Curse

Lampshade · Nov 25, 2005, 07:38 PM // 19:38

Yes, please implement a boot feature.

ancient_chozo · Nov 30, 2005, 07:53 AM // 07:53

*bump*

Navaros · Nov 30, 2005, 07:56 AM // 07:56

You should never ever be able to kick the leader of any party - he made the party.

Since some players are advocating that you should, I do not support a kick system. It would lead to griefing and illegitimate kicks.

Shimus DarkRaven · Nov 30, 2005, 07:59 AM // 07:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overnite

Because there's no real reason that you would want to kick a player from your team in the first place. Other than talking sh1t and going AFK there's no real way to grief in this game- it's not an FPP shooter where your teammate can shoot you in the back for calling him a noob.

If you don't want a player in your team- kick him in the outpost.
If you don't want random jerks in your team- play with guildmates or henchmen. Simple.

Except for the fact that PUG you had in FOW contained a person who aggroes the whole zone on you, leaving only one to survive. There is no way to tell who will do stupid shit; therefore there should be SOME type of option, with a GROUP OK to kick people outside of towns. Plain and simple.

GROUP option meaning it has to be okayed by ALL before the expulsion from the map continues, this way, a leader can't just boot everyone when he sees fit to claim items.

I feel this is VERY MUCH needed, in SOME FORM, in which I DON'T CARE, as long as we get SOME type of option to kick idiots from the group out of outposts. By the way you posted, you seem like a lone wolf type of person.

Every try getting a good PUG then having "ONE PERSON" ruin it? We really need an option like this :P

//SIGNED

--The Shim

Kariston The Swift · Nov 30, 2005, 08:06 AM // 08:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase the Sky

Lets think of some reasons:
1) Player decides to go AFK half way though the mission. I think most people would prefer to boot them instead of carry them.
2) Player decides to trash talk everyone on the team- no one can do anything about it.
3) Player decides to pull mobs inncorrectly and puts the party at risk.

This is an idiotic reply. Players should not be punished for trying to be social and recruit PUGs for Missions. If I randomly recruit someone to help with a mission and they go afk or do not perform up to par I would like the option to kick them from the group. I don't encorage socialism.

Not everyone is in a guild and not everyone wants to play with just henchies through the whole game. People play these games because they want to be social- lowering the risk of picking up a bad party member would greatly enhance the game play of the current Mission structure.

The first two are the reasons he gave. As for the 3rd I'd hate to see this feature be used to kick members of the party that aren't up to par. I'd say just explain to them how to pull the mobs and which mobs to pull etc. If they refuse to then thats a different story.

DeanBB · Nov 30, 2005, 03:35 PM // 15:35

I too feel this is a needed feature but it definitely needs to be implemented carefully to avoid abuse. Perhaps in those situations when it is 6 guildies voting against 1 outsider, a kick is not allowed? Hmmm, but then the 6 guildies would never invite a PUG. That's my only concern with this, is friends abusing the kick priviledge.

Xenrath · Nov 30, 2005, 03:37 PM // 15:37

Some sort of vote-kick system would be helpful, to deal with abusive types and the times someone goes AFK for the whole mission (hasn't happened to me yet but I can understand how it must irritate some)

The 3rd reason I don't agree with though, it's open to abuse by "i are teh l33t r0x0r omg u n00b lolz0r roflcopter fdihsfduhfsdibfkajb" types who can't appreciate that not everyone was born into the world with a copy of Guild Wars.

Fork in us · Nov 30, 2005, 05:16 PM // 17:16

Not a bad idea even tho there will be plenty of peaple who've had a bad day and kick you to make you miserable but if you had to vote on it like with cut seens it would be fine

Volarian · Nov 30, 2005, 05:32 PM // 17:32

/signed

It needs to be in game and unfortunately the one downside is the 7 guildies/1nonguildie situation.

