This seems like a good start.
I put this in the other thread, but Iâll put it here too. Keys are a silly design imo. Let players play what they want, if some dungeons are run much more than others, it says the other dungeons probably have some design feature that players arenât enjoying.
My question is, why even deplete the key at all? I understand itâs a penalty for failing, but it really only penalizes the key holder and creates unneeded irritation. Why should the key even exist? Why not let players choose the dungeons they want to run? Blizz already ties achievs to running all of the dungeons at various difficulties anyway.
As for leavers, let them leave and let the team lead backfill if they do. Get rid of keys, they donât add any fun and arenât needed, let players select the difficulty of the dungeon for whichever dungeon they want to play; therefore no key depletion. Achievements can stay as they are, based on difficulty and dungeons completed.
I can see the purpose and intent for the valor cap at the start of a tier/season so M+ players donât completely out gear raiders. I think they could have done a better job of increasing the weekly valor cap every week. Week 1: 250 max, Week 2: 500 max for the week (750 max), Week 3 750 max for the week (1500 max), ect.
The more I discuss it the more I can see that perspective. I think as along as RIO exists and group leaders can continue to make informed decisions it isnât a bad thing.
Stop trying to turn other players into âdata pointsâ or a score to look at. Talk to them and you can gather all the data you want.
1 Like
Should I also make them pinky promise that if I said we obviously plan to time but will complete anyway for +1 to vault and that they are cool with that? If I asked âhow many keys have you left within the last 28 daysâ and they say â0â do I just trust that?
You can see my score and the number of runs Iâve done. You donât know though if Iâm secretly a key destroyer joining every +15 I can find just to bail on them and wreck their key in some sociopathic attempt to prevent random folks from getting KSM and under the logic of some here, Iâd be entitled to do that because I shouldnât be held hostage by them. Maybe I just decided, once the run started, that they used a mount I disliked.
Data can absolutely be used in bad/poor ways, like boiling down someone to a single score, but having multiple objective data points actually gives players insight into you more than your words will/do. If I were someone just looking to get a run in for vault and I see a 3k+ IO 275 ilvl player sign up for my +15 run but has a 15-16 key abandonment rate at 90%, that tells me they arenât someone I want in my group no matter how tempting they are otherwise and why in godâs boiling earth would I ever trust what they had to say if asked why they were joining my key?
Granted, I am a highly objective, data-driven person with a glass almost empty disposition IRL.
I donât know that, but I feel safe assuming that the overwhelming majority of people running keys arenât doing that. I trust my understanding of human nature to expect that most of the time, most of the people will be doing what fits their impression of their best interest.
This is where itâs important to understand why someone is joining your key. Are they targeting a specific piece of loot? Do they need a completion for a vault slot? They are less likely to leave even if things donât go smoothly because it is in their best interest to finish. Do they need an IO bump from this dungeon and will only benefit from completing in time? They are more likely to leave with each mistake that makes that outcome less likely. The leader just needs to select people who have a higher likelihood of having a similar goal.
That person shouldnât be tempting to you anyway, regardless of an abandonment score. What would a 3k 275 ilvl player need from a 15 that they canât get faster from a different key if this one is going badly? Inviting that player may suit your needs, but it is completely devoid of any understanding of their motivation. You can ask them why theyâd like to join, maybe theyâre targeting loot or donât have much time this week and just want a few quick completions, but just grabbing them hoping for a carry and then getting mad when they opt out of something that was worse than they were expecting is your fault, not theirs.
1 Like
Absolutely. Weâre on the same page. I donât take overly high IO players to my keys simply because I donât trust them. They may very well just need 1 more run to cap for the week, but I can also all but guarantee they have their own 2X key they can just downgrade and run themselves (and many folks here think 1X keys are so easy and simple you can do them blindfolded and with 1 finger anyway).
And yes I absolutely care about a groupâs cohesion but Iâm also not expecting anyone to fill out a questionnaire explaining their motivations tooâŚand TBH I wouldnât trust them. People lie to suit their own needs. They could pinky promise and swear on their motherâs life/soul theyâre a good player and arenât going to leave, but it isnât like I have any way to verify or even hold them to that. Weâre all taking chances on each other. I just prefer to have more objective numbers to make a hopefully better and more informed decision on.
