Maintenance for the week of November 11:
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – November 11, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – November 13, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – November 13, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – November 11, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – November 13, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – November 13, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
Dungeon Speed-run etiquette
-
Braffin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭When a player queues for a specific dungeon to complete the quest for a skillpoint, they are engaging in normal gameplay and are utilizing the system as is intended. When a player queues for a random dungeon for the daily undaunted reward they too are utilizing the system as is intended. However, when these players who queued for a random dungeon prevent the players who queued for a specific dungeon from completing the dungeon's quest by rushing ahead through the dungeon they are disrupting the intended flow of gameplay for the other player (especially when that player has voiced that they are doing the quest). This is explicitly against TOS: Examples of disruptive behavior include, but are not limited to, conduct which interferes with the normal flow of gameplay.
Running through a Dungeon as fast as possible is not violating the TOS in any way. If its only about the flow than you could also argue that going around and looting every box/ listening to every dialog disrupts the flow. Here is an example of disruptive behavior:
I spot a low lvl player in cyro who tries to take a skyshard, if i went with the normal flow i would just kill him and move on, the polite thing to do would be to let him take the skyshard. Disruptive behavior would be to change my set up to a tank and then chain him away from the shard over and over again.
Well said!
Neglecting oneself's reasons to play content in any way desired within ToS just to accomodate another player's needs isn't necessary to avoid violations of ToS.
Not complying with personal goals of another player is very different to purposefully disrupting their gameplay.
Maybe the entitlelists learn the meaning of "random" instead? It's not that hard to do so.Never get between a cat and it's candy!
---
Overland difficulty scaling is desperately needed. 9 years. 6 paid expansions. 24 DLCs. 40 game changing updates including One Tamriel, an overhaul of the game including a permanent CP160 gear cap and ridiculous power creep thereafter. I'm sick and tired of hearing about Cadwell Silver & Gold as a "you think you do but you don't" - tier deflection to any criticism regarding the lack of overland difficulty in the game. I'm bored of dungeons, I'm bored of trials; make a personal difficulty slider for overland. It's not that hard.0 -
Suddwrath✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Maybe the entitlelists learn the meaning of "random" instead? It's not that hard to do so.
I agree! These entitlelists who queue for random dungeons and rush through preventing the players who queued for the specific dungeon for the quest should realize that they are the ones who queued for a random dungeon. If they feel entitled to engage in gameplay that prevents another player from completing a quest, a specific quest that they queued for, then these players shouldn’t queue for random dungeons if they do not understand what “random” means
5 -
Braffin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Maybe the entitlelists learn the meaning of "random" instead? It's not that hard to do so.
I agree! These entitlelists who queue for random dungeons and rush through preventing the players who queued for the specific dungeon for the quest should realize that they are the ones who queued for a random dungeon. If they feel entitled to engage in gameplay that prevents another player from completing a quest, a specific quest that they queued for, then these players shouldn’t queue for random dungeons if they do not understand what “random” means
They didn't join a specific dungeon tho by choosing random and therefore have the same right as everyone else to go after their personal goals. It's not their job to work for some entitlelist.
People either are able to find a compromise together or the activity will play out badly.
Choosing to go through the dungeon slowly and choosing to speedrun it are equal choices. There simply isn't a superior way to play it.Never get between a cat and it's candy!
---
Overland difficulty scaling is desperately needed. 9 years. 6 paid expansions. 24 DLCs. 40 game changing updates including One Tamriel, an overhaul of the game including a permanent CP160 gear cap and ridiculous power creep thereafter. I'm sick and tired of hearing about Cadwell Silver & Gold as a "you think you do but you don't" - tier deflection to any criticism regarding the lack of overland difficulty in the game. I'm bored of dungeons, I'm bored of trials; make a personal difficulty slider for overland. It's not that hard.5 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Maybe the entitlelists learn the meaning of "random" instead? It's not that hard to do so.
I agree! These entitlelists who queue for random dungeons and rush through preventing the players who queued for the specific dungeon for the quest should realize that they are the ones who queued for a random dungeon. If they feel entitled to engage in gameplay that prevents another player from completing a quest, a specific quest that they queued for, then these players shouldn’t queue for random dungeons if they do not understand what “random” means
entitlement: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
In no manner did the three people who wanted the speed run act in an entitled manner. The three of them went with the flow that the majority of the group chose vs feeling entitled to have the majority do something different.
Someone who wants to do something specific such as go through the dungeon at a specific pace should form the group ahead of time with everyone understanding the purpose. When we queue for a random group of players we should expect randomness which means we will not always get a group that wants to run the dungeon our way. After all, we are asking for randomness. We have the GF permits us to set some parameters for a group and choose to vet anyone who joins the group.
1 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭The three of them went with the flow that the majority of the group chose vs feeling entitled to have the majority do something different.