Going afk mid mission or adventure is just plain crappy - if you have kids to watch then watch them, if you "may" get a call you've been expecting then wait on the call dont make your party wait on you. There will always be loud mouth brat kids in MMO games or adults who act like children......and having to deal with them longer "just because".....isn't a good enough reason to not have a majority vote/kick system.
Unless Anet can support instant ingame moderators that can invisibly monitor a situation when its reported.....this is the only way to free us from an unwanted, unncessary and unneeded burden.

Shadowspawn X · Nov 30, 2005, 05:35 PM // 17:35

Horrible idea, would be abused no matter how you slice it. You all have played the game and know what many of the players in the community are really like, the maturity just isn't there to handle such a feature. Just would make the game all the more worst if not unplayable in the long run.

Synapse · Nov 30, 2005, 05:42 PM // 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Son Of Morgoth

I like this idea.....why would we like to kick people? some people are just real asses.......they might be luring too much..........they might just be total noobs.........the party wont abuse this if the person is actually doing oko since they dont wanna risk loosing a guy who potentialy might help. i also like that item reclaim thing system.

The part in the quote above that I bolded is what scares me about this.... Everyone was a noob once - I'm just glad it wasn't a kickable offense when I was one.

I could see this evolving into the same kind of grief for inexperienced players that rank is in PvP.

ancient_chozo · Dec 01, 2005, 02:36 AM // 02:36

In regards to the "Seven guild members & One outsider" argument:
Why would the guild members invite the outsider in the first place if they only intended to kick that player later? It would leave the party at a disadvantage (one less person). It makes no sense to kick ANY player for no reason, no matter if your guild comprises the rest of the party or not. Unless, of course, the party is made up of immature players.

And about immature players:
Very true; the player base does sometimes seem less than capable of handling this type of feature. I'm trying to think of some way to deal with it, but I can't come up with anything.
Does anybody have an idea on how this issue might be handled?
Or is this just an inherent failing that can't be overcome?

Undivine · Dec 01, 2005, 07:04 AM // 07:04

I think this feature, as described by ancient_chozo is exactly right. Vote-kicking, intitiated by the leader, take all your drops with you. That's about as good as it's going to get. I would like to add one thing to ancient_chozo's design: Make it so that a leader cannot try to kick a person again after the group turned his request down for, say, 5 minutes. We don't want the leader to spam the group with kick requests when they keep turning him down.

You who argue against this, I cannot understand for the life of me how you can dispute this feature. The first time I needed this feature I was shocked - shocked to find that it wasn't there. It's something I just assumed would be there. There is an option like this in every multiplayer game I've ever played before this one. In many cases it wasn't even based on votes; just the leader's choice, and it still worked out fine.

How can it be exploited exactly? 7/1 guild group? Hard to believe 7 people could collectively be that much of an a-hole, and even if that does happen, that is such an obscure example. Even if it wasn't obscure, even if this sort of group setup happened all the time and the guildies really did exploit this each time to kick a guy unfairly, the benefits of this feature still far outweigh this potential situation.

The maturity isn't there? That wasn't a problem with many other multiplayer games. I don't even see how an immature person could abuse this. Immaturity is exactly the reason to have this feature.

No, here's the way you slice it: The few occasions when a person would be unfairly kicked can hardly outweigh the current inability to kick those f***ing swines who get away with leeching off your labour, weakening your group by filling the spot that a useful person could have held, endangering your group with thoughtless rushing... or worse:

Probably the most common way a single person can ruin your group is simply by cussing out people until they leave. The ass can cuss out the monk, the warrior can leave because he doesn't want a group that can't heal him, the rest leave because we are now two members short. In these situations the only thing we can do is leave the group, and all the progress we made with them.

Kicking out people is a major progress and it's rediculous that it wasn't in there from the start. It's been in multiplayer games since the start of multiplayer games.

ancient_chozo · Dec 02, 2005, 03:10 AM // 03:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undivine

I think this feature, as described by ancient_chozo is exactly right. Vote-kicking, intitiated by the leader, take all your drops with you. That's about as good as it's going to get. I would like to add one thing to ancient_chozo's design: Make it so that a leader cannot try to kick a person again after the group turned his request down for, say, 5 minutes. We don't want the leader to spam the group with kick requests when they keep turning him down.

