Curse

KuTeBaka · Jun 17, 2005, 03:35 AM // 03:35

you get about as much xp from killing a person in arena as killing a lvl 3 devourer with 3 henchies. they probably got like 32xp out of the whole battle. how about the lvl 2s that want to play in arena? are they not alowed to play anymore?

This is different from other mmorpgs because the items are assigned to people, say its a group of guildies that were short one person and they picked up a random guy to do the mission.

random guy: OMG GOLD MAX DAMAGE FELLBLADE AND A GOLD ARMOR ALL FOR ME!!!!
guildy #1 in guild chat: hey lets kick that guy out and split the loot k?
other guildies in guild chat: alright, easy 50k!!!
random guy: YAHOO I CANT BELIEV I GOT A GOLD DROP!!
-random guy has been vote kicked-
random guy: WTF?!?!?NOOOOOO MY FELLBLADE!!!

harrisben · Jun 17, 2005, 04:01 AM // 04:01

I've come across the kind of people you're all describing in parties and also been called an idiot a couple of times because I wasn't perfect and didn't know everything.

There are good and bad aspects to implementing any kind of kick system. There are also bad aspects to the system we have now as you're all well aware. I think if ArenaNet introduced 'Kick', by leader or vote, it would be abused just as the current system is and will totally defeat the purpose of introducing it at all.

Gs-Cyan Bloodbane · Jun 17, 2005, 05:33 AM // 05:33

Well an easy way to avoid the abuse just stated is when kicked all items assigned to that player dissappear and they are given the unclaimed window back in town.

another way to make this 'fairer' is to have it that you can only kick people when their dead. This way vote kick and leader only kick can be less abuse. get the person you want kicked dead then you can just remove them. really think about it how hard is it to kill off someone thats being a pain?

I do think this will help avoid the main worries of abuse against unjust kicks a lot of people are worried about.

as for guilds that abuse kick functions they seem to gain notoriety pretty quickly and it just hurts them in the long run

Anarchist_Monk · Jun 17, 2005, 06:02 AM // 06:02

Well how ever much you don't want to admit it, we were all noobs once. Granted that was during the very first beta or alphas for some of us, but we were all one at one time or another. The only way a noob is ever going to get "unnoobed" is if we teach them what to do. Kicking a noob just because he doesn't know how to play isn't morally or ethcally correct. What if someone would ahve done that to you when you first started? You'd be pissed and probably give up on the game for a day or two. If it happened again cause you don't know exactly how to spam heal or deal a whole lot of dmg you would probably take a break from the game for a longer time and eventually give up on it. Yes some people are annoying, but just relax. Just because you don't get along with some people doesn't mean you need to have the Devs go and create a whole new system just because you don't get along with whats his name and want him out.

I think the Devs need to make it possible for you to grab key items, such as the Pot in that confessor dorian quest up there, out of a players hands and hold it yourself. I think this would help with the AFK situation and would cause less bickering. But then you could come up with the argument that someone keeps stealing your Pot. Well suck it up and act like a reasonable person. If he won't listen then let him die and take it back from him.

Gs-Cyan Bloodbane · Jun 17, 2005, 06:26 AM // 06:26

well there is a differnce between noob or a poor player and one that is activly causing havoc.

i mean kick is ment to be used as a last resort, sure some will use it first and ask questions later but most players will try to stop them with words first.

I mean your not really gonna boot someone for screwing up but you do want to boot someone that vehemently denies doing what ever they did to screw up even though everyone saw them do it.

I mean for example. We were doing hte ember bearer bonus misson. we said several times stay behind the leader, do not aggro, do not attack and otherwise do nothing but follow a ways behind the bearers til we get where we need.

we follow for a little while(they get all the way thru the tar) and then they run forward in front of the whole group stops and fires thier bow with all of us watching then proceeds to try and blame it on the other ranger in the group who wasn't even using a bow. needless to say we let the bearers kill her before we killed them and left her dead. The thing that would have sucked was she would ahve still gotten the misson but she was too stupid to realize she could leech and got fed up that we woudldn;t rez and left.

its those sort of players that you want to be able to boot. the leechers and griefers

=HT=Ingram · Jun 17, 2005, 07:06 AM // 07:06

unfortanatly I don't think this will happen because of possibility of abuse.

Namely having a really good party and clearing out most of the monsters then the leader kicks out everyone from the party and goes back and loots the chests in the area without having to share the drops with henchmen or other players. thats just not fair play... so I doubt we will see that.

If they are idiots and you dont want to play with them, you can always leave them to die and reform your group without them back in the community area.

Anarchist_Monk · Jun 17, 2005, 07:13 AM // 07:13

Exactly, abusers are why we have the economic problems that we do now. They will never stop abusing, and this is just another chance for them to work their magic. Altough most of us would use it for its positive aspects the abusers still outweigh the respective people even though there are more of us out there. Anet jsut can't let people abuse this stuff anymore.

Xight · Jun 17, 2005, 09:18 AM // 09:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perishiko ReLLiK

I agree with this, but i think it should be an option in your options control... because, sometimes i say... get a pizza at the door that i orderd, and i just happen to be in the middle of a quest that was a major pain... and i don't want to get back to the point i've already gotten to... so yes, i agree, and add to the fact that it should be an option.

Yes, but the game should autolog you out if your not there for like 2 hours or more. I mean does it take 2 hours to eat a pizza? lol

GW Monkey · Jun 17, 2005, 10:45 AM // 10:45

We can all cite perfect examples of why kicking would be a great feature, but it has too much power. If you think those griefers are annoying now, imagine them with any such power... leader only, votekicking on a stacked team, etc. It won't matter. The amount of whining for /kick's removal will outweigh the whining for it's inclusion 100-fold.

It's kind of naive to expect the world to treat you fairly because you're "a nice person". Your intentions are good, but believe me... you do not want this added.

Stone · Jun 17, 2005, 11:05 AM // 11:05

ahh leeches .. Bit of both for this idea, it can be abused either way & i cant tell you how annoying it is when you finally get a good party together & then enter mission & all of a sudden som