PDA

View Full Version : Flag ourselves for healing/trapping.



TekkenDevil
02-15-2012, 11:39 PM
Right now, there's a huge disadvantage for building non-textbook Clerics/FvS/Rogues/Artificers. They are inherently hard to group with, especially in public parties, due to the standard expectations, and also the stupidity of some people, who would refuse a Battle Cleric just out of principal, even though the party isn't full, and they have NO problem with the gimpy Ranger who dumped CON, took 2 handed fighting and is using a +1 bow as primary damage in a level 7 quest.

-------------

Now for the sake of this topic let me stress the following:
Guilding with friendly, understanding people, is NOT a viable reason to leave any disadvantages like this in the game. Not everyone wants to, or is able to guild. This is due mostly to the idiotic mechanic of guild decay, which strongly encourages guild leaders to kick members who decide to take a vacation. This puts pressure on some players who in turn avoid guilding altogether. THEREFORE, no, no, NO. Please don't even mention guilds-as-a-workaround in a reply. PLEASE! I will be very angry.
Thank you.

-------------

Now with that out of the way, here's a relatively simple way to solve this little issue, with I believe zero negative side effects.

Step 1: Let players with Cleric and/or Favored Soul levels flag themselves for healing.
Step 2: Let players with Rogue and/or Artificer levels flag themselves for trapping.
Step 3: Alongside the "looking for XYZ classes" mechanic that we have now, incorporate a "looking for trapper" and a "looking for healer" mechanic in the LFM interface.

It should be pretty straightforward to imagine how this would work. These would be toggleable options, working the exact same way as the class selection in the current LFM set up. Instead of unchecking everything but 2 classes, the Party Leader can just checkmark the Trapper or Healer buttons to advertise for them.

When a flagged for healing/trapping player applies to join, the Party Leader will get an extra WHITE message saying "Healer" or "Trapper", along with the usual "Cleric 12, Fighter 1" message. There would be no extra messages like this that state the opposite if an unflagged cleric applies to join, since it's really unnecessary.

Players could flag themselves for these roles under their main Character Sheet tab.

EXAMPLE:
There are 5 people in the party, and you're missing a trapmonkey. The Party Leader brings up the LFM options and toggles every class off with the global toggle. Then, the Party Leader puts a checkmark on the Trapper icon. Now if you are looking to join, the LFM will only become highlighted for you if you have flagged yourself for trapping. If you are a rogue or artificer, but have NOT flagged yourself for trapping, you will see the LFM darkened out.


PURPOSE:
-This is simply a tool to help decrease the negativity towards unnatural character builds, and help better ensure that the party is ready.
-This is not a design to prevent griefing. There's just as much opportunity for a player to grief this system, as there is with the current one.
-This design would hopefully eliminate the oh-so-often-happening occurrences such as a non-trapper Rogue applying for a trapping position, and shyly admit that he cannot do traps in the middle of the dungeon.


What do you guys think? Maybe possibly add Paladins and Bards for heal flagging?

Bobthesponge
02-15-2012, 11:42 PM
I'm in a guild!

TekkenDevil
02-15-2012, 11:50 PM
Wow okay thanks for contributing to the topic. Sadly it seems like I'm going to get replies about guilds no matter how I present my suggestion.

Bobthesponge
02-15-2012, 11:51 PM
More to the point, now that I've been funny...

I do not understand your post. Disabling traps is a skill that is available to anyone who has one level of rogue or artificer in them. Are you planning to exclude 18/2 wiz rogue builds? Does ANYONE build a rogue that can't do traps? I realise the primary purpose of a rogue is DPS against critable mobs but really?

How does one flag for trapping?

Basically, this isn't well thought out. It sounds like you have been in quests where the rogue/arti failed the traps and your party wiped. Or you ran with a tool who didn't put any points into it.

The "flag for trapper" mechanic already exists: if someone has rogue or arti levels they will see the LFM. Because you ran into someone who didn't do it well doesn't mean the game shoud be changed.

And why don't you just run with your guild?

ArcaneMelee
02-15-2012, 11:53 PM
While I understand your motivation for this request, I don't see how it will make even the slightest dent in the rampant ignorance you will encounter.

I'd be OK with allowing players to select which icon in a multiclass is displayed in a party, but they'd have to get into the party to begin with to take advantage of such a change.

ArcaneMelee
02-15-2012, 11:54 PM
Oh, and I'm in a guild. A guild of one, but a guild nonetheless.

TekkenDevil
02-16-2012, 12:13 AM
basically, this isn't well thought out.

I've covered every single aspect I could think of.
Let me quote myself in response to quoting you, shall I?



Disabling traps is a skill that is available to anyone who has one level of rogue or artificer in them. Are you planning to exclude 18/2 wiz rogue builds?

Quote from my OP:
"Step 1: Let players with Cleric and/or Favored Soul >>>levels<<< flag themselves for healing.
Step 2: Let players with Rogue and/or Artificer >>>levels<<< flag themselves for trapping."



How does one flag for trapping?

Quote from OP:
"Players could flag themselves for these roles under their main Character Sheet tab."

And as for some other things you have said:


Does ANYONE build a rogue that can't do traps? I realise the primary purpose of a rogue is DPS against critable mobs but really?

Yes. Many, many, many people do. Not the majority, yet still a good amount. Besides that, even if someone is capable of some trapping, they might decide to not want to be the primary trapper, so they don't offend people and they don't get unjustly ignored by every party leader they meet.

There is no strict rule for doing Trapper-only rogues. That's a community imposed mechanic that is frankly bad for this game, or at least the players who want to try something new. They get pretty much discriminated against, while other builds that are just as gimped as they are, get to go under the radar, simply because their classes are not associated with trapping or healing.



