Curse

tomcruisejr · Jul 06, 2005, 03:52 AM // 03:52

well freeloaders are lesser evil than people who deliberately screw the whole mission.

anyhow, yea, i'd rather redo the whole mission even we're 99.9% done than finish it with a freeloader.

DrSLUGFly · Jul 06, 2005, 03:56 AM // 03:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomcruisejr

well freeloaders are lesser evil than people who deliberately screw the whole mission.

anyhow, yea, i'd rather redo the whole mission even we're 99.9% done than finish it with a freeloader.

took me 2 hours to get our party into Snake Dance last night, then we had to quit cuz we were just getting wiped too badly...

I would have put up with a freeloader if there was a chance of getting past the dozens of trolls...

Kaylynn Of Ascalon · Jul 06, 2005, 04:04 AM // 04:04

i hate this as well. i have seen many times people pull this. they have to go but they leave their char in the group so they get the credit. Thats just soooo messed up.

snipes · Jul 06, 2005, 04:35 AM // 04:35

i got fairly far with a group in the ring of fire. About 1/2 way though i went afk for ten minutes or so b/c the buildings fire alarn went off. I came back and they were waiting for me. so we went on and bea tthe mission. =). I had did tell them why i left bfore going afk.

Numa Pompilius · Jul 06, 2005, 10:13 AM // 10:13

1) Only leader can kick: Griefers Paradise. All the griefer has to do is start the team, then he's free to do whatever he likes, including kicking people criticising him. This option could kill the game, IMO. It's worth remembering that it takes absolutely nothing to become a leader in GW, it's not a position earned through trust or skill.

2) Only leader can initiate vote: much better, as it removes decision from ONE person and gives it to the group, so the risk of abuse is lower. Still means that griefers have an easy way of avoiding being kicked (through being leaders), the leader still has considerable power and considerable leeway for abuse (e.g. favoritism, or calling more or less random votekicks), and any leader will face tons of requests to call a vote when there's dissention in the group. Would probably lead to the fewest number of kicks over all.

3) FPS-style anyone-can-call votekick. Yes, there will be votekicks called back and forth and out of mischief or boredom. Hardly any of them will pass. The most likely to get griefers kicked, the least likely to lead to grief-kicking, but also the most likely to lead to bickering. Basically the only way to grief through anyone-can-call votekick is when everyone in the team except one player is in a guild or RL friends.

4) Kick-through-timeout. Really, truly, horribly bad idea. This game is instanced, and I'm sure I'm not the only guy who plays with all henchmen teams - meaning I can just leave my avatar & team in the middle of a mission to go eat dinner, and pick up again hours later.
Plus it's easy to bypass for malicious gamers. Scrap this idea, please.

5) Instance split. An attractive option in that noone really suffers, but the low threshhold will also mean that it becomes very, very, common for instances to be split. I'm guessing hardly any PUG will finish a mission intact, as the slightest disagreement will lead to a split. From a game mechanics POV this solution is also much more difficult than the others; like I've said I don't think it's a serious option.

Finally a personal opinion: I don't think votekicked players should be replaced by henchmen. Players that lose connection or leave on their own accord should be replaced, but not votekicked ones. Why? Because there should be a cost involved in kicking a player. It should hurt. Kicking should be used when a player is so disruptive the team is better off without him, not just because they think Alesia is a better monk.

Divinitys Creature · Jul 06, 2005, 10:46 AM // 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

1) Only leader can kick: Griefers Paradise. All the griefer has to do is start the team, then he's free to do whatever he likes, including kicking people criticising him. This option could kill the game, IMO. It's worth remembering that it takes absolutely nothing to become a leader in GW, it's not a position earned through trust or skill.

2) Only leader can initiate vote: much better, as it removes decision from ONE person and gives it to the group, so the risk of abuse is lower. Still means that griefers have an easy way of avoiding being kicked (through being leaders), the leader still has considerable power and considerable leeway for abuse (e.g. favoritism, or calling more or less random votekicks), and any leader will face tons of requests to call a vote when there's dissention in the group. Would probably lead to the fewest number of kicks over all.

3) FPS-style anyone-can-call votekick. Yes, there will be votekicks called back and forth and out of mischief or boredom. Hardly any of them will pass. The most likely to get griefers kicked, the least likely to lead to grief-kicking, but also the most likely to lead to bickering. Basically the only way to grief through anyone-can-call votekick is when everyone in the team except one player is in a guild or RL friends.

4) Kick-through-timeout. Really, truly, horribly bad idea. This game is instanced, and I'm sure I'm not the only guy who plays with all henchmen teams - meaning I can just leave my avatar & team in the middle of a mission to go eat dinner, and pick up again hours later.
Plus it's easy to bypass for malicious gamers. Scrap this idea, please.

5) Instance split. An attractive option in that noone really suffers, but the low threshhold will also mean that it becomes very, very, common for instances to be split. I'm guessing hardly any PUG will finish a mission intact, as the slightest disagreement will lead to a split. From a game mechanics POV this solution is also much more difficult than the others; like I've said I don't think it's a serious option.

Finally a personal opinion: I don't think votekicked players should be replaced by henchmen. Players that lose connection or leave on their own accord should be replaced, but not votekicked ones. Why? Because there should be a cost involved in kicking a player. It should hurt. Kicking should be used when a player is so disruptive the team is better off without him, not just because they think Alesia is a better monk.

This pretty much says everything I would say about this. The solution needs to avoid griefing. Instance split seems to be best or party-split with henchie replacements, but even that has room for griefing since people could do this near the end of a mission and other players are not good at managing with henchies. I guess it has least room for abuse though. That final paragraph of yours is quite clever. Also people would slit instance or party over the slightest of disagreements.