Two of them did. One person, by their own admission, made an executive decision for the entire group that no quests would be permitted. They made this decision before a group was ever formed. They forced the OP to skip the quest at the beginning of the dungeon by making it impossible for them to pick-up no matter how quickly they acted. Two of the others followed this person's lead. Not that the other two had much say in the matter because it only takes 1 to force this situation in BC1. Since those two did not have a meaningful choice and the decision was made without their input, the idea there was a vote is dubious at best.
Picking up the quests takes seconds and does not force the dungeon to go through any particular pace. This problem is unique to a small number of quests. ZOS has already fixed some quests to not function this way (e.g. FG1). They also changed the design of later dungeons so they don't work this way. In the vast majority of dungeons, players cannot force another player to skip the quest. They can speed ahead but if the quester catches up to the group's pace (which is easy because it takes seconds) then they will finish the quest. There are only a small number of dungeons left where that is possible.
Reading the quests is a different story. But just picking it up does not force any particular pace for the vast majority dungeons.
This should not be an issue in the few dungeons this doesn't apply to. Nobody should be able to force their playstyle on others and physically prevent them from picking up the quest. That is an extreme level of interference with gameplay. This is why the best argument as to why that should be allowed is "well, don't even use activity finder." The design is next to impossible to justify on its own merits.Edited by spartaxoxo on April 9, 2024 11:22PM4 -
TumlinTheJolly✭✭✭✭IMO if you need quest, say so IMMEDIATELY after group forms (paste it the second you get into the dungeon). If people still shoot ahead they're scumbags.
If you don't need quest, say 'Does anybody need quest?' IMMEDIATELY after group forms. If nobody replies then proceed to clear the entire dungeon in 1 pull.
3 -
Ittrix✭✭✭I think you're all putting too much faith in "majority rules".
Instead of having a majority of people go fast, let's suppose we have a majority of people who want to go slow.
I've got some friends who are really into questing, and they haven't really gone in-depth into dungeon quests. I could grab two of them and queue up for Banished Cells 1 with the intent to do some hardcore questing.
We would read all the dialog, discuss all the dialog, and do some character roleplay in response to the dialog as we went. Plus some emotes.
It'd maybe take us 25 minutes to clear the dungeon. We wouldn't intentionally be disrupting anyone else's gameplay. We're still planning to complete the dungeon... not at a reasonable pace, but 25 minutes was about on par with the original clear times. Of course, we'd also have the majority.
Is our fourth entitled for wanting to go at a more reasonable pace, even though he doesn't have the majority? Is it fair of us to expect him to adjust to the majority's pace, or be forced to requeue if he doesn't want to?
No.1 -
HatchetHaro✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I see both sides of the argument, and I shall refrain from commenting on the ethics themselves as I know the dungeon quests enough to know where and when to stop and talk to NPCs and how to catch up, so I never really encounter this as an "issue".
In cases where the group's goals do not align with yours, I recommend that you request that they kick you so you skip the 15min dungeon queue cooldown.Edited by HatchetHaro on April 10, 2024 6:19AMBest Argonian NA and I will fight anyone for it
17 Argonians
6x IR, 6x GH, 7x TTT, 4x GS, 4x DB, 1x PB, 3x SBS, 1x Unchained0 -
Ittrix✭✭✭Honestly I see this whole argument as a symptom of a larger issue.
A little secret about the dungeon finder is that it isn't truly random.
If you have four fully leveled players in one group with all DLCs unlocked, sure, it's random.
Anything outside of that scenario, and the dungeon finder is actually pairing you with others who might have limited content access, or who have even picked a specific dungeon.
It's why "random" dungeons are usually low level dungeons or pledges. Low level players or pledge seekers needed people, and the dungeon finder sticks you with them more often than not. It's a tool to ensure players will always have a decently sized pool of players to play with, regardless of what content they're doing.
In order to ensure there's always wildcard players to shuffle around, ZoS offers a reward for playing randomly. A reward that mainly matters to the kinds of players who have already done thousands upon thousands of dungeons. Players who have probably done the more common dungeon picks hundreds of times.
These players just wanted some transmutes to finish a build and go do content they would enjoy. In order to do that they're stuck doing banished cells 1 for the 783rd time. While I'd rather they didn't, I'm not shocked nor do I blame them for trying to get the content over with ASAP.
It's a tough situation for everyone.1 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »The three of them went with the flow that the majority of the group chose vs feeling entitled to have the majority do something different.
Two of them did. One person, by their own admission, made an executive decision for the entire group that no quests would be permitted. They made this decision before a group was ever formed.They forced the OP to skip the quest at the beginning of the dungeon by making it impossible for them to pick-up no matter how quickly they acted. Two of the others followed this person's lead. Not that the other two had much say in the matter because it only takes 1 to force this situation in BC1. Since those two did not have a meaningful choice and the decision was made without their input, the idea there was a vote is dubious at best.
Picking up the quests takes seconds and does not force the dungeon to go through any particular pace. This problem is unique to a small number of quests. ZOS has already fixed some quests to not function this way (e.g. FG1). They also changed the design of later dungeons so they don't work this way. In the vast majority of dungeons, players cannot force another player to skip the quest. They can speed ahead but if the quester catches up to the group's pace (which is easy because it takes seconds) then they will finish the quest. There are only a small number of dungeons left where that is possible.
