us to sort it out amongst ourselves.

I agree! While I have come to terms with the idea of the silent kick I very much wish it wasn't a corner I found myself pushed into. It would be nice to be able to not have to sacrifice either my own time or someone else's in the interest of just playing a game in the limited time I have for it.

I can see this like the checkboxes for language preferences in DF settings. You could have them like: "Big pulls", "small pulls", "First time tank/dps/heal" "Lore exploration" and so on.

However, the cynic in me can't help but agree with Driavna's first post. It's similar to how people check all the language checkboxes in the DF settings to curb their queue time. I don't know the logistics of Group A and C but if we were to pretend for a minute that there's way more people in Group A than C, the latter would probably select all the preferences if they find their queue time unbearable.

Well, they'd certainly be able to do so... they'd just then find themselves held to the standard of those queues. If you're tanking let's see those full pulls, I want to hear some Holy going off, use your AoE, etc.

I think it could help incentivize some people who may be less than invested in their own improvement to maybe sink an extra ten or fifteen minutes into reading a guide on their job in order to save time on their queues in the future.

I dunno, it's more a player issue than something that devs should meddle...

I disagree. The devs created this situation through what I would consider mismanagement of the direction of the playerbase, the least they could do is give us a way to avoid the people in DF who have been pushed in the opposite direction to ourselves.

I'll be very clear - if you don't know how to play your job at a basic level (not you specifically, a general 'you') nor are you willing to accept and implement advice on how to do so then I have no interest in playing with you. I'm not alone in that mentality. Since we've all but criminalized unsolicited advice the only other option available to me is to avoid the people I would otherwise be advising. It has to be one or the other, I don't want to just sit there and carry people who can't bother to even try.

[AdamFyi]

And this shows exactly the problem. Even when raidfinder was used a bit, people didn't use it as intended. They'd join final phase practice or clear parties with no experience.

Mhm. It works on an honour system where you expect everyone to be truthful, but generally isn’t ever the case which is its biggest flaw.

You've always got the option to check the other box and play in a manner that more heavily favors a respect of yours and other players time.

Pretty much. It’s hard to tell how much of an impact it‘d actually cause on queue times. We don’t have the statistics for that. I think the devs want to avoid implementing this kind of system because it sounds more like a punishment rather than an incentive. Players who want quick queues but aren’t up to par would probably go for the option that has a larger player pool instead of waiting with the longer queue. Might cause an increases in players getting kicked from dungeons (for difference in playstyle) which isn’t something the devs would take to kindly.

Maybe instead, the selection would be differentiated between “Expert play” and “Casual play”? It isn’t the best solution, but at the least players have a rough idea of what kind of run they’d be looking for. Players are more receptive to positive feedback rather than negative ones i.e. feeling pressured to click the “faster” option because everyone else is doing it. Reminded me of another game that lets you “avoid” certain players. Eventually some players got avoided by thousands upon thousands of players that it took several hours just for their one queue to pop to the point where the devs had to remove the system entirely.