The "flag for trapper" mechanic already exists: if someone has rogue or arti levels they will see the LFM. Because you ran into someone who didn't do it well doesn't mean the game shoud be changed.

No it does not. Refer to my previous response for the rest of those sentences.
And this does not change the game. How does this change the game? At least how does it change the game for the worst? Would this somehow have a negative impact on you? If so, how? Tell me, please, because the only change I see is an increased tolerance for non-textbook Rogues/Arties/Clerics/FvS.



And why don't you just run with your guild?

Guilding isn't the only possible way anyone can play this game, do you realize? I know seemingly everyone seems to be uber leet and cool and guild it up on these forums, but there's just as many people playing in 1-man or dead beat guilds, who mainly play the game in PUGs.

Guilding should NEVER be the answer to being able to play with certain builds. No, I'm not going to spend 5 hours on finding a proper guild who will play all the dungeons with my battle cleric or non-trapper rogue, then get booted out because I don't log on for a month, just because you don't agree with a mechanic like this that would have little to no effect on DDO as a whole. I understand that neither you or I truly have a say in the matter, but still, I'm talking about the principality of the matter.

bigolbear
02-16-2012, 12:27 AM
Well thats a positive spin on the usual rubish.

If i may id say your idea could be taken further.


3 boxes for the each of the following party roles your character is willing and 'in your opinion' able to fulfill.

1.healer
2.mele damage
3.ranged damage
4.damage caster
5.crowdcontroll
6.buffer
7.debuffer
8.instant killer
9.trapper
10.scout

Then give each character 20 points to distribute as they see fit.

0 I cant do this.
1 I can do this but not well
2 I am average at this
3 I am specialised at this


And finaly give each of those party roles an icon, which any character - multiclassed or not may choose to replace their predominant class icon with.

That way it is clear to all that the battle cleric with 12 lvls of cleric, and 8 lvls of figher is there to fill a mele spot and provide a bit of buffing.

Or conversely that the other battle cleric with 19 lvls of cleric and 1 lvl of fighter is there to heal folks and hide behind a bloomin great towersheild.

As a fervant multiclasser my self Ive wished for this so many times, Ive suggested this in the past my self a LONG time ago.

I remeber a dwarven 'templar' battle cleric of mine - at cap 14 he had 4 lvls of fighter, 10 lvls of cleric and was PERFECT. He couldnt heal a party but he did the same damage a fighter did, had beter saves, covered his own buffs, saved the real cleric a lot of mana in buffing etc. The only problem that character ever had was convincing others he wasnt the healer, its kind of odd but that little dwarven templar ended up with so many real cleric pals it wasnt an issue in the end.

So I say implement that change so party leaders know what their getting and let us change our class symbol so the rest of the party do too.

Ofcourse.. whatever reasonable and honest things we attempt to achieve here its still not going to stop the fullretarded play my way or go home completely nany dependant types from either telling us dirty multiclassers that we are gimp and go home, or accepting without thinking and then yelling at us for not performing a task they assumed we could do.

Ungood
02-16-2012, 12:37 AM
/Signed

Really, this would be handy to be able to Flag your Build for what you want to do as opposed to having people look at your class make up and tell you what they want you to do.

For example, people who play Melee built Clerics/FvS, they might want to click DPS/Melee and not select the Healer Flag, simply because that is not what they want to do, nor what they built their character to do.

I think a few flags should be put in, like: Healing, Damage (Ranged/Spells/Melee), Crowed Control, Trapping, Etc.

Then have equal flags in the LFM panel, and the person looking for a healer, can just click "healer" and the player who wants to play a healer can join, where the player who wants to play a DPS can find a group more fitting to their play-style, regardless of what class make-up they opt to take.

Equally so, I think if a Divine joined the group that flagged Damage, I would not be asking them to heal, I might ask if they are willing to back up/emergency, but otherwise, I get the idea, they are not healers.

I also think all flags should be open to all classes, that way, people would have the most control over the play style they want, and put that out to those that may be looking for them or the talents they bring to a group.

This is a great idea!

Kudos!

TekkenDevil
02-16-2012, 12:38 AM
To Big and Ungood:

I think that'd be going a little overboard on the idea/change department. It might be neat, I do not disagree, but it would change up the LFM system too much, and would most definitely open the floodgate for people complaining that they want the original.

My proposal simply involves 2 extra buttons on the LFM, an extra word on some of the apply messages for Party Leaders, and a flag toggle on some players' character sheets. A relatively simple thing for the developers to implement, and a rather minuscule change for the players to get used to.

Although as demonstrated by Bob, even this would prove to be more than a close-minded person could handle.

Perhaps if something like my idea could be implemented, they could go on to creating additional flags and exploring the idea in general, if people end up liking it.

justagame
02-16-2012, 12:58 AM
Completely unsigned.

This presumes that cleric/fvs builds are either "healer" or "dps" or "melee", etc.

I resist being labelled a battle cleric if I actually try to kill something. Likewise, I dislike being labeled a "designated healer" because it only reinforces someone feeling entitled to think of me as a healbot.

MOST quests don't need a designated healer. So, just because I can heal, if I "flag" for healing, does that mean when I join a group, I'm supposed to be a nanny? I can just see it now -- "you signed up to heal -- HEAL!"

When someone comes here and complains about "healers not healing", it's one of a number of things:

1. A new or poor healer that just didn't manage cooldowns, SP, or just plain didn't get to someone in time
2. A good healer that got tired of mopping up someone's mistakes, and that person decided to complain
3. Someone died through his own silly fault, but insists on blaming the healer
4. Someone who, although having cleric or fvs levels, would rather not heal

The problem is, so many of these debates assume that people are either a "pure healer", or #4.