Reading the quests is a different story. But just picking it up does not force any particular pace for the vast majority dungeons.
This should not be an issue in the few dungeons this doesn't apply to. Nobody should be able to force their playstyle on others and physically prevent them from picking up the quest. That is an extreme level of interference with gameplay. This is why the best argument as to why that should be allowed is "well, don't even use activity finder." The design is next to impossible to justify on its own merits.
According to the story recanted in the OP of this thread "they were limited on time" which is why they were doing a speed run. That does not indicate that this is only one person. The statement in the OP does not indicate that one person decided for the entire group. Even if they did and two more went along then democracy ruled the day.
0 -
MidniteOwl1913✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭So speed running isn't all the same. Moving quickly through the dungeon but killing everything and pausing to loot chests is a far cry from running at top speed dragging an ever-increasing mob of trash behind and only killing the final boss. If I'm on my healer many times I can't keep up.
They shouldn't be tarred with the same brush. I rarely have the quest, I don't mind the first type of speed running, I hate the second, it ruins the experience for everyone even others who want to get through the dungeon quickly. I run out of stamina and the trash mob does me in. If there were lower level players with the group they often die then too.
On the other hand I'm never in such a rush I can't wait a few seconds for a quester.
PS5/NA4 -
FlopsyPrince✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭When a player queues for a specific dungeon to complete the quest for a skillpoint, they are engaging in normal gameplay and are utilizing the system as is intended. When a player queues for a random dungeon for the daily undaunted reward they too are utilizing the system as is intended. However, when these players who queued for a random dungeon prevent the players who queued for a specific dungeon from completing the dungeon's quest by rushing ahead through the dungeon they are disrupting the intended flow of gameplay for the other player (especially when that player has voiced that they are doing the quest). This is explicitly against TOS: Examples of disruptive behavior include, but are not limited to, conduct which interferes with the normal flow of gameplay.
Running through a Dungeon as fast as possible is not violating the TOS in any way. If its only about the flow than you could also argue that going around and looting every box/ listening to every dialog disrupts the flow. Here is an example of disruptive behavior:
I spot a low lvl player in cyro who tries to take a skyshard, if i went with the normal flow i would just kill him and move on, the polite thing to do would be to let him take the skyshard. Disruptive behavior would be to change my set up to a tank and then chain him away from the shard over and over again.
The reasonable "nice" thing to do would be to let him take the skyshard. Few do that however, so that would not be the norm.PC
PS4/PS50 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »The three of them went with the flow that the majority of the group chose vs feeling entitled to have the majority do something different.
Two of them did. One person, by their own admission, made an executive decision for the entire group that no quests would be permitted. They made this decision before a group was ever formed.They forced the OP to skip the quest at the beginning of the dungeon by making it impossible for them to pick-up no matter how quickly they acted. Two of the others followed this person's lead. Not that the other two had much say in the matter because it only takes 1 to force this situation in BC1. Since those two did not have a meaningful choice and the decision was made without their input, the idea there was a vote is dubious at best.
Picking up the quests takes seconds and does not force the dungeon to go through any particular pace. This problem is unique to a small number of quests. ZOS has already fixed some quests to not function this way (e.g. FG1). They also changed the design of later dungeons so they don't work this way. In the vast majority of dungeons, players cannot force another player to skip the quest. They can speed ahead but if the quester catches up to the group's pace (which is easy because it takes seconds) then they will finish the quest. There are only a small number of dungeons left where that is possible.
Reading the quests is a different story. But just picking it up does not force any particular pace for the vast majority dungeons.
This should not be an issue in the few dungeons this doesn't apply to. Nobody should be able to force their playstyle on others and physically prevent them from picking up the quest. That is an extreme level of interference with gameplay. This is why the best argument as to why that should be allowed is "well, don't even use activity finder." The design is next to impossible to justify on its own merits.
According to the story recanted in the OP of this thread "they were limited on time" which is why they were doing a speed run. That does not indicate that this is only one person. The statement in the OP does not indicate that one person decided for the entire group. Even if they did and two more went along then democracy ruled the day.
The 1600 CP person left instantly without a seconds hesitation. When confronted with why, they said because they didn't have time and if OP didn't like it they could leave.
Them running off automatically sealed the fate for the entire group. They queued without the time for a vote. They were gone instantly. It only takes literally seconds to pickup the quest.
Quietly following along is not the same as agreement. There was no discussion. Nobody else in the group had a meaningful choice once that person ran off. Even if they had kicked them or stayed behind, OP would not have been able to do that quest.
This is one of the only quests in the game that works this way.
And then OP came to complain about their experience, only to be told they are entitled for wanting to *check notes* decide for themselves which quests are in their own quest log.Edited by spartaxoxo on April 11, 2024 3:53AM1 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Also, I just want to say, that even though in this particular situation, I do think it's wrong to queue for a dungeon where you don't have time to treat your teammates respectfully....
