Make the events optional, please

[dub]

Hello,

There has been a lot of grieving and upset people, because of the current event, so my suggestion is; make the events optional, the same way you did with the Battle for Tertium -quest missions.

I mean all it would take, is to add a “opt out of events in quickplay” -button to the mission board options.

This would help a lot of people, and at least decrease the raging and bawling in the Steam forums.

I guess people don’t know there is an official forum…

Anyway, this is just my two cents on the topic, I’m sure a lot of people enjoy the current event and events in general, but I think it would be for the best, to at least have the chance not to be forced to play them.

Thank you for reading this and have a nice autumn!

Sincerely,

dub

[Dizzy721]

My response to any further restrictions on quickplay is that you can just click on the missions you want to play. Like I never have problems getting a full stack on US-E doing this as long as I’m not playing at some ungodly hour.

[dub]

Can you tell me, what kind of harm would come, from letting people opt out of events?

Yes, you can click on any mission and play them, but if you play quickplay, you’re bound to land on an event, it’s just a matter of time.

Anyway, thanks for the reply, and happy heretic slaying!

[Antilus]

this game is dead, they make events to condense the playerbase in a few missions

[Badwin]

There are consistently more players on Steam now than during the first year, and concurrent numbers on average are up over last year too. And that’s not counting Xbox & PS5 players.

The Battle of Tertium opt-out is way more impactful than this would be. An opt-out makes sense to me.

[Dizzy721]

If players aren’t going to just pick missions they want to play, I also find it unlikely that once a new event comes around that they will unselect the option to skip events from QP. If there is a game mode that is going to make a person grief or quit or whatever, the game provides a perfectly viable solution of just clicking any of the other 8 missions. Live by the quickplay, die by the quickplay.

[psyk]

there are zero scenarios where adding more player choice is bad.

lets say there are 8 missions on the board

2 are event missions, which leaves us with 6 lets say I love 2 of them and will always click them if they are up, but i am willing to play anything that isnt event, this allows players to fill out existing/on going missions of the 4 i am not crazy about while still avoiding the missions they dislike the most.

please reevaluate your position.

[Dizzy721]

It’s likely that the option will accumulate more players over time. Players will dislike an event or just be tired of it after finishing the final tier, select the option. The next event comes around and it’s still selected. Maybe some will uncheck, others won’t, and a portion players that haven’t checked will either dislike the event or get tired of it and select the option. This repeats every couple of weeks. It seems not good if you’re someone who enjoys events and doesn’t mind getting them in QP and now the player pool is smaller. It seems bad from FS perspective if players are opting out of content they may like because they were bored of an event two months ago.

Other reason I’m opposed is because other players have asked for restrictions from playing power interrupt, vent purge, dogs, etc. and it’s like if you just want to play HiSTG, just pick one of the 3 maps that has it.

[psyk]

if they dislike it enough to leave theyll just leave in queue or in game, you’d just be wasting player time.

again there is no scenario where more player choice is bad.

[Badwin]

@Dizzy721

The next event comes around and it’s still selected.

This potential issue could be alleviated quite easily with either another option or just a blanket rule to disable the opt-out at the start of each new event.

[Dizzy721]

I find this acceptable.

[Dizzy721]

@psyk

if they dislike it enough to leave theyll just leave in queue or in game, you’d just be wasting player time.

Players that would leave the game is a small subset of the total players that would have the option checked.

@psyk

again there is no scenario where more player choice is bad.

This is only true if you’re considering the player making the choice and not those affected by it. Every scenario of player choice has tradeoffs. Some are worth it and some aren’t. I don’t think being blind to them is useful.

[Index]

honestly i see benefits in these options. for example not having people in it that are unprepared or unwilling.

personally i never quickplay.

always choose auric maelstroms or HISTG events (where available)

and the amount of dudes with no clue what to do has risen noticeably.

so the opt out is a win win for both no?