Like I said earlier here (least I think it was here), if I thought I could design a largely unabuseable yelp-like system for WoW, Iâd push for that. That was one of the good things about an old site used to form cross realm groups before the current LFG tool today, oqueue or something like thatâŚpeople could leave comments on players and groups and give people stars. If a raid leader stole gear or was abusive, people could get a heads up.
I think just removing key depletion is the simplest and best option.
Donât high teams WANT the capability to practice a dungeon?? Not always having to go back and farm a lower key every failed try?
Have an interface that lets you de-level a key if you want.
I just donât buy the idea that removing key depletion would lead to a worse system than currently exists. I think a lot of people would also be more willing to host a key if they knew it didnât come with a risk being de-leveled.
I have a bunch of other ideas regarding eliminating the stupid vault but that is another topic.
Iâm becoming more open to the idea, but I still have worries that Iâll be getting into more and more groups with players who were carried there; more than now.
1 Like
Itâs tougher with higher keys. I recently had a run where I did more DPS overall than a hunter in a +20 mist. I had other instances similar to that and they all had 2.9k+ score. My fear is that scores will become more inflated making it harder to pick out the competent players.
Iâm not sure I see the difference. Why not make it queueable? Just make it so that players only get put into a dungeon no more than 1 higher than the highest theyâve completed for that dungeon. Casuals would probably make the best use of it, more competitive players will probably still form their own groups.
I agree, but at some point I think thatâs just the inherent risk of pugging.
Raider.io and now Blizzards own scores are ways to better screen pugs, but at the end of the day itâs still a pug not a steady group.
Imagine if they had to consider how pug grounds come together for mythic Andiun pulls.
1 Like
Utilities: BRez/Lust
Covenants
Affixes: 3 melee dps with spiteful?
M+ is not made for queueable and the players who stick to queueable content. However, I can see it working from M+2 to a max of M+5.
I agree, and most people wonât use it for high keys, but why not make it queueable for the ones that do want it? I mean, Iâm also for the scrapping of keys, keys donât add anything positive to the game. They just feel bad to the key holder when it bricks. So delete keys, let players decide what dungeons they want to play and select the difficulty, limiting it to no more than 1 higher for the party leaders highest run of that dungeon. Likewise, let them play the way they want to play, make it queueable for the brave folks that want to try it.
They just feel bad to the key holder when it bricks.
Maybe its just personal experience but whenever I pug it seems like it is always the key owner who bricks their own key. Like nine times outta ten.
This was beaten like a dead horse in another thread, but Blizzard has a long standing pattern of nerfing any queueable content. Their stance on queueable is that anyone who joins should succeed. Take a look at LFR and compare that to even Normal. Many of the important boss mechanics have been completely taken out. Players also get a Determination buff for wiping. Players who primarily play M+ are worried that Blizzard will continue to nerf queueable content. They would have to make queueable itâs own entity with itâs own score and loot table if they nerf anything.
1 Like
I can understand that argument, but it sounds like a fear of the slippery slope imo. If they were to make it queueable at the actual difficulties, no nerfing, I think it makes sense. But I agree that nerfing it to make it queueable would defeat the purpose. I also hate what they did to LFR, LFR used to be cool imo, until they nerfed into the ground. Itâs useless in itâs present state as anything but story content. It used to be nice in that it was easier than normal but still had enough that it was useful and served as a training grounds for getting into raidingâŚbeen a long time since it was that though.
1 Like
I know why you would say that, but itâs not really. The fundamental design intent around queueable content is that the players can assume they will nearly always succeed. The fundamental design intent around non-queueable content is that the players can attempt at their own risk, and they may or may not succeed.
The players generally understand this to be true, so if M+ were added to queueable content, the player expectation would then be that each group they join will succeed most of the time, and this expectation would be grounded in years of precedent. Blizzard would either need to retune M+ to match player expectation or leave a huge contingent of players angry that they are wasting time queuing for dungeons and getting no reward. That is a lose/lose situation.
If your suggestion is that people will just need to accept it, the track record isnât very good. Players already demand almost universal success, and when they donât get it they demand punishment for the people who leave keys, an end to key depletion, an end to affixes they canât handle, etc. They will not accept it, and at least in the current paradigm, they can be told that the content is at-risk and if you canât handle it then donât do it. If it is queueable, they will justifiably blame Blizzard for their failed groups.
2 Likes
Fair enough, making it queueable is really the least of the issues with the M+ system as it stands imo and I personally wouldnât be likely to use a queueable m+. But it seems like something a segment of the player base would take advantage of and it doesnât seem like it would be to tough to implement.