In general, I don't have a problem with people wanting to speed run. I don't put the primary blame on the speed runner. I also don't put it on the OP.
I hope ZOS implements the following fixes
1) Finish adding "joining encounter in progress" to the dungeons that don't have it
2) Story mode for dungeons
3) Fix the small amount of quests where progress can be blocked because someone ran ahead. They should work like the quests that automatically advance or only require killing the last boss
4) Increase the timer at the end of a run so that people have time to finish listening to a quest/go back for loot.
None of those things would eliminate an entire play style or punish people for being speedy. They'd simply make it so that two players in the same activity finder group are unlikely to be able to cause problems for one another.
Edited by spartaxoxo on April 11, 2024 5:40AM3 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »The three of them went with the flow that the majority of the group chose vs feeling entitled to have the majority do something different.
Two of them did. One person, by their own admission, made an executive decision for the entire group that no quests would be permitted. They made this decision before a group was ever formed.They forced the OP to skip the quest at the beginning of the dungeon by making it impossible for them to pick-up no matter how quickly they acted. Two of the others followed this person's lead. Not that the other two had much say in the matter because it only takes 1 to force this situation in BC1. Since those two did not have a meaningful choice and the decision was made without their input, the idea there was a vote is dubious at best.
Picking up the quests takes seconds and does not force the dungeon to go through any particular pace. This problem is unique to a small number of quests. ZOS has already fixed some quests to not function this way (e.g. FG1). They also changed the design of later dungeons so they don't work this way. In the vast majority of dungeons, players cannot force another player to skip the quest. They can speed ahead but if the quester catches up to the group's pace (which is easy because it takes seconds) then they will finish the quest. There are only a small number of dungeons left where that is possible.
Reading the quests is a different story. But just picking it up does not force any particular pace for the vast majority dungeons.
This should not be an issue in the few dungeons this doesn't apply to. Nobody should be able to force their playstyle on others and physically prevent them from picking up the quest. That is an extreme level of interference with gameplay. This is why the best argument as to why that should be allowed is "well, don't even use activity finder." The design is next to impossible to justify on its own merits.
According to the story recanted in the OP of this thread "they were limited on time" which is why they were doing a speed run. That does not indicate that this is only one person. The statement in the OP does not indicate that one person decided for the entire group. Even if they did and two more went along then democracy ruled the day.
The 1600 CP person left instantly without a seconds hesitation. When confronted with why, they said because they didn't have time and if OP didn't like it they could leave.
Them running off automatically sealed the fate for the entire group. They queued without the time for a vote. They were gone instantly. It only takes literally seconds to pickup the quest.
Quietly following along is not the same as agreement. There was no discussion. Nobody else in the group had a meaningful choice once that person ran off. Even if they had kicked them or stayed behind, OP would not have been able to do that quest.
This is one of the only quests in the game that works this way.
And then OP came to complain about their experience, only to be told they are entitled for wanting to *check notes* decide for themselves which quests are in their own quest log.
I do not see any of this in the first post that states the purpose of this thread. If OP has added to the story since then the OP needs to be updated. Since the OP has not been updated please do provide the quotes where this was added. Cheers.
Also, quietly following along is a great example of agreement. No one forced anyone.
Further, I never stated that OP was entitled. I did state that the group did focus on the intent everyone had when they joined the queue. Even the OP did not intend to do the quest when they queued for the dungeon per their comments.
I also noted that when queueing for a random group of players one can expect a lot of randomness. After all, that is exactly what is being asked for. There is no reason to expect three other players to do what one player does when in a random group.
0 -
Suddwrath✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I do not see any of this in the first post that states the purpose of this thread. If OP has added to the story since then the OP needs to be updated. Since the OP has not been updated please do provide the quotes where this was added. Cheers.
Here's the quote for you.Can I just reiterate..
I asked the group to wait so I could pick up the quest at the beginning of nBC1, as if the group rushes off you lose the ability to gain the quest... as it happened this time.
It takes a matter of seconds to accept the quest at the beginning...
I was willing to rush on afterwards, as there is no real dialogue checks.
A few seconds!!! What is that to someone's day?
The OP made it clear that they asked the group to wait so they could pick up the quest, but before they could a 1600+ CP player ran off and prevented them from doing so. That same player then told OP if they didn't like it, they could leave.0 -
Ittrix✭✭✭Three of the players wanted to speedrun in the first place.
They wanted to do something specific, so they should have formed their own group.Someone who wants to do something specific such as go through the dungeon at a specific pace should form the group ahead of time with everyone understanding the purpose.1 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I do not see any of this in the first post that states the purpose of this thread. .
Right hereSo upon starting the run I grouped messaged that I was doing the quest and expected the group to just wait so I could collect it...but oh no.... here we go the 1600+ cp run off..
I expressed my frustration to be told that they were limited for time and if I didn't like it I could "leave".Also, quietly following along is a great example of agreement. No one forced anyone.
Not when there isn't meaningful choice. And yes, they did.Can I just reiterate..