Ashley Twig · Jul 06, 2005, 10:54 AM // 10:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by FelineFury

If the guy is't fighting, it's the same as if he isn't there right. Kicking him dosen't change that so maybe you need to go back to town anyway.

If he's NOT fighting, then yes, the result remains the same.
But kicking that character at least would make sure, that es's getting no more experience.

And what if he IS fighting too much?
You agree on playing a mission nice and slow and you have a rusher on board.
The team might be better off loosing one member and still win the mission.

bobrath · Jul 06, 2005, 02:49 PM // 14:49

Not sure why folks are so tied to the idea of instance splits instead of kicking back to town. If someone is causing the group pain... why enable them to benefit any further?

Sure its a nice idea if you're out wandering/exploring and the group wants to go in two different directions, but that's not a kicking scenario. Lets keep this to removal of drains on the group and generic greif cleaning.

static deathbringer · Jul 06, 2005, 02:55 PM // 14:55

the only thing i would like to see is a kick hechmen command, in case one of them gets stuck and hes the only one alive, or if a real person leaves the group he is automaticaly replaced by a henchmen

arnansnow · Jul 06, 2005, 02:58 PM // 14:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by static deathbringer

the only thing i would like to see is a kick hechmen command, in case one of them gets stuck and hes the only one alive, or if a real person leaves the group he is automaticaly replaced by a henchmen

I like the kick henchman idea, It is the only one that can't be abused.

I was going to piken square with henchman, and we all got killed against some enemies, but wait! Alesia is stuck behind a post way at the warp! I had to go back and try again, all because Alesia got stuck.

Ninna · Jul 06, 2005, 03:07 PM // 15:07

Id like to see an option to kick a member if someone hasent moved in over 15 minutes

I dont see how thats abuseable if they are an obvious leech

Aniewiel · Jul 06, 2005, 03:09 PM // 15:09

Quote:

Finally a personal opinion: I don't think votekicked players should be replaced by henchmen. Players that lose connection or leave on their own accord should be replaced, but not votekicked ones. Why? Because there should be a cost involved in kicking a player. It should hurt. Kicking should be used when a player is so disruptive the team is better off without him, not just because they think Alesia is a better monk.

I don't like this. Why -should- hurt a bit to initiate a "last ditch option" to stop freeloaders? The team is already being penalized by having a non-playing person in the group. I suppose it's really no worse than the situation they're already in with a jerk hanging about the entrance to the mission but, still. When the party is formed, the assumption is that everyone will play. The rest of the team heads out believing this. When the sad reality of a freeloader shows up, they are stuck. I don't think that replacing a jackass freeloader with a henchman should be further punative in nature.

Besides...sometimes having a henchman is penalty enough.

Arvydas · Jul 06, 2005, 03:51 PM // 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninna

Id like to see an option to kick a member if someone hasent moved in over 15 minutes

I dont see how thats abuseable if they are an obvious leech

as someone said before, set up a bot to just "move" your character every 15 mins.

an option to kick if someone hasn't interacted with the environment (attack/cast/loot) within the group radius would be better. it would require the freeloader to constantly keep up and do something, which is not what they want. it would not kick automatically because if someone need to rezone to save the party, he/she should not be kicked.

arnansnow · Jul 06, 2005, 03:53 PM // 15:53

I have the perfect Idea:

If someone is using a bot, they get kicked
If someone is leaching off a team, they get kicked
If someone is being a horrible jerk, screwing up the mission, they get kicked

I would love to have those implemented.

drowningfish999 · Jul 06, 2005, 04:11 PM // 16:11

The only problem with kicking someone for standing there is it's so much easier just to tell your character to autofollow someone who's least likely to die. Most people don't pay attention to what other characters are doing in the battle, especially people like spellcasters. As long as it looks like the character is doing something, they won't get suspicious unless he doesn't pick up a rare drop or something.

Aniewiel · Jul 06, 2005, 04:20 PM // 16:20

Of course, just because someone is 'least likely to die' doesn't mean they actually won't.

Once that char dies and so does Mr./Ms. Autofollow who is then res'd, it becomes very apparent they aren't playing with the party. If they're AFK, they won't be able to institute autofollow again.

Arvydas · Jul 06, 2005, 04:27 PM // 16:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by drowningfish999

The only problem with kicking someone for standing there is it's so much easier just to tell your character to autofollow someone who's least likely to die. Most people don't pay attention to what other characters are doing in the battle, especially people like spellcasters. As long as it looks like the character is doing something, they won't get suspicious unless he doesn't pick up a rare drop or something.

autofollow will end when the one being followed stops, and u arrive at his/her spot.

Darkest Dawn · Jul 06, 2005, 05:23 PM // 17:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sereng Amaranth

Well if its done, it must be unanimous. In the AFK instance, this would be justified. But if 2-6 people don't like someone just because they stink, the last character that actually has respect for human kind would defeat the kick.

I agree. This is a good solution IMHO.

Mercury Angel · Jul 07, 2005, 03:23 AM // 03:23

Wow, first time it happened to me.

Start of the mission, Thunderhead Keep:

We kill 2 groups of mobs, and he AFK's.

And there's him later on, standing in the exact spot you get sent to after the cutscene. The group had 6/7 votes to skip the cutscene, but he was AFK, so we had to watch it all.

I'm going to send in the uncensored screenshots to ANET, and try and contact his guild. Such behaviour is intolerable.

DrSLUGFly · Jul 07, 2005, 03:30 AM // 03:30

bah... something like this not worth reporting

There's a chance that he was a parasite but there's also the chance that something serious came up... who knows...