Ask me "can you heal a group?" I'll say "yes".

But, ask me "are you a healer?" and I'll first get a sense of what you mean by it. If you mean "can I heal?", see my first answer. If you mean "will you happily mop up as we go wild and ignore every damage-mitigating tactic known to gaming?", then, well, no.

Ask me "are you a healer, or a caster?" I'll say "yes"
Ask me "are you a healer, or do you fight?" I'll say "yes"

Ask me "are you a healer, or are you one of those stupid battle clerics?" and you'll either get a similar wise crack in return, or perhaps I'll find someone more open-minded to group with.

This is long-winded, but IMO, class designations are enough. If you allow people to be flagged as healers, it's tacitly giving party leaders to treat them as healbots, IMO.

While you're at it, allow checkboxes for:

Rangers: Are you a STR-based Melee? Or are you one of those selfish kiting archers with no STR or CON?

Wizards: "Do you buff, or not?"

You get the idea.

TekkenDevil
02-16-2012, 01:09 AM
You don't see the big picture though.

There's two states.

1. You flag for healing. This means you WANT to be a healbot. You might not have to do much like it at all, but you take the responsibility nevertheless.

2. You don't flag for healing. This means you get to do WHATEVER you want, and nobody will expect you to heal them. It does not mean you can't supply heals or even take over healing down the road.

When the party is flagged for a healer, it means the party leader genuinely WANTS a healbot. At this point it barely changes anything for you, and is very much like applying for a spot when only Cleric/FvS are enabled.
If you don't want to flag yourself and you get basically locked out of a party because of this, then that's too bad. But this happens because party leader will most likely not want you. It's up for the PL to open the 6th spot for any healer, or to enable Healer-Flagged only. And that's pretty fair if you ask me.

So you see, you're basically saying that you don't want this because now you can't apply to parties that don't want your play style. Things like that happen all the time right now as well, in fact the exact same things happen to healers/clerics, except some get to go under the radar and decide what they want to do without announcing it to the party. My suggestion would remove some of this occurring, for the benefit for many players and parties, and a possibly small disadvantage to players such as yourself. But with time people would eventually learn how to use these tools, and I honestly doubt you'd be encountering the problem that you talk about.

Bobthesponge
02-16-2012, 01:15 AM
I've covered every single aspect I could think of.

You covered every aspect you could think of, I agree. What I am saying is you didn't think of all that much. What is the issue you are trying to fix? That people won't group with non-standard builds? Putting a self-selected flag won't change that - it will most likely exacerbate the issue. Bad players are bad players and they will flag themselves as competent no matter what. Good players will ignore it. If you have a "non-standard" build you will still get declined becaue of that by bad party leaders. Please note that there are very few quests in this game before level 18 or so that require a specific skill or class. You are trying to legislate human nature and that never works.

Also, please give examples of a non standard build you are thinking of, becuase the ones I can think of are "non standard" for a reason (10 clr/10 wiz) or really aren't that far out of the box.


Let me quote myself in response to quoting you, shall I?

Quote from my OP:
"Step 1: Let players with Cleric and/or Favored Soul >>>levels<<< flag themselves for healing.
Step 2: Let players with Rogue and/or Artificer >>>levels<<< flag themselves for trapping."

See above. If someone decides they are good enough doesn't make it so. Believe it or not, if there is a cleric/fvs out there who refuses to heal you are better off without them. I am not talking nannybot here - my fvs is usually in the middle of the actions swinging away - but refusing to use your native class ability is a sign of a either a bad player or a deliberate idiocy. The same goes with the trapping skills of rogues. You get enough points to put a few into trapping skills without compromising any other aspect of your class.

*note* I have not played an arti yet so I don't know if this applies to them as well. In any case, just consider trap skill an added bonus for artis.


Quote from OP:
"Players could flag themselves for these roles under their main Character Sheet tab."

Again, not workable or well thought out. If you want to tell people about the specifics of your character then that is what the Bio tab is for. Having a flag/chackbox that anyone can select is counterproductive because there is no regulation as to whether the designation is valid. And I still believe most vets will ignore it.



And as for some other things you have said:

Yes. Many, many, many people do. Not the majority, yet still a good amount. Besides that, even if someone is capable of some trapping, they might decide to not want to be the primary trapper, so they don't offend people and they don't get unjustly ignored by every party leader they meet.

Either you are the unluckiest person in Eberron or you are exagerrating for effect. The problem with rogues is usually the opposite - they only concentrate on traps because the (usually new) players see that as their only reason for existence. The simple fact is that an assasin decked out for DPS can still get 99% of the traps in the game.



There is no strict rule for doing Trapper-only rogues. That's a community imposed mechanic that is frankly bad for this game, or at least the players who want to try something new. They get pretty much discriminated against, while other builds that are just as gimped as they are, get to go under the radar, simply because their classes are not associated with trapping or healing.

Correct and you missed my point. A trapper only rogue is a gimp - pure and simple. They are missing out on 90% of the game by focusing on only one of many skills their class has to offer. Most competent players will take a rogue into any dungeon for the DPS first and the traps second - with the exception of a few quests like crucible (where any evasion toon would do) and Necro 3 (shadow king?) where you get outrageous XP for disabling 20 or more traps.

Again, if someone is building a trap-only rogue then that is a mistake.