I asked the group to wait so I could pick up the quest at the beginning of nBC1, as if the group rushes off you lose the ability to gain the quest... as it happened this time.
It takes a matter of seconds to accept the quest at the beginning...
I was willing to rush on afterwards, as there is no real dialogue checks.
A few seconds!!! What is that to someone's day?Oh don't get me wrong.
I want to get the dungeon done as quickly as possible... I'm not there for the lore etc.
I've run all the dungeons a million times..
I just want that skill point!
The OP was NOT trying to read or go slow. The OP ONLY wanted the manage their own quest log by picking up the quest. The 1600+ person ran ahead instantly and the quest was forcibly skipped. When confronted, they explicitly told him that they didn't have the time to wait. So, that means the person is admitting to queueing without time to wait.
This forced the OP to skip picking up the quest.Further, I never stated that OP was entitled. I did state that the group did focus on the intent everyone had when they joined the queue. Even the OP did not intend to do the quest when they queued for the dungeon per their comments.
I never stated you did. I said OP came to the thread and was called entitled. I didn't name who called him that as it was to relate what happen to the OP, not to single out a specific user.Edited by spartaxoxo on April 11, 2024 2:06PM0 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Three of the players wanted to speedrun in the first place.
They wanted to do something specific, so they should have formed their own group.Someone who wants to do something specific such as go through the dungeon at a specific pace should form the group ahead of time with everyone understanding the purpose.
It’s clearly the opposite. The majority ruled.
Heck, we have preformed and had only three. We queue to get the fourth and that person has the choice to run with us or not but it will be done our way. It then again we tend to carry them through the dungeon.
Ofc, we are nice enough to let someone pick up the quest but we will not wait for chest picking or rummaging through containers.
0 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I do not see any of this in the first post that states the purpose of this thread. If OP has added to the story since then the OP needs to be updated. Since the OP has not been updated please do provide the quotes where this was added. Cheers.
Here's the quote for you.Can I just reiterate..
I asked the group to wait so I could pick up the quest at the beginning of nBC1, as if the group rushes off you lose the ability to gain the quest... as it happened this time.
It takes a matter of seconds to accept the quest at the beginning...
I was willing to rush on afterwards, as there is no real dialogue checks.
A few seconds!!! What is that to someone's day?
The OP made it clear that they asked the group to wait so they could pick up the quest, but before they could a 1600+ CP player ran off and prevented them from doing so. That same player then told OP if they didn't like it, they could leave.
and in the first comment from the person I originally replied to in that thread of the conversation was that one person sealed the fate for the entire group. That was the context of all of that.
Instead, that was far from the case as it was three people who went and did the speed run. It may have been one that spoke but three that were in on the choice as any of them could have spoken up and said something different.
Heck, I have told a group to kick a player because I did not like their behavior. I found it disrespectful to the entire group. We had only one boss left on a DLC pledge and the group. I was nice and let someone else initiate the vote. I was also nice and asked the person to change their behavior.
In the end, democracy won. The group made a choice as did the person we kicked.
The point is, that the majority of the group made a choice. Granted, I would have wanted to let the person pick up the quest as that is my way but I respect majority rule when we are dealing with choosing to have the game pick a random group of players for us since we are asking for random interests and such.
Edited as I somehow quoted the passage twice. oops
Edited by Amottica on April 11, 2024 10:35PM0 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It may have been one that spoke but three that were in on the choice as any of them could have spoken up and said something different.
It wouldn't have made a difference in BC1 because if someone skips, then everyone does. If this was a newer quest like say Red Petal Bastian, I would agree. But it would not matter in RPB because that one doesn't have a cutscene that causes the quest to be automatically skipped if someone rushes ahead.
What could the other have done differently? They couldn't requeue because they wouldn't get the transmutes. Kick the speeder? Wouldn't make a difference to picking up the quest.
When confrontation can't solve anything, and a decision is made without your input, then silently going with the flow isn't agreement.Edited by spartaxoxo on April 11, 2024 10:51PM2 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »It may have been one that spoke but three that were in on the choice as any of them could have spoken up and said something different.
It wouldn't have made a difference in BC1 because if someone skips, then everyone does. If this was a newer quest like say Red Petal Bastian, I would agree. But it would not matter in RPB because that one doesn't have a cutscene that causes the quest to be automatically skipped if someone rushes ahead.
What could the other have done differently? They couldn't requeue because they wouldn't get the transmutes. Kick the speeder? Wouldn't make a difference to picking up the quest.
When confrontation can't solve anything, and a decision is made without your input, then silently going with the flow isn't agreement.
It is an assumption that one or two in the group silently went along but did not agree. We can make a lot of assumptions.
In the end assumptions are nothing more than a guess and nothing stated in the OP suggests the above theory is the case.
0 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »It may have been one that spoke but three that were in on the choice as any of them could have spoken up and said something different.
It wouldn't have made a difference in BC1 because if someone skips, then everyone does. If this was a newer quest like say Red Petal Bastian, I would agree. But it would not matter in RPB because that one doesn't have a cutscene that causes the quest to be automatically skipped if someone rushes ahead.
