Changes To In-Mission Collision That Could Foster Growth And Fix Objective Griefing

[vsb]

3 minutes ago, Spudinskes said:

Disregarding the topic of collision for a second, you can't disregard a streamer's benefit to player count just because a game has a problem retaining players. For example, when an advertising agency brings in millions of people to an event and it turns out the event is shit and people leave you don't say the agency was useless. The event coordinators need to fix the problems with the event so that the agency's efforts aren't gone to waste. But then you don't have the event coordinators fix the issues and then sit twiddling their thumbs hoping the previous customers magically got the memo. The coordinators need to have the agency reach out to the customers again updating them on what was improved so that hopefully they come back.

 

The issue isn't simply the problem of players accidentally crashing into each other in vehicles during missions, it's specifically griefing that makes a large aspect of the game, missions, virtually impossible to complete. You could say it's basically game breaking

 

And what do you think about a very small dead-zone around stationary active mission objectives where outside mission player collisions don't affect in-mission players. Surely that satisfies both sides of the fence since people still get to collide every except for the .05% of the map.

i can see this being a very difficult thing to code in correctly, how would this handle vehicle objectives?

 

still think the easiest way to handle this is just allowing a toggle option, that way if anyone is really worried about griefing they can turn off collisions to do the mission and then turn collisions back on afterwards so they can get the "open world experience"

[Spudinskes]

2 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:

i can see this being a very difficult thing to code in correctly, how would this handle vehicle objectives?

 

still think the easiest way to handle this is just allowing a toggle option, that way if anyone is really worried about griefing they can turn off collisions to do the mission and then turn collisions back on afterwards so they can get the "open world experience"

The technology is there, and like I said my idea would be for in-mission active stationary objectives. At least for vehicle objectives you can blow it up and have teammates ready to go to its respawn.

 

I think a toggle would be a great option, however you have people that are worried about not being able to pit manuever or crash other players. Really I want an idea that would satisfy both sides. Let people crash into whoever they want, but also guarantee (not report and wait hours) that griefers are not able to park themselves ontop or infront of stationary objectives.

[Dopefish]

24 minutes ago, Spudinskes said:

What do you think about a very small dead-zone around active mission stationary objectives (phone booth) where outside mission player collisions don't affect in-mission players.

This would have to be very small though, and only apply to static objectives. Just small enough so a player can do the objective without being pushed away. Just a little bit further and he'd be pushed around as normal.

 

Should be able to use the existing interaction radius for this, have it apply to static only objectives, and only disable the collision of outside of mission player. If you're inside his car collision when the objective is completed, just keep the collision disabled until you leave his collider.

[vsb]

25 minutes ago, Spudinskes said:

The technology is there, and like I said my idea would be for in-mission active stationary objectives. At least for vehicle objectives you can blow it up and have teammates ready to go to its respawn.

 

I think a toggle would be a great option, however you have people that are worried about not being able to pit manuever or crash other players. Really I want an idea that would satisfy both sides. Let people crash into whoever they want, but also guarantee (not report and wait hours) that griefers are not able to park themselves ontop or infront of stationary objectives.

i mean, is there any legitimate reason to pit someone who isnt p5/n5 or in your mission/event?

 

if someone doesnt want to deal with other players crashing into them i fail to see how it should matter what the other players want 

[LaQuandra]

6 hours ago, Spudinskes said:

Disregarding the topic of collision for a second, you can't disregard a streamer's benefit to player count just because a game has a problem retaining players. Anyways for example, when an advertising agency brings in millions of people to an event and it turns out the event is shit and people leave you don't say the agency was useless. The event coordinators need to fix the problems with the event so that the agency's efforts aren't gone to waste. You also don't have the event coordinators fix the issues and then sit twiddling their thumbs hoping that more people come. The coordinators need to have the agency reach out again. It would be foolish for the event coordinators to think that the advertising agency was useless. Also, Fortnite can thank streamers for its absolutely explosive player count.

The issue isn't simply the problem of players accidentally crashing into each other in vehicles during missions. It's specifically griefing that makes a large aspect of the game, missions, virtually impossible to complete. You could say it's basically game breaking

 

What do you think about a very small dead-zone around active mission stationary objectives (phone booth) where outside mission player collisions don't affect in-mission players. Surely that satisfies both sides of the fence since people still get to collide everywhere except for .01% of the map.

 

I understand how a streamer can benefit, but again...everyone uses Summit. He has played APB before so his viewers are aware of it. He can tweet about it, post it to his feeds, etc. I don't want to see the game changed because some noobs feel like griefing the guy whenever he plays once every 3 months. While APB was supposed to be a triple A title with 100,000+ players it isn't. It's a niche game at this point. Niche games gain population from word of mouth. Like I said before, I've recommended the game before the Little Orbit purchase and brought in 4-5 players and from what they've told me, they have spent some money on the game as well....around $200 maybe? They all are enjoying it and have played over 100 hours. I assume their close steam friends have noticed their game activity. This is how the population grows.  