No it does not. Refer to my previous response for the rest of those sentences.
And this does not change the game. How does this change the game? At least how does it change the game for the worst? Would this somehow have a negative impact on you? If so, how? Tell me, please, because the only change I see is an increased tolerance for non-textbook Rogues/Arties/Clerics/FvS.

You are changing the game because you are proposing an additional screening mechanic. You will in fact increase griefing/intolerance if this is ever implemented because it would be abused on both ends. Either all applicable classes will check the flag to get into groups regardless of thier skill level or people will ignore it and be refused becuase they haven't checked their oh-so-important flag.

justagame
02-16-2012, 01:16 AM
You don't see the big picture though.

There's two states.

1. You flag for healing. This means you WANT to be a healbot. You might not have to do much like it at all, but you take the responsibility nevertheless.

2. You don't flag for healing. This means you get to do WHATEVER you want, and nobody will expect you to heal them. It does not mean you can't supply heals or even take over healing down the road.

When the party is flagged for a healer, it means the party leader genuinely WANTS a healbot. At this point it barely changes anything for you, and is very much like applying for a spot when only Cleric/FvS are enabled.
If you don't want to flag yourself and you get basically locked out of a party because of this, then that's too bad. But this happens because party leader will most likely not want you. It's up for the PL to open the 6th spot for any healer, or to enable Healer-Flagged only. And that's pretty fair if you ask me.

So you see, you're basically saying that you don't want this because now you can't apply to parties that don't want your play style. Things like that happen all the time right now as well, in fact the exact same things happen to healers/clerics, except some get to go under the radar and decide what they want to do without announcing it to the party. My suggestion would remove this, for the benefit for many players and parties, and a possibly small disadvantage to players such as yourself.

No, I see the big picture. What you're not seeing is that many many clerics are perfectly willing to heal, just not be a healbot. Thus, picking #1 or #2 is a false choice based on your narrow definition of what buckets clerics/fvs fall into. With your system, it's either "I'm a healbot", or "don't expect me to heal anyone". -- That's just silly.

TekkenDevil
02-16-2012, 01:17 AM
Ask me "can you heal a group?" I'll say "yes".

But, ask me "are you a healer?" and I'll first get a sense of what you mean by it. If you mean "can I heal?", see my first answer. If you mean "will you happily mop up as we go wild and ignore every damage-mitigating tactic known to gaming?", then, well, no.

Ask me "are you a healer, or a caster?" I'll say "yes"
Ask me "are you a healer, or do you fight?" I'll say "yes"

Ask me "are you a healer, or are you one of those stupid battle clerics?" and you'll either get a similar wise crack in return, or perhaps I'll find someone more open-minded to group with.

This is long-winded, but IMO, class designations are enough. If you allow people to be flagged as healers, it's tacitly giving party leaders to treat them as healbots, IMO.

While you're at it, allow checkboxes for:

Rangers: Are you a STR-based Melee? Or are you one of those selfish kiting archers with no STR or CON?

Wizards: "Do you buff, or not?"

You get the idea.

Now for this part, however, the problem is that few people actually take the time to communicate like this.
Sure your conversations happen sometime, but more often, the situation is that someone joins, doesn't speak a word, and everyone assumes that he's a 100% healbot.

Then later on you find out that he starts whacking everything with a sword and is slow at healing people, runs out of mana quick, and carries no wands/scrolls that he's willing to contribute.

Sure it's kind of selfish, but in the long run, isn't the party itself to blame for not assembling themselves properly?
The community has proven unwilling to communicate in order to prevent this. So why not supply a simple flagging tool as an alternative?

Why leave the community to fend for themselves (with no good result), if you can just force them into it with clever design?

TekkenDevil
02-16-2012, 01:21 AM
No, I see the big picture. What you're not seeing is that many many clerics are perfectly willing to heal, just not be a healbot. Thus, picking #1 or #2 is a false choice based on your narrow definition of what buckets clerics/fvs fall into. With your system, it's either "I'm a healbot", or "don't expect me to heal anyone". -- That's just silly.

But that's what I'm saying, you're choosing to look at it that way. In reality, simply leaving the Cleric class open doesn't mean that people will expect you to be a Battle Cleric. They might at first think that, but after a few days of seeing it in practice, people would learn that most clerics joining would still be very much healing capable, flagged or not. The only difference being is that nobody will go CAPS LOCK on you when you decide not to 24/7 monitor their HP bars.

As things are right now, for example, nobody expects a Ranger to not ever heal anyone, simply because they're not a cleric. People would still expect them to use all their healing capabilities in a pinch, if need be, but at the very same time, you don't see anyone losing it if the Ranger didn't carry around any mana pots or healing wands.

justagame
02-16-2012, 01:33 AM
Now for this part, however, the problem is that few people actually take the time to communicate like this.
Sure your conversations happen sometime, but more often, the situation is that someone joins, doesn't speak a word, and everyone assumes that he's a 100% healbot.

Then later on you find out that he starts whacking everything with a sword and is slow at healing people, runs out of mana quick, and carries no wands/scrolls that he's willing to contribute.

Sure it's kind of selfish, but in the long run, isn't the party itself to blame for not assembling themselves properly?
The community has proven unwilling to communicate in order to prevent this. So why not supply a simple flagging tool as an alternative?

Why leave the community to fend for themselves (with no good result), if you can just force them into it with clever design?

Slow at healing? Poor SP management? Doesn't carry scrolls? You're describing a poor healer, an inexperienced one, certainly one that frustrates people. But you're mistaken if you think a flag is going to fix that. Or are you going to allow for 3 flags? Competent healer, incompetent healer, and non-healer?

You'll force people alright -- force them into 2 ridiculously narrow classifications -- that's not clever design. It's like a poorly designed multiple choice questionnaire that doesn't cover even a majority of possibilities.