The additional feature you mentioned sounds great. It should definitely be included. I'll edit my original post to include it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undivine

The maturity isn't there? That wasn't a problem with many other multiplayer games. I don't even see how an immature person could abuse this. Immaturity is exactly the reason to have this feature.

No, here's the way you slice it: The few occasions when a person would be unfairly kicked can hardly outweigh the current inability to kick those f***ing swines who get away with leeching off your labour, weakening your group by filling the spot that a useful person could have held, endangering your group with thoughtless rushing... or worse:

Probably the most common way a single person can ruin your group is simply by cussing out people until they leave. The ass can cuss out the monk, the warrior can leave because he doesn't want a group that can't heal him, the rest leave because we are now two members short. In these situations the only thing we can do is leave the group, and all the progress we made with them.

Kicking out people is a major progress and it's rediculous that it wasn't in there from the start. It's been in multiplayer games since the start of multiplayer games.

I think you're right. Previously, I was thinking in terms of "what could happen." But "what could happen" is quite different from "what will happen." While it's true that there may be instances where people will be unfairly kicked, the vast majority of situations will not follow that route.

jesh · Dec 02, 2005, 03:34 AM // 03:34

/signed again with the new change thingy

I can't believe no one else thought of the spam resistant-ness, seems like a no brainer now that you suggested it. Good job, Undivine.

Undivine · Dec 02, 2005, 06:53 PM // 18:53

Anyone who still doubts the usefulness of this feature can have a look at this post from The Biggest Jerk You Ever Encountered in GW thread from the Riverside Inn forum. It's a long read, but you can skip the first paragraph and don't have to read every story.

And if you like this feature, it's still an amusing read anyway.

Antisocial · Dec 13, 2005, 12:01 PM // 12:01

Maybe there should be some kind of way that a party leader can turn this ''option'' on or off in the outpost, before leaving for the mission//run.
Because people will always find a way to abuse it. So the party can choose to have this kicking option enabled or disabled.

Dralspire · Dec 13, 2005, 12:33 PM // 12:33

Rather than a kick system, I would prefer a system that recognizes a player is afk. This would prevent players from completing a mission while afk and at the same time prevent other players from kicking teammates for some cool drop.

Antisocial · Dec 13, 2005, 12:38 PM // 12:38

And how can you detect if some1 is afk or not, looking for keyboard+mouse activity? Then a leecher can stand in the beginning of the mission bashing 1 key every now and then..?
And read the begin post, the suggestion made about drops(just like if u enter a town now in a mission u can ''accept'' items etc, using that same method if people are kicked..

Xenrath · Dec 13, 2005, 12:40 PM // 12:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by ancient_chozo

In regards to the "Seven guild members & One outsider" argument:
Why would the guild members invite the outsider in the first place if they only intended to kick that player later? It would leave the party at a disadvantage (one less person). It makes no sense to kick ANY player for no reason, no matter if your guild comprises the rest of the party or not. Unless, of course, the party is made up of immature players.

And about immature players:
Very true; the player base does sometimes seem less than capable of handling this type of feature. I'm trying to think of some way to deal with it, but I can't come up with anything.
Does anybody have an idea on how this issue might be handled?
Or is this just an inherent failing that can't be overcome?

This falls into the "i am teh r0x0r l33tz0r cuz i cant tipe but u sux teh rxs so nds hfd i kik u nub!!!1" category. Unfortunately people with crippling emotional/psychological problems (or just stupid kids) will want to initiate kicks just because someone in the group isn't perceived (in their opinion) to be as r0x0ring as they are. Hence a majority vote with the option for the group leader to override/cancel the vote. This relies heavily on the other members of the group having a bit of sense and/or the leader being a reasonable person who won't let pointless votes like this proceed.

That's asking a lot online I guess, but there aren't very many other ways to handle it. since Guild Wars has no active "admins" to monitor servers.