 

The deadzone thing could be a good idea if implemented correctly. I am sure the trolls will still find a way to exploit it or grief whoever they want to grief. They will just block the zone with their cars anyway or whatever. You aren't going to get instant bannings, but I am sure they will receive a temp ban if reported with video evidence. As for players rerolling after their grief ban, they are going to grief regardless but I think full time griefers are a very small minority in this population. In my 5000+ hours in the game I have never been griefed to the point where it's an issue that makes me not want to play. If a sore loser takes their griefing overboard, hit them with a temp ban. Anyone with armas stuff and hours on their account will want to keep it and most likely change their way. Generally in the past griefing reports were just ignored.

 

While I understand big time streamers are a different animal and attract different kinds of griefers, what is wrong with my idea of them (or anyone) being able to spin up their own custom district? I am sure the big time streamers have enough friends and/or followers they can invite into their district and play the game with it's core elements. Summit can still stream and play the game and not get griefed. It will still showcase the game that his viewers supposedly will play. My suggestion also benefits any player/clan who want to do scrimmages or host clan only or any other custom event.

 

 I just don't think griefing is a big of an issue for 99% of the players so I don't want to see Little Orbit concentrate their efforts on this while there are much greater issues with the game at the present time. 

[Spudinskes]

8 hours ago, LaQuandra said:

 

I understand how a streamer can benefit, but again...everyone uses Summit. He has played APB before so his viewers are aware of it. He can tweet about it, post it to his feeds, etc. I don't want to see the game changed because some noobs feel like griefing the guy whenever he plays once every 3 months. While APB was supposed to be a triple A title with 100,000+ players it isn't. It's a niche game at this point. Niche games gain population from word of mouth. Like I said before, I've recommended the game before the Little Orbit purchase and brought in 4-5 players and from what they've told me, they have spent some money on the game as well....around $200 maybe? They all are enjoying it and have played over 100 hours. I assume their close steam friends have noticed their game activity. This is how the population grows.  

 

The deadzone thing could be a good idea if implemented correctly. I am sure the trolls will still find a way to exploit it or grief whoever they want to grief. They will just block the zone with their cars anyway or whatever. You aren't going to get instant bannings, but I am sure they will receive a temp ban if reported with video evidence. As for players rerolling after their grief ban, they are going to grief regardless but I think full time griefers are a very small minority in this population. In my 5000+ hours in the game I have never been griefed to the point where it's an issue that makes me not want to play. If a sore loser takes their griefing overboard, hit them with a temp ban. Anyone with armas stuff and hours on their account will want to keep it and most likely change their way. Generally in the past griefing reports were just ignored.

 

 I just don't think griefing is a big of an issue for 99% of the players so I don't want to see Little Orbit concentrate their efforts on this while there are much greater issues with the game at the present time. 

The fact that a player outside the mission, who isn't n5, can completely stop progression of a mission shouldn't exist. If objective griefing could only be done through some obscure method then I'd understand. But objective griefing is so incredibly easy that it should really be fixed.

 

Also while you may never run into these types of people, others do. I know a lot of people that get hackusations and due to how easy it is to grief, and the nature of the toxic community, there is a higher chance that they get griefed by the accuser(s). For example, I've run into pre made teams that know who I am and will go out of their way to kick one of their teammates in discord and have him grief for them, and then also call for more backup. Even if the griefer is recorded, he may have only done it for one objective and maybe for only ~12 seconds after finally wiping his teammates. The recording would probably be considered unsubstantial evidence and the griefer wouldnt get punished. That's ignoring the fact that the characters are just rerolls. So they couldn't care less about what happens to their accounts. But anyways, the damage has already been done. The griefer caused my team to lose. Have this happen to you every day and it's incredibly annoying.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Spudinskes

[vsb]

this thread reminded me of someone i havent seen in ages

 

mad kid?

[LaQuandra]

3 minutes ago, Spudinskes said:

The fact that a player outside the mission, who isn't n5, can completely stop progression of a mission shouldn't exist. If objective griefing could only be done through some obscure method then I'd understand. But objective griefing is so incredibly easy that it should really be fixed.

 

Also while you may never run into these types of people, others do. I know a lot of people that get hackusations and due to how easy it is to grief game, and the nature of the toxic community, there is a higher chance that they get griefer by the accuser(s). I've also run into pre made teams that know who I am and will go out of their way to kick one of their teammates in discord and have him grief for them, and then also call for more backup. Even if the griefer is recorded, he may have only done it for one point for ~12 seconds after finally wiping the enemy team. The recording would be unsubstantial evidence and won't get punished, and that's even ignoring the fact that the characters are just rerolls. But the damage has already been done, the griefer caused the team to lose. Have this happen to you every day and that would be incredibly annoying.