I'm not the one choosing to see it this way -- the very definitions you set up force someone to state either (A) I am a healbot, or (B) don't pick me for your group if you need any healing. You really can't see how that's articifially narrow? How you'd force people into neat little buckets based on your limited view of how the class should be played?

When I've had a situation where the healer truly screwed up in a quest, 99% of the time it's been because he/she just wasn't good at it. Only twice have I EVER run into someone who after the fact said that they were unwilling to heal, and I had expected otherwise. The problem is, people hardly ever blame it on someone being a poor healer. They blame it on being a battle-cleric or battle-fvs. They blame it on that one time they saw him swinging a weapon. Or casting an offensive spell. And they go straight to the conclusion that the person was UNWILLING to heal.

Maybe you DO want all pug healers to be healbots. Maybe that's your intention. If not, know that checking that box will have the effect of making pug leaders TREAT that person like a healbot.

Bobthesponge
02-16-2012, 01:39 AM
As things are right now, for example, nobody expects a Ranger to not ever heal anyone, simply because they're not a cleric. People would still expect them to use all their healing capabilities in a pinch, if need be, but at the very same time, you don't see anyone losing it if the Ranger didn't carry around any mana pots or healing wands.

Ummm... yes you do. Why would a ranger not carry a healing wand? They get the ability for free and it can mean the difference between a wipe and sucess.

TekkenDevil
02-16-2012, 01:57 AM
Slow at healing? Poor SP management? Doesn't carry scrolls? You're describing a poor healer, an inexperienced one, certainly one that frustrates people. But you're mistaken if you think a flag is going to fix that. Or are you going to allow for 3 flags? Competent healer, incompetent healer, and non-healer?

This is the problem with the community. You think that character failed because it wanted to do heals. You don't even leave yourself open for the idea that not everyone builds a Cleric to be a 100% competent healer.

And you still keep insisting that my idea strictly divides Clerics into 2 camps. That's just not true. I can't keep repeating myself so I don't know how else to explain it to you.


I'm not the one choosing to see it this way -- the very definitions you set up force someone to state either (A) I am a healbot, or (B) don't pick me for your group if you need any healing. You really can't see how that's articifially narrow? How you'd force people into neat little buckets based on your limited view of how the class should be played?

Why do you insist that nobody would accept non-healer flagged clerics? I don't see that happening at all. Sure in the first few days it would hinder some clerics/fvs because of other people thinking like you, but just like with the current system, people would eventually learn not to think so narrow mindendly about it.

If you are insecure about becoming as untyped as a Bard, then that's a problem you're creating for yourself. It's the price to pay for making your specific build. Welcome to the world of Battle Clerics and non-trapper Rogues. Trust me, you'd only be getting a taste of it. The above mentioned are FAR worse off right now, than your Cleric would be with a flagging system, which is something I believe needs to be corrected.


know that checking that box will have the effect of making pug leaders TREAT that person like a healbot.

That's the point of flagging yourself. However you insist that not flagging disqualifies you from being the healbot. Again, and again and again: It does not. It just takes a load of responsibility off of your shoulders. Why wouldn't you like that? You can still play however you want.

The number of clerics isn't going to go up. It's not like nobody will accept non-flagged clerics/fvs anymore. An option like this wouldn't magically enable Party Leaders to become super picky. It's a tool to help clarify your roles, nothing else. I honestly don't see any detrimental effects in an individual's ability to PUG.

Ungood
02-16-2012, 10:08 AM
To Big and Ungood:

I think that'd be going a little overboard on the idea/change department. It might be neat, I do not disagree, but it would change up the LFM system too much, and would most definitely open the floodgate for people complaining that they want the original.

At some point, you need to realize that people will complain no matter what, if you change anything, or don't, people will find something to make a fuss about. I however, like this idea because it allows me to be quickly transparent about what I want to do, and how I play my build as opposed to depending on someone else to try and formulate with their limited knowledge base and prejudices what they think I can or should be doing for a group.

In many ways, a means to flag myself, IE: I tell you, what I do with this toon, is far better then having people take a guess or chat with me about what I think I can or or what have you.

As you said, some people would not be able to handle it, such is their fate, but that does not invalidate what an amazing improvement this would be to the overall feel of the game on the PuG Scene.

Divines who play unorthodox or melee-spec builds and are proud of their ability to kick arse, would not ever need to feel imposed to be "healers" for a group simply because of their cleric icon. That is called improvement in communication, which allows pugs to fill faster, people to get groups formed faster, and allows everyone to know who is doing what with minimal mis-communication on anyone part, and beyond that, it allows people to let everyone else know, what they Want to do.

Which is the key point here, no one would be forced to take "Healer" if they were divine, they flag themselves, they tell everyone else what they do, not the other way around, and that eliminates friction in the group as well.

When they hit the LFM they make it clear, "DPS" or flagged: "Damage (Caster)" "Damage (Ranged)", "Damage (Melee)" "AC Tank" "Hate Tank" "Tank (Other)" "Crowd Control" "Trapper" "Healer" etc, etc, etc,

I suppose they could change the Invite UI to match this with far more options, like allowing players to select up to 4 primary "things" that they do with number codes.

Like this for example: and let players pick the their own numbers, based on what they want and are willing to do.

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z166/Ungood_Images/DDO/Flag-Idea.png

In fact, doing something like this, would and could spark some interesting conversations, like for example, a Bard having Tank selected, or a heavy mix having healing level 5 put in, leaving the group wondering how this guy was going to pull it off. Also, make it so all the flags were optional, and start out unchecked, IE: It remains the "Old way" if the player selects nothing, but they can opt to select up to 4 "Focuses" from a larger list, and select numbers for each scaling from 1 - 5



1: being hate it/bad at it/not speced for it.
5: being love it/good at it/designed to do it.

