Curse

xenoranger · May 22, 2006, 03:55 PM // 15:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Priest Of Sin

Think about this situation:
Player 1 Gets nice item.
Players 2-8 are pissed.
Players 2-8 give the boot to Player 1.

/unsigned

It was mentioned earlier that you could just kick a player and their items are either lost or they get the dropped item summary (like when you complete a mission adn there are still items assigned to you). Sure the player would be gone, but so woudl their items. So, the jealous player 2-8 loose their chance at that item as well.

Zubey · May 22, 2006, 04:11 PM // 16:11

/signed for a vote kick

Murk · May 22, 2006, 04:28 PM // 16:28

You have some really good idea's, I like reading this..
This could be a great implent for the game and sure it will add some justice

Tazzo · May 22, 2006, 04:52 PM // 16:52

/signed

As long as thought implementing.And as said 2-8 kick you still get drop when your put back to town is a nice lil twist incase jealusy kicks happen.

I mostly think added to mission only and PvP arenas is the place to add this feature , as farming tours are possible scams with random groups

xenoranger · May 22, 2006, 05:08 PM // 17:08

Here is the updated suggestion:

If a player is hindering the enjoyment of the party through one of the following actions (see below), he/she may be ejected to the game by using the /ejectplayer command. Type /ejectplayer then their character name (Example: /ejectplayer Bob).

Grounds for Player Ejection:

1) Player is AFK for large portions of the mission, quest, or field exploration.
This player may be using the rest of the party's motivation to get a free ride. Ejecting them results in their loss of all benefits for non-participation.

2) Player is supporting the enemy.
In games where a kill count determins the victor, and a specific player is caught sacrificing him/herself to pad teh enemy's score. Also, this may include competative missions where the player is either openning a gate or performing other actions to ensure an easy victory for the opposing team.

3) Player is Abusive
Although reportable to ANet, a player who is excessivly abusive through words or actions to other players in the party may be ejected for a more immediate resolution to the situation

Limitations to player ejection:

1) Player may not be ejected until 60 seconds after they have joined the game.

2) A max of 3 votes can be requested for a specific player's Ejection. After the third voting session ends, if that player is allowed to remain, no further enjection requests can be made.

3) When an Ejection Vote is requested, the majority of the party must vote to eject the player. THis means in a group of 8, 5 must vote yes to eject the player. Players who do not vote will be counted as a "no"

What happens when a player is Ejected?

That player is returned to the last town/outpost. All items that were assigned to them are eliminated from the field. If controling minions, all minions tied to this player die.

Appearence:
The Ejection dialog box will look similar to the trade proposal box, except you will have Yes/No instead of View/Decline
. It will state the name of the player proposing the ejection as well as the player to be ejected.

EXAMPLE: Bob has requested a vote to eject George from the party. Do you wish to eject George from the party?
Yes || No

This box cannot be closed except by voting and remains open for 60-120 seconds.

Tarun · May 22, 2006, 05:17 PM // 17:17

Starting to sound like America's Army votekick system. I can see the abusive language one getting abused though.

xenoranger · May 22, 2006, 05:23 PM // 17:23

It could... but it's all on the party. Plus, people have to vote. If only 4/8 vote, the player stays.

Still, if it's an obnoxious little prick, you can get him out right away. I had a guy named Jew Slayer in a party. Half-way through the mission, he started shooting off Nazi propoganda. It's like WTF dude, just STFU and finish. It was so bad, I just dropped before finishing b/c I wasn't about to listen to that crap a moment longer.

That's a reason for booting based on language.

Wyvern King · May 22, 2006, 05:42 PM // 17:42

/signed

It would have to be very carefully implemented.

Maybe if they had been AFK for ages then their drops would be destroyed.

If they had not been AFK then their drops would be offered to them back at town.

Under no circumstances would drops be given to other players.

Trouble is people could just strafe a little every few seconds, or follow the group behind but not do anything useful, just double click a party member's name every few seconds.

My brain is tired ATM, someone else come up with a solution please.