 

I agree it would be very annoying to be griefed and targeted everyday, however that is a very small percentage of the population. A majority of the time when I watch a typical APB streamer they are able to play the game like anyone else. They would be prime candidates to be griefed on a consistent basis but they aren't. I am not saying it doesn't happen, but rarely have I seen a stream ruined or ended because someone is griefing a particular player. If anything they quit if they feel they are being stream sniped. It seems more like a personal issue between players and I don't think the core of APB should be changed for that. 

[Spudinskes]

7 minutes ago, LaQuandra said:

 

I agree it would be very annoying to be griefed and targeted everyday, however that is a very small percentage of the population. A majority of the time when I watch a typical APB streamer they are able to play the game like anyone else. They would be prime candidates to be griefed on a consistent basis but they aren't. I am not saying it doesn't happen, but rarely have I seen a stream ruined or ended because someone is griefing a particular player. If anything they quit if they feel they are being stream sniped. It seems more like a personal issue between players and I don't think the core of APB should be changed for that. 

I'm sure when the original developers were designing APB they didn't consider objective griefing a core aspect of the game. Like I said I'm all for keeping collision for the majority of the game, but let's not give it the ability to stop missions which is another large aspect of the game.

 

It doesn't require you to be a streamer to be a target due to rage or vengeance. I can see players griefing in a green district (if there were players in there) because they think the other green has to be cheating.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Spudinskes

[vsb]

4 minutes ago, Spudinskes said:

I'm sure when the original developers were designing APB they didn't consider objective griefing a core aspect of the game. Like I said I'm all for keeping collision for the majority of the game, but let's not give it the ability to stop missions which is another large aspect of the game.

 

It doesn't require you to be a streamer to be a target due to rage or vengeance. I can see players griefing in a green district (if there were players in there) because they think the other green has to be cheating.

the amount of times i see people griefing someone they think cheats alone should warrant at least consideration tbh

[LaQuandra]

39 minutes ago, Spudinskes said:

I'm sure when the original developers were designing APB they didn't consider objective griefing a core aspect of the game. Like I said I'm all for keeping collision for the majority of the game, but let's not give it the ability to stop missions which is another large aspect of the game.

 

It doesn't require you to be a streamer to be a target due to rage or vengeance. I can see players griefing in a green district (if there were players in there) because they think the other green has to be cheating.

 

I agree that the ability to drive in front of an out of mission objective is not a core aspect of the game. However...what if it is a car objective? There will be a big box around it? When I am driving to the point is my car going to smash through the out of mission people an extra 10 feet to each side? 

 

It's not a bad idea, but I have to imagine it will take them a long time to get to every mission, every objective. I would prefer they just concentrate on the other more pressing needs which affect a majority of the player base.

 

All things being equal, yeah, it's a good idea.   

[killerskull]

Collision is good, like others said, it makes the game feel alive when you are being chased and you see other enf cars with their sirens on going the other way, seeing a shootout btw other cars. But as always, greifers. I think when close to your objective if you are on your feet doing an action, no collision should enable for non mission cars. But someone can push your car into you, what then? I guess there should be a timer if non mission car is touching your parked car beside your objective, after 3 s it will ghost. I dunno, this idea of non greifing needs more thought.

[Spudinskes]

20 minutes ago, LaQuandra said:

 

I agree that the ability to drive in front of an out of mission objective is not a core aspect of the game. However...what if it is a car objective? There will be a big box around it? When I am driving to the point is my car going to smash through the out of mission people an extra 10 feet to each side? 

 

It's not a bad idea, but I have to imagine it will take them a long time to get to every mission, every objective. I would prefer they just concentrate on the other more pressing needs which affect a majority of the player base.

 

All things being equal, yeah, it's a good idea.   

Just applying the idea to stationary objectives is good enough imo. If its a vehicle objectice at least you can blow it up and have if relocate, and hopefully have teammates ready to drive there. Im sure they dont need to go through and hard code each objective in each mission. There's probably a template and the objective locations are randomly picked somehow.

11 minutes ago, killerskull said:

Collision is good, like others said, it makes the game feel alive when you are being chased and you see other enf cars with their sirens on going the other way, seeing a shootout btw other cars. But as always, greifers. I think when close to your objective if you are on your feet doing an action, no collision should enable for non mission cars. But someone can push your car into you, what then? I guess there should be a timer if non mission car is touching your parked car beside your objective, after 3 s it will ghost. I dunno, this idea of non greifing needs more thought.

That is entirely possible, but the original idea alone should be enough to fix objective griefing for the most part, which is way to easy atm. If they have to look for another empty car to push with their car then it's a lot more effort and requires a lot more precision and forethought.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Spudinskes