This way, say a cleric mix player really hates healing or being a heal-bot, they could select healing and label it (1) to show they do not do not like to do that.

Thus they are being open, upfront and honest with the group and the group leader about what they want to do.

I think this is a great idea!

Gorbadoc
02-16-2012, 01:36 PM
The OP is right on one point: It is annoying to make people guess what my character can or can't do based solely on my level split.

There is a better solution:
I want a 50-character mini-description field. Fill it out just like you fill out your character Bio. Show it when someone mouses over the character in the social panel or when the character applies to an LFM.

So, for example:
A wizard could say, "Enchantment 37, Evocation 35, Other 33" (in reference to his spell DCs).
A bard who took two rogue levels for evasion could say, "No trap skills; just evasion"
A ranger with rogue splash for trap skills could list his trap skill modifiers.
A Clonk could say either, "Fully capable of healing," or "I don't do heals".
A goofy flavor build could briefly explain what the build can or can't do.

This way, the devs wouldn't have to decide what was or wasn't important information to transmit about a character. Players would decide.

For example, say players started using an informal 0-9 scale for self rating (0-9 because, when characters are tight, fewer digits are better). I might say of my bard:

WC; 5 Cure; 9 Scroll; 0 Ench; 8 Melee; Perf55+MoM+MotD

Which would mean I'm a War Chanter; I didn't spec for healing, though I do have the spells; I maxed Wand and Scroll Mastery and can UMD a Heal scroll; I have no spell-based CC ability; I have melee stats and feats; my song DCs are 56-75 (perform skill = 55, and the DC is that value +d20), plus I took Music of the Dead and Music of Makers.

~Quilny
02-16-2012, 01:50 PM
Ill /sign
Burt i don't think this is really needed.
if party is fighter,fighter,fighter,rogue,wizard and is posted for a cleric or fvs Its pretty clear that last spot is for heals LOL. I dk if we need to have a flag for it.

same with trapper flag if its fighter,fighter,fighter,wizard,cleric and the post is for arty or rogue its pretty clear they want a trapper. i know it gets annoying when a battle cleric or a non trapping rogue joins but what can you do :D. Oh thats right you can recall reform and blacklist.


anyways over all not a bad idea so.
/signed

~Quilny
02-16-2012, 01:51 PM
The OP is right on one point: It is annoying to make people guess what my character can or can't do based solely on my level split.

There is a better solution:
I want a 50-character mini-description field. Fill it out just like you fill out your character Bio. Show it when someone mouses over the character in the social panel or when the character applies to an LFM.

So, for example:

A wizard could say, "Enchantment 37, Evocation 35, Other 33" (in reference to his spell DCs).
A bard who took two rogue levels for evasion could say, "No trap skills; just evasion"
A ranger with rogue splash for trap skills could list his trap skill modifiers.
A Clonk could say either, "Fully capable of healing," or "I don't do heals".
A goofy flavor build could briefly explain what the build can or can't do.


This way, the devs wouldn't have to decide what was or wasn't important information to transmit about a character. Players would decide.

For example, say players started using an informal 0-9 scale for self rating (0-9 because, when characters are tight, fewer digits are better). I might say of my bard:

WC; 5 Cure; 9 Scroll; 0 Ench; 8 Melee; Perf55+MoM+MotD

Which would mean I'm a War Chanter; I didn't spec for healing, though I do have the spells; I maxed Wand and Scroll Mastery and can UMD a Heal scroll; I have no spell-based CC ability; I have melee stats and feats; my song DCs are 56-75 (perform skill = 55, and the DC is that value +d20), plus I took Music of the Dead and Music of Makers.

LOve that idea you should start your own thread :D.

/signed

KillEveryone
02-16-2012, 01:59 PM
/not signed

Don't really need this mechanic and I'd rather something else was worked on.

The check box system relies upon someone actually filling it out, if it is mandatory for me to fill it out then I'd get annoyed with it.

It won't fix inexpierenced players that gimped their characters or don't really understand some of the finer ins and outs.

People already screen with MyDDO when they can take the first 5/11 and go.

All you have to do is /tell and ask if they can fill the particular role you want them for.

azrael4h
02-16-2012, 04:21 PM
This is due mostly to the idiotic mechanic of guild decay, which strongly encourages guild leaders to kick members who decide to take a vacation. This puts pressure on some players who in turn avoid guilding altogether. THEREFORE, no, no, NO. Please don't even mention guilds-as-a-workaround in a reply. PLEASE! I will be very angry.
Thank you.

First off, inactive members do not contribute to renown decay. I have members who have no logged into the game in nearly two years in my guild; they contribute nothing to decay, because they are flagged as inactive.

So if you're using that as an excuse not to allow others into your guild, get a grip. Using it as an excuse to boot others from your guild means you lost more renown in a single kick than you would have for the couple of weeks it takes for them to go inactive. In other words, sheer idiocy.

Now for the suggestion, it's not really needed.

Yes, you will have some bad divine players who come into a group and say they do not heal. You'll have some rogues or artificers who can't unlock a korthos chest at 20, much less handle epic traps.

This does nothing to prevent that from happening. Those same poor players will remain poor players regardless, and will still hit the LFMs they find interesting whether or not they are capable of or willing to fill those roles. It basically ends up adding development time for no reason, adding increased complexity to the code, and thus bugs, and costing development resources that can be better put to use improving PvP. And I am of the opinion that PvP should be removed utterly from DDO, and it is a complete waste of space and resources as it is.