PS in number two of the first post, you have typoed and written 'teh' in the description. You might like to change it before someone decides to call you a leet no0b, or whatever the word is

xenoranger · May 22, 2006, 05:43 PM // 17:43

the problem I see happenning most is players who sit there.

but I've also seen players who type occassionally during missions to contest that they're doing nothign wrong.

Eviance · May 22, 2006, 05:54 PM // 17:54

Doing this would give too much power.... I wish there was a way to do this without getting innocent people smacked in the face. When I got out with my groups I have kids and sometimes things happen. I type and afk and if what lies ahead isn't to horrible I tell them I will catch up. Sometimes it can't be helped and for those people (not that I would be kicked cause the groups I go with are friends or guildies) but I would hate to see it happen to someone who just walked out of the room during the cut scene only to come back and find himself kicked cause he didn't instantly move.

Some people are over zealous that way and would easily do that to people. So while I like the idea I don't think it would ever fly -_- It's just too complicated for the honest folks.

Themis · May 22, 2006, 05:56 PM // 17:56

Cases 1 and 2 have more to do with game design, than with players. If they didn't get anything, they wouldn't need to do this.

Case 3 is a real "social" problem, common to all MMO games. No real solution, really. Ejecting is an option, but then, who defines what is "acceptable" ? Most players ? Hmm... a bit dangerous, i think. What about if the majority are guildies ?

naveh3 · May 22, 2006, 06:20 PM // 18:20

/signed

Mtank325 · May 22, 2006, 06:24 PM // 18:24

I like the idea, but I agree that there is a bit of room for abuse whereas players of similar maturity or thinking may find it funny just to sabatoge a group or kick a person for no apparent reason.

What about if a player is kicked a henchie replaces that person's class? As much as a player may get on my nerves I'd rather have them complete the mission then lose a key character in the mission's role.

Raiin Maker · May 22, 2006, 06:32 PM // 18:32

this is a great idea, sort out the flaws and it could be one of arenanets best updates in a long time.

/signed

Raiin Maker · May 22, 2006, 06:34 PM // 18:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mtank325

I like the idea, but I agree that there is a bit of room for abuse whereas players of similar maturity or thinking may find it funny just to sabatoge a group or kick a person for no apparent reason.

What about if a player is kicked a henchie replaces that person's class? As much as a player may get on my nerves I'd rather have them complete the mission then lose a key character in the mission's role.

i agree, but what i think would be better would be if the henchie had the same build as the kicked player, as in several missions (ring of fire + abbadons) echo nukers are really quite essential for those monk bosses.

xenoranger · May 22, 2006, 07:08 PM // 19:08

yeah, I have kids as well. Sometimes I have to AFK, but if you're going to have to AFK, you need to let the others know. Most players are reasonable. Still.. I can see potential for abuse, but empowering players more (like in other games) would speed up the turnaround time for correcting situations with players.

Also, the replacing the kicked player with a hench of the same/similar build would be nice.

Jiao Yang · May 22, 2006, 07:31 PM // 19:31

Nope, as already stated someone could get an item that everyone is jealous of, or consectutive rare items but they dont want to share them. This brings me onto my next point that in 2 man UW, if one person gets an ecto, the other one kicks them and steals the ecto. When putting in a feature like this, Anet cant just make it avaliable to teams of 8 so there will be a genuine flaw.

However, I suppose you could have the box that comes up when you finish a story mission with your uncollected items in.. so no one can steal them.

Not sure.. but as of now-
/unsigned

Roupe · May 22, 2006, 07:31 PM // 19:31

Yes, replacing a kicked player with its counterpart hench would be good.

For two reasons, on the top of my head

1. Obviously the mission, etc would be tougher with less members and a replacement hench would therefor help.
2. Kicking players BEFORE killing the item giving boss wouldnt improve the chances of getting that desired item, since henches take away their player quota of loot for themselfs

Tarun · May 22, 2006, 09:21 PM // 21:21

If a hench got added, I'd vote to kick it. They can cause way too many problems.

Matsumi · May 22, 2006, 09:34 PM // 21:34

While I completely agree, seeing how I've been in plenty of missions with leeches, I would like to be able to kick them. /signed

I also think it has the potential to be abused to a certain extent, which means it needs better ideas to prevent that.