What could the other have done differently? They couldn't requeue because they wouldn't get the transmutes. Kick the speeder? Wouldn't make a difference to picking up the quest.
When confrontation can't solve anything, and a decision is made without your input, then silently going with the flow isn't agreement.
It is an assumption that one or two in the group silently went along but did not agree. We can make a lot of assumptions.
In the end assumptions are nothing more than a guess and nothing stated in the OP suggests the above theory is the case.
I didn't say they silently went along but didn't agree. I said that they did not agree just because they were silent. Many people in this thread kept stating the majority agreed. That's an assumption that is not supported by the OP due to the particulars of BC1 that I earlier stated.
It is an assumption to assume silence is agreement. Silence is not agreement.
They could have been silent because they agreed.
They could have been silent because the damage was already done but didn't agree with how it played out.
They could have been silent because they didn't even realize anything was happening until the OP spoke.
We don't know. They did not have a meaningful choice so silence cannot be assumed as agreement.
What we know is a 1600+ CP player made an executive decision before they even joined the group.
And that one person had their quest forcibly skipped by the 1600+ CP player.
Some in this thread blame the questers on either side. I blame the quest design of BC1. I think it should be updated because neither of these players should be able to force their playstyle on the other. We should have control over our own quest log, and others aren't obligated to wait for us. If we don't want to keep up with the group's pace, that's on us players. If we physically can't keep up with the group's pace and pickup the quest at the same time due to unskippable cutscenes, that's on the developers.Edited by spartaxoxo on April 12, 2024 1:01PM0 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »It may have been one that spoke but three that were in on the choice as any of them could have spoken up and said something different.
It wouldn't have made a difference in BC1 because if someone skips, then everyone does. If this was a newer quest like say Red Petal Bastian, I would agree. But it would not matter in RPB because that one doesn't have a cutscene that causes the quest to be automatically skipped if someone rushes ahead.
What could the other have done differently? They couldn't requeue because they wouldn't get the transmutes. Kick the speeder? Wouldn't make a difference to picking up the quest.
When confrontation can't solve anything, and a decision is made without your input, then silently going with the flow isn't agreement.
It is an assumption that one or two in the group silently went along but did not agree. We can make a lot of assumptions.
In the end assumptions are nothing more than a guess and nothing stated in the OP suggests the above theory is the case.
I didn't say they silently went along but didn't agree. I said that they did not agree just because they were silent. Many people in this thread kept stating the majority agreed. That's an assumption that is not supported by the OP due to the particulars of BC1 that I earlier stated.
It is an assumption to assume silence is agreement. Silence is not agreement.
They could have been silent because they agreed.
They could have been silent because the damage was already done but didn't agree with how it played out.
They could have been silent because they didn't even realize anything was happening until the OP spoke.
We don't know. They did not have a meaningful choice so silence cannot be assumed as agreement.
What we know is a 1600+ CP player made an executive decision before they even joined the group.
And that one person had their quest forcibly skipped by the 1600+ CP player.
Some in this thread blame the questers on either side. I blame the quest design of BC1. I think it should be updated because neither of these players should be able to force their playstyle on the other. We should have control over our own quest log, and others aren't obligated to wait for us. If we don't want to keep up with the group's pace, that's on us players. If we physically can't keep up with the group's pace and pickup the quest at the same time due to unskippable cutscenes, that's on the developers.
If they two did not have the idea of doing a speed run but went along with it their actions explicitly state they were then in agreement with doing a speed run.
Regardless, the OP recants that the person replied that "they were limited for time" indicating there was more than one person involved in that decision. Speculating anything outside of the information we have been provided is nothing more than an assumption. Guessing serves no purpose.
0 -
oddbasket✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yes, it is an entitled opinion to view the random in random queue as do anything you want, when the intentional mechanic of the random queue is to provide bonus rewards and a faster queue time as an incentive to fill a specific spot in a specific group.
When you queue random and get a dungeon, that dungeon isn't random, someone have to had queued for that dungeon specifically. The random is the filler to the main group.
Speed runners who queue for random shouldn't be telling the player who queued for specific dungeon to leave if they didn't like it and Hijack the run as the filler. It should be the other way round, if the player who queued for specific wants to do the quest, the filler who didn't like it should leave instead.5 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »It may have been one that spoke but three that were in on the choice as any of them could have spoken up and said something different.
It wouldn't have made a difference in BC1 because if someone skips, then everyone does. If this was a newer quest like say Red Petal Bastian, I would agree. But it would not matter in RPB because that one doesn't have a cutscene that causes the quest to be automatically skipped if someone rushes ahead.
What could the other have done differently? They couldn't requeue because they wouldn't get the transmutes. Kick the speeder? Wouldn't make a difference to picking up the quest.
When confrontation can't solve anything, and a decision is made without your input, then silently going with the flow isn't agreement.
It is an assumption that one or two in the group silently went along but did not agree. We can make a lot of assumptions.