I do like a mini-bio that appears in a mouse-over tool tip though. It would still require the player to fill out, and it won't solve any issues, but I can quote random historical figures or Optimus Prime there, or whatever. So it has amusement potential. I wouldn't want to devote any real resources to it though, say have some unpaid interns do it between beatings.

countfitz
02-16-2012, 04:39 PM
GRRR!

I just timed out after writing a very good post!

TL;DR (Or, TL;GTO) (Too long; got timed out):

I love the idea, OP, but it needs to go FURTHER. It needs to include CC and Tanking as well as Heals and Traps.

My idea was something like Devils Assault/VoD. A quest that levels at 6, 12 and 18 that includes a very small space with traps that can't be avoided (okay, you 'can' avoid VoD's traps, but...) that had A LOT of trash that "should" be CC'd, and needs a LOT of healing, but can be done by multiple classes if needed. Then, you are ONLY allowed 4 people in the party to join it, one of each "role," and you are NOT expected to kill the trash (only CC them) you HAVE to keep everyone alive, the traps MUST be disabled, and the boss ONLY has to stay aggro'd, not die. Then, after a timer runs out, if all the traps are done, and everyone is alive, done. No killing at all (as in, NO DPS needed in the quest). Maybe even make the quest fail if too many enemies die.

To 'flag' for your role, you need to finish them by levels 10, 15, and 20.

I also had written a cool story for why I liked your/now my much superior idea.

Long story short, my wife plays a 2 rogue 18 paladin, and constantly has to get asked "can you do traps?" Yes, she can do traps. Better than most pure rogues. I get the same on my WF FvS. "Can you heal?" No, in fact, in all 20 levels, for all 9 levels of spells, I never once too a healing spell. (Sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell. Sadly, this needs to be said).

We HATE when rogues/FvS are in groups with us that can't do these things.

Niv-mizzet
02-16-2012, 04:41 PM
This suggestion is in the game already.

It's called "/tell"

And then you ask the applicant, or you tell the party leader (depending on which person you are) whether the build can heal, do traps, tank sulu, etc etc.

countfitz
02-16-2012, 04:47 PM
And finaly give each of those party roles an icon, which any character - multiclassed or not may choose to replace their predominant class icon with.

That way it is clear to all that the battle cleric with 12 lvls of cleric, and 8 lvls of figher is there to fill a mele spot and provide a bit of buffing.

Or conversely that the other battle cleric with 19 lvls of cleric and 1 lvl of fighter is there to heal folks and hide behind a bloomin great towersheild.

As a fervant multiclasser my self Ive wished for this so many times, Ive suggested this in the past my self a LONG time ago.

I remeber a dwarven 'templar' battle cleric of mine - at cap 14 he had 4 lvls of fighter, 10 lvls of cleric and was PERFECT. He couldnt heal a party but he did the same damage a fighter did, had beter saves, covered his own buffs, saved the real cleric a lot of mana in buffing etc. The only problem that character ever had was convincing others he wasnt the healer, its kind of odd but that little dwarven templar ended up with so many real cleric pals it wasnt an issue in the end.

So I say implement that change so party leaders know what their getting and let us change our class symbol so the rest of the party do too.

Ofcourse.. whatever reasonable and honest things we attempt to achieve here its still not going to stop the fullretarded play my way or go home completely nany dependant types from either telling us dirty multiclassers that we are gimp and go home, or accepting without thinking and then yelling at us for not performing a task they assumed we could do.

I so like this! Seriously, I hate being in a Shroud, or whatever, and having not paid attention, wonder why, when there are 3-4 divines, why I'm the only one healing/throwing mass heals, then realized they're all 12 clerics or 12 fvs, and can't heal, it's just an icon.

LordMond63
02-16-2012, 05:02 PM
I'm not opposed to the concept, but I question whether it would be used enough my the player base to warrant the expenditure of Turbine's limited resources. I've played these type games for a long time and, frankly, I have never seen a LFM mechanic so underutilized as this one is. If there really are only ten groups being assembled during prime time on Orien, we're all in serious trouble.

One problem I see with the idea, though, is that it is dependent on the honesty of the player. If you have a group assembling and you need a "healer", what is to prevent a dps-oriented Cleric or, perhaps more likely, FvS from joining and then not being able to adequately heal the group? Sure, you can boot him or her after you wipe and release, but you've wasted time and effort finding out that the person was a bad fit for what you needed.

Talon_Moonshadow
02-16-2012, 08:14 PM
How many boxes can I check?



And more importantly, can I place check marks.....outside the box? :cool:

TekkenDevil
02-17-2012, 01:33 AM
if it is mandatory

I'd love to see you point out where I suggested this would be mandatory. It's not mandatory to checkmark certain classes only, yet it's still there and people still often use it.


First off, inactive members do not contribute to renown decay. I have members who have no logged into the game in nearly two years in my guild; they contribute nothing to decay, because they are flagged as inactive.

So if you're using that as an excuse not to allow others into your guild, get a grip. Using it as an excuse to boot others from your guild means you lost more renown in a single kick than you would have for the couple of weeks it takes for them to go inactive. In other words, sheer idiocy.

That's what I'm saying too. But it doesn't stop Officers and GL's from doing this all the freaking time. It doesn't matter how the guild decay works, because the people's behavior and understanding of it ultimately makes it a cancer to the game.


Now for the suggestion, it's not really needed.

Yes, you will have some bad divine players who come into a group and say they do not heal. You'll have some rogues or artificers who can't unlock a korthos chest at 20, much less handle epic traps.

