Curse

Ashley Twig · Jul 11, 2005, 11:12 AM // 11:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by calendae

and to make it imposible to kick a dead player.

Why not kick dead players?
If s/he's expendable and is spamming "rezrezrez" all over the screen: Kick!

Ashley Twig · Jul 11, 2005, 11:14 AM // 11:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by =HT=Ingram

anyone that does not move for a solid 5 mins is then kicked from the instance. But those that are playing it will never effect.
Interesting? Yes no?

Interesting but that won't eliminate the problem of freeloaders who move their characters every now and then, but otherwise remain inactive.

But it's worth a try.

asdar · Jul 11, 2005, 12:29 PM // 12:29

How about a unanimous kick?

I'd be for that in a second. I can't imagine everyone kicking someone in an abusive way. I wouldn't boot someone for messing up as long as they weren't being intentionally destructive.

We'd have all clicked it, it could be initiated by anyone or the leech's would just be leaders.

Ninna · Jul 11, 2005, 12:46 PM // 12:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by =HT=Ingram

/Idle 5 (command from party leader only)

sets internal timer. anyone that does not move for a solid 5 mins is then kicked from the instance. But those that are playing it will never effect.

Interesting? Yes no?

I like the idea

it wont solve the problem of leeching but it certainly will reduce it

bobrath · Jul 11, 2005, 04:13 PM // 16:13

Any solution based on criteria will be defeated by a bot.

In another similar thread last week, we hashed over all of the options, and I believe the consensus best option was allowing the group leader to initiate a vote and having that vote be an all or none kick. (well all but the person in question). Combined with the group's ability to vote out the leader (if he's the one that goes leech).

This avoids the majority of the single griefer scenarios by requiring a consensus vote but also avoid vote spamming fest where two guys try to get the other kicked out.

Until some solution is implemented, we're stuck with recreating teams if you have a leecher. Last night on Bloodstone, had a ranger say something to the effect of "Dang! have to go afk!" right as the mission started. I waited after the first mob battle and the player still hadn't moved (tho a purp item dropped for him). So I told the group I wouldn't go any further until the ranger moved. Waited about 2 mins and then I said, ok fine lets regroup in dis 2 and not invite the leecher....

20 seconds later the leecher dropped and the purp composite bow was left behind as his apology for being a dork. Sure we got lucky, but I'd much rather go through the hassle of restarting a group then allowing some random chuckle to progress through the game without helping.

Dwiggit · Jul 11, 2005, 04:56 PM // 16:56

I try to deal with the problem up front. My solution is similar to this one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aniewiel

I don't know -why- people can't just say "LFG for bonus only" or "LFG for Mission AND bonus". A lot of people do so it's mysterious to me why there are any questions. I don't join a group that says mission only if I want both....and the same goes for any which way it is.

I almost always start a group instead of waiting to join one. I then always say something to the effect of "Starting group COMMITTED to mission AND bonus". Knowing how so many people cringe at the word "COMMIT", I usually end up with a reasonable bunch of people.

When you are clear of the intentions up front, people tend to be in agreement. (I also find it funny how many people are just waiting to join any group that invites them, just to find out they are only doing the bonus or such.)

So I offer the suggestion to take the lead on forming a group and be clear about the intentions. This works well for now until a better option is available in-game. (I'll probably continue using it past any fixes anyway, it just works!)

My two cents....
Dwig

Talesin Darkbriar · Jul 11, 2005, 05:00 PM // 17:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indigo

I do fear abuse on something like a majority kick button.

A lot of people have stated this, and I just don't get it.

Please list all the myriads of ways this will be abused, or otherwise used to screw people over - as if all the current methods don't exist?

No, the KICK function gives players their only defense against being screwed.
Which may explain why so many are against it...