In the end assumptions are nothing more than a guess and nothing stated in the OP suggests the above theory is the case.
I didn't say they silently went along but didn't agree. I said that they did not agree just because they were silent. Many people in this thread kept stating the majority agreed. That's an assumption that is not supported by the OP due to the particulars of BC1 that I earlier stated.
It is an assumption to assume silence is agreement. Silence is not agreement.
They could have been silent because they agreed.
They could have been silent because the damage was already done but didn't agree with how it played out.
They could have been silent because they didn't even realize anything was happening until the OP spoke.
We don't know. They did not have a meaningful choice so silence cannot be assumed as agreement.
What we know is a 1600+ CP player made an executive decision before they even joined the group.
And that one person had their quest forcibly skipped by the 1600+ CP player.
Some in this thread blame the questers on either side. I blame the quest design of BC1. I think it should be updated because neither of these players should be able to force their playstyle on the other. We should have control over our own quest log, and others aren't obligated to wait for us. If we don't want to keep up with the group's pace, that's on us players. If we physically can't keep up with the group's pace and pickup the quest at the same time due to unskippable cutscenes, that's on the developers.
If they two did not have the idea of doing a speed run but went along with it their actions explicitly state they were then in agreement with doing a speed run.
Nope. That's just an assumption. I have literally offered to run someone back through BC1 at last boss after going along with the speed run because I did not agree. They declined. But still, I offered. I have also had runs where I went along things and didn't offer afterwards (far more often) but still felt bad for the quester. I did so because I didn't want the person to cause me to miss out on a boss either as I needed gear, not because I agreed with their actions. I was put into a bad position by someone rushing off and made the most of it.
Silence is not agreement. The opinion of the silent people is not knowable. It's equally an assumption to assume they agreed than they did not, especially when they lacked meaningful choice.
Many of the people who complain about speed runs talk about how upset they are that feel the need to keep up or lose out on bosses that they need. And that following the speed runners has ruined dungeons for them.
Silence is not agreement.Edited by spartaxoxo on April 12, 2024 11:28PM1 -
These arguments are why I play solo. I tore through Mannimarco and Molag Bal solo. If I can't do a dungeon, quest or whatever solo then I wait until I am powerful enough to do so by doing miscellaneous quests until I can. I don't do Trials, PvP, Cyrodiil etc. as I respect the play style of players who enjoy that part of the game. If I came into those situations and played my style it would infuriate hundreds of players. This game is so huge that there is plenty of things for me to do alone, my way, my style without getting in the way of others. I play toe to toe with the enemy so I guess I am considered a Tank. I spam one ability that does damage and heal at the same time along with a fire enchanted greatsword and if the dungeon is way to easy I will speed run it to the end bypassing the majority of enemy combatants. I sometimes see players following me. They want to group up sometimes but I decline. If they message me. I might say something to the fact that I am a solo player but if you can keep up then follow me but I don't group up as they may be looking for more than one player to explore the dungeon with and I am there to get in and out as quickly as possible. That's just me.0
-
NoTimeToWait✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »It may have been one that spoke but three that were in on the choice as any of them could have spoken up and said something different.
It wouldn't have made a difference in BC1 because if someone skips, then everyone does. If this was a newer quest like say Red Petal Bastian, I would agree. But it would not matter in RPB because that one doesn't have a cutscene that causes the quest to be automatically skipped if someone rushes ahead.
What could the other have done differently? They couldn't requeue because they wouldn't get the transmutes. Kick the speeder? Wouldn't make a difference to picking up the quest.
When confrontation can't solve anything, and a decision is made without your input, then silently going with the flow isn't agreement.
It is an assumption that one or two in the group silently went along but did not agree. We can make a lot of assumptions.
In the end assumptions are nothing more than a guess and nothing stated in the OP suggests the above theory is the case.
I didn't say they silently went along but didn't agree. I said that they did not agree just because they were silent. Many people in this thread kept stating the majority agreed. That's an assumption that is not supported by the OP due to the particulars of BC1 that I earlier stated.
It is an assumption to assume silence is agreement. Silence is not agreement.
They could have been silent because they agreed.
They could have been silent because the damage was already done but didn't agree with how it played out.
They could have been silent because they didn't even realize anything was happening until the OP spoke.
We don't know. They did not have a meaningful choice so silence cannot be assumed as agreement.
What we know is a 1600+ CP player made an executive decision before they even joined the group.
And that one person had their quest forcibly skipped by the 1600+ CP player.
Some in this thread blame the questers on either side. I blame the quest design of BC1. I think it should be updated because neither of these players should be able to force their playstyle on the other. We should have control over our own quest log, and others aren't obligated to wait for us. If we don't want to keep up with the group's pace, that's on us players. If we physically can't keep up with the group's pace and pickup the quest at the same time due to unskippable cutscenes, that's on the developers.
If they two did not have the idea of doing a speed run but went along with it their actions explicitly state they were then in agreement with doing a speed run.