[psyk]

@Index

personally i never quickplay.

if everyone did that no one would find games in off peak hours thats the issue. nowadays with the lack of content i usually just play a game before bed, more often than not it ends with 2 players remaining and a slug fest duo

[Index]

thing is, i play for creating content that’s appealing to watch as well.

though it baffles me people would watch malice fails but hey, different tastes

while havoc 40 with randoms isn’t a “guaranteed content creator “ (and meanwhile i schedule 4 uploads a day with different classes)

auric maelstrom hits the sweetspot of watch-worthy clutches and carries and still be self reliant.

peeps f-up or leave its 85% whatever and 15%situations that really screw you

so putting in 4-5 hours usually nets me 8-10 matches aka 2 days preload.

anything below HISTG isn’t even appealing to me gameplay wise… figure i’d end up in those doing quickplay as well.

next, structure.

a game in progress for me feels like

a half eaten floor burger.

unappealing, not satiating and no one wants to watch it.

good game has intro, climax and final score.

at least that’s the kind of game i want to portrait.

due to health issues i currently got “all day” with the tendency to get tired early cause of chemo meds.

so i start at noon and it’s noticeably slower to find an auric maelstrom.

BUT quantity isn’t a factor when it comes to “what” joins your matches and i’m slowly working my way to reliably clutching solo if need be.

Darktide Arbites Auric Maelstrom D III VII IX G Power Matrix solo ending

sure it’s on arbites so “null and void” but almost had an enclavum baross as zealot go through, solo’ed there for quite some time until a small mistake took me down

the only thing space marine 2 does better in my opinion is giving full freedom of starting any content solo and clean without bots as an additional option.

yes there’s solo mod but without progress it feels kinda meh.

that feature added one could binch try 10 I II V E G s a session if so chosen

[psyk]

@Index

a game in progress for me feels like

thats where we disagree. I love dropping into the worst situations and trying to make the best of it.

i wonder what would make us both happy?…. maybe having more player choice?… maybe the ability to select only on going games or only new games
nah too hard fatshark would neva!

[lw88]

All that would do is fracture the player base even further.

[Torimori]

How will this “fracture” it any worse comparing to me simply not playing Quickplay and starting missions manually so I could avoid the event I don’t like - or just leaving right away if Quickplay sent me into one of those missions? Those arguments about “fractioning playerbase” are simply always false, because they assume you can force people into playing something they hate, so you could get a game you personally would like (with them dragged in there against their will) - what, beside being not strictly ethical, simply never works, only aggravating players who have now to circumvent those stupid restrictions to get the game they would enjoy.

[Badwin]

You touch on a good point: it has got to be worse for everyone involved in a match if someone quickplays into a match they refuse to play and then leaves it.

I feel pretty strongly that if you quickplay, you’re opting into a grab bag and you should be game for whatever you get. But I also recognize that that’s probably a pretty privileged perspective as someone in a what must be one of the most active regions. I know quickplay is a bit more useful for finding matches in some less-populated regions.

That’s why I think more quick play opt-outs make sense.

Additionally, the Battle For Tertium quickplay opt-out feels like probably the most impactful mission type opt-out I can imagine. It’s definitely going to affect new players (esp. for as long as the mission board timers are acting as a serious barrier to filling matches). Event opt-out, lights out opt-out, etc.…I can’t imagine they’d be half as impactful, as I’m sure players who don’t want to play those have always been ducking out of them.

[Torimori]

@Badwin

I feel pretty strongly that if you quickplay, you’re opting into a grab bag and you should be game for whatever you get.

My opinion is, various tools that are supposed to help players to find games should strive to provide them the best experience possible. That’s the most reasonable approach a commercial company can take - to satisfy their customers. If somebody has to go through unpleasant experience of “waiting for a match, loading into one, leaving immediately as it has one of the modifiers they hate, wait at all the loading screens, rinse-repeat” just to find a match, something is horribly wrong in your vision. “Customer is always right in matters of taste” - that’s the most accurate quote. And this is exactly the case, so company needs to help everyone easily find games that match their taste. Not inventing excuses and listening to players who are concerned that those people won’t land in their games this way (aka “fracturing the playerbase”) - you won’t force them to play with you anyway.