Sekkira · Jul 11, 2005, 05:43 PM // 17:43

I'm two minds about it. Although it can defend against being screwed over, it also can cause a lot of griefers to have fun. Say, get to near the end of the mission and right before it's finished *KICK* LOLOLOLOLOLOL

exploding flowers · Jul 11, 2005, 06:00 PM // 18:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sekkira

I'm two minds about it. Although it can defend against being screwed over, it also can cause a lot of griefers to have fun. Say, get to near the end of the mission and right before it's finished *KICK* LOLOLOLOLOLOL

that will only happen if the leader is the only one with the kick function, as i have stated before.

Elite · Jul 11, 2005, 06:14 PM // 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiboo

I'd have to agree with a kick feature, or something similar.

A week ago or so I was in a group to go kill Galrath from ToA. We got all the way to galrath and this lvl 20 war was sitting at begining of zone waiting for talk of galrath, (we didn't notice him at begining sadly..) then he simply zones, and we're all screwed. So we go back since we have it cleared, and he zones again.

With no way of kicking him except regrouping in ToA just seems stupid.

Also for quest there should be a majority of ppl near the exit to zone.

My first post!

I had that happen in a group I was in. I think it was a warrior too.

Sekkira · Jul 11, 2005, 06:26 PM // 18:26

I'm sure griefers will get a team together as well just to piss others off.

Tutompop · Jul 11, 2005, 07:29 PM // 19:29

All this talk about abuse this and abuse that, maybe nobody thought to realize they already have the tools they need to screw over groups. Giving them a new toy might be fun for them a couple of times but in the long run there isn't going to be any more or less greifing from these motivated individuals.

Tool 1: pull huge group of mobs and wreck mission group.

Tool 2: make monk and withhold healing

Tool 3: leech!

Tool 4: heal area mobs

These are just what I have thought of doing in my play time. I haven't actually DONE it but if you think these jackasses are motivated enough to form groups with the sole intent of kicking people then ANYTHING is possible and surely more creative. One more wrench in their toolbox isn't going to break the game. Sure there will be abuse, but killing off leechers isn't the only thing a vote kick system would accomplish, make that kamikaze war rethink his ways. Kick that racist smacktard who can't do anything but utter expletives about why this player sucks because of this random thought.

MSecorsky · Jul 11, 2005, 07:34 PM // 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdar

How about a unanimous kick?

I'd be for that in a second. I can't imagine everyone kicking someone in an abusive way. I wouldn't boot someone for messing up as long as they weren't being intentionally destructive.

We'd have all clicked it, it could be initiated by anyone or the leech's would just be leaders.

Beat me to it. A unanimous kick would be a great feature.

silvertemplar · Jul 11, 2005, 08:28 PM // 20:28

Quote:

Beat me to it. A unanimous kick would be a great feature.

I heard leeches come in pairs...the other one will be leeching a vote :P Majority vote sounds more workable, but i can already see some interesting abuses, i.e. Guild takes in 2 players, then run to the end of the mission and go "ok now hand over that gold item you just picked up or we kick" ....

I still want instanced outposts in missions/areas which have the same effect as the big outposts, except for a few limits [i.e. no skill swopping]. Portals [i.e. like rez shrines] are scattered around the map, you enter it and go into this instanced outpost [only available to the particular team]. When you leave it, map respawns, but you return to where you entered it. Then use outpost to kick/reform party [i.e. henchmen swopping]. The trouble of finding the portal and enduring a possible backtrack/respawn should outweigh the possible non-sensical abuse that may occur just to kick someone from the team to be spiteful. Same system could be used to handle disconnects/return to party [team must come and fetch you though].

Now lets assume you can split in the outpost and reform entirely new groups [and going into their own instances from there]. There is an idea floating on the forums regarding INSTANCE SPLITTING which i think will be just fine. Assuming when you DO split from a group you can replace the empty slots with henchmen [with the appropriate DPs etc]. So the leader can kick all he wants, wouldn't hurt as much, the player will go into his own instance with a full party...etc etc