Nope. That's just an assumption. I have literally offered to run someone back through BC1 at last boss after going along with the speed run because I did not agree. They declined. But still, I offered. I have also had runs where I went along things and didn't offer afterwards (far more often) but still felt bad for the quester. I did so because I didn't want the person to cause me to miss out on a boss either as I needed gear, not because I agreed with their actions. I was put into a bad position by someone rushing off and made the most of it.
Silence is not agreement. The opinion of the silent people is not knowable. It's equally an assumption to assume they agreed than they did not, especially when they lacked meaningful choice.
Many of the people who complain about speed runs talk about how upset they are that feel the need to keep up or lose out on bosses that they need. And that following the speed runners has ruined dungeons for them.
Silence is not agreement.
Silence is not agreement, but if people are silent and join speed running, then it means they agree in this current case. If your actions and mind state don't agree, then it means you are doing something wrong (or being deceptive, but that's beyond the scope of the discussion)..
People make assumptions based on observations, and observable behavior conveys a message even if a person doesn't voice any opinionEdited by NoTimeToWait on April 13, 2024 12:17AM0 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭NoTimeToWait wrote: »Silence is not agreement, but if people are silent and join speed running, then it means they agree in this current case.
Nope. There are negatives consequences to not joining along. And nothing to be gained from confrontation. That's not a meaningful choice. You can speak up and solve nothing but wasting your time. Or you can just do what you came in to do. That's not a real choice. This is why there are tons of complaints about speed runners and yet, the majority of runs are speed runs. This is why the devs actually implemented solutions to address those complaints (like adding joining encounter in progress).
People actively complain about speed runs they participated in frequently. So much so, that it got not only developer attention but the devs have done multiple things to try to address the issue without killing the playstyle. They announced back in January they are even doing a story mode for dungeons eventually (but not any time soon).NoTimeToWait wrote: »People make assumptions based on observations, and observable behavior conveys a message even if a person doesn't voice any opinion
True. It doesn't make those assumptions truth though. People get it wrong all the time.Edited by spartaxoxo on April 13, 2024 12:39AM0 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »It may have been one that spoke but three that were in on the choice as any of them could have spoken up and said something different.
It wouldn't have made a difference in BC1 because if someone skips, then everyone does. If this was a newer quest like say Red Petal Bastian, I would agree. But it would not matter in RPB because that one doesn't have a cutscene that causes the quest to be automatically skipped if someone rushes ahead.
What could the other have done differently? They couldn't requeue because they wouldn't get the transmutes. Kick the speeder? Wouldn't make a difference to picking up the quest.
When confrontation can't solve anything, and a decision is made without your input, then silently going with the flow isn't agreement.
It is an assumption that one or two in the group silently went along but did not agree. We can make a lot of assumptions.
In the end assumptions are nothing more than a guess and nothing stated in the OP suggests the above theory is the case.
I didn't say they silently went along but didn't agree. I said that they did not agree just because they were silent. Many people in this thread kept stating the majority agreed. That's an assumption that is not supported by the OP due to the particulars of BC1 that I earlier stated.
It is an assumption to assume silence is agreement. Silence is not agreement.
They could have been silent because they agreed.
They could have been silent because the damage was already done but didn't agree with how it played out.
They could have been silent because they didn't even realize anything was happening until the OP spoke.
We don't know. They did not have a meaningful choice so silence cannot be assumed as agreement.
What we know is a 1600+ CP player made an executive decision before they even joined the group.
And that one person had their quest forcibly skipped by the 1600+ CP player.
Some in this thread blame the questers on either side. I blame the quest design of BC1. I think it should be updated because neither of these players should be able to force their playstyle on the other. We should have control over our own quest log, and others aren't obligated to wait for us. If we don't want to keep up with the group's pace, that's on us players. If we physically can't keep up with the group's pace and pickup the quest at the same time due to unskippable cutscenes, that's on the developers.
If they two did not have the idea of doing a speed run but went along with it their actions explicitly state they were then in agreement with doing a speed run.
Nope. That's just an assumption. I have literally offered to run someone back through BC1 at last boss after going along with the speed run because I did not agree. They declined. But still, I offered. I have also had runs where I went along things and didn't offer afterwards (far more often) but still felt bad for the quester. I did so because I didn't want the person to cause me to miss out on a boss either as I needed gear, not because I agreed with their actions. I was put into a bad position by someone rushing off and made the most of it.
Silence is not agreement. The opinion of the silent people is not knowable. It's equally an assumption to assume they agreed than they did not, especially when they lacked meaningful choice.
Many of the people who complain about speed runs talk about how upset they are that feel the need to keep up or lose out on bosses that they need. And that following the speed runners has ruined dungeons for them.
Silence is not agreement.
If a person does not speak out and goes along with another person's choice then their actions dictate they chose to participate. Actions speak louder than words.
Even then we have no indication whatsoever that any of the three participants sided with OP or disagreed with the speed run in any manner. That suggesting anything other than the group was in a hurry and did not have time to slow down for the OP is an assumption no matter how it is spun.
I choose to go by what the OP stated and not speculate or guess something else may have been the case.
0