This does nothing to prevent that from happening. Those same poor players will remain poor players regardless, and will still hit the LFMs they find interesting whether or not they are capable of or willing to fill those roles. It basically ends up adding development time for no reason, adding increased complexity to the code, and thus bugs, and costing development resources that can be better put to use improving PvP. And I am of the opinion that PvP should be removed utterly from DDO, and it is a complete waste of space and resources as it is.

I do like a mini-bio that appears in a mouse-over tool tip though. It would still require the player to fill out, and it won't solve any issues, but I can quote random historical figures or Optimus Prime there, or whatever. So it has amusement potential. I wouldn't want to devote any real resources to it though, say have some unpaid interns do it between beatings.

My suggestion isn't to counter poor players. It's to help out non-textbook characters differentiate themselves, and evade situations where they get accepted for Trapping, and then end up making the party wipe because they're too shy to just state that they aren't trappers.


This suggestion is in the game already.

It's called "/tell"

And then you ask the applicant, or you tell the party leader (depending on which person you are) whether the build can heal, do traps, tank sulu, etc etc.

Many of you don't seem to understand. What you're explaining there is NOT the standard. That's just YOUR ideal process. It rarely actually happens. I've even seen occasions where a Cleric joined, made sure the PL knew he wasn't here to heal, and then ended up wiping the party because the PL decided to go ahead and get us started on the quest, and relying on the cleric as if he were a healbot, then getting mad when he stated he isn't as if the PL never even listened to him the first time.

It's just simply not sunshine lollipop land to PUG with a different Cleric or Rogue build. Not everyone is intelligent enough for that. That's why we need some sort of a system to make people aware of this issue, and essentially fight it with clever design.

And my proposal would be to get a mechanic that transfers the definition of a term like Trapmonkey from EVERY Rogue ever created, to just simply any person flagged for Trapping.

Make Looking For Trapper a literal thing, not a Looking For Rogue thing.

I still fail to see how this would negatively affect anyone, should it become implemented.

Niv-mizzet
02-17-2012, 06:10 AM
Many of you don't seem to understand. What you're explaining there is NOT the standard. That's just YOUR ideal process. It rarely actually happens. I've even seen occasions where a Cleric joined, made sure the PL knew he wasn't here to heal, and then ended up wiping the party because the PL decided to go ahead and get us started on the quest, and relying on the cleric as if he were a healbot, then getting mad when he stated he isn't as if the PL never even listened to him the first time.

It's just simply not sunshine lollipop land to PUG with a different Cleric or Rogue build. Not everyone is intelligent enough for that. That's why we need some sort of a system to make people aware of this issue, and essentially fight it with clever design.

No amount of "helpful systems in place," "tooltips," or, as you already demonstrated, direct communication, can stop an idiot from being an idiot.

In the situation that you point out where telling them directly what is in the box before they open the box doesn't work, your suggestion won't work either.

Ungood
02-17-2012, 06:38 AM
No amount of "helpful systems in place," "tooltips," or, as you already demonstrated, direct communication, can stop an idiot from being an idiot.

In the situation that you point out where telling them directly what is in the box before they open the box doesn't work, your suggestion won't work either.

It's not that it doesn't work, it's that people don't use it, or more aptly put, do not want to waste the time with sending tells to every person who hits their LFM. And no one is trying to stop an idiot from being an idiot.

Also, lets be honest, /tell is for all intents and purposes, a workaround, a way it can be done, not the way it could be done the best.

All that is being done here is for people people to be able to very quickly, very effectively, and with just the click of a button, tell everyone else in the group, especially the group leader, where they stand, what they want to do, what they don't want to do and what their build is designed to handle.

And while yes, I openly admit, that Turbine should put their effort towards other things first, that does not change the fact that this is a pretty neat idea.

~Quilny
02-17-2012, 06:49 AM
It's not that it doesn't work, it's that people don't use it, or more aptly put, do not want to waste the time with sending tells to every person who hits their LFM. And no one is trying to stop an idiot from being an idiot.

Also, lets be honest, /tell is for all intents and purposes, a workaround, a way it can be done, not the way it could be done the best.

All that is being done here is for people people to be able to very quickly, very effectively, and with just the click of a button, tell everyone else in the group, especially the group leader, where they stand, what they want to do, what they don't want to do and what their build is designed to handle.

And while yes, I openly admit, that Turbine should put their effort towards other things first, that does not change the fact that this is a pretty neat idea.

I agree and /tell isnt a very good method when some people Due to a overwhelimg amount of tells no longer use the tell function menaign they turn it off. there are so many CHANNELS now and Ventrillo that people who are in a Core groups of friends no longer need to Comunicate with the outside world. so you cna /tell them all you like but it will never reach their screen.

the /tell function is good but it is abused.

Dendrix
02-17-2012, 06:58 AM
In the LFM just write "need trapper" or "healer required"

licho
02-17-2012, 08:50 AM
Or...
If you are a leader and feel need trapper/healer/buffer/tank for you quest just write it in your LFM, there is pleanty of space in there.

And... if you see the lfm but you dont fit description dont join.

And... if you know that you dont fil the role your class is supposed to do, when hitting lfm say it proud.

Problem solved.

Imho system dosnt matter, in every system will exist ppl who will abuse it, or find the way to be jerk.

Also, with this tick box thing: I play cleric, but i dont consider this toon a healer save raids. Futher more i will probably dont find this tick box. But... when im questing and im seeing somebody is droping down i will probably cast some spell since why not. And in the way to 19 so far i found like 3-5 persons for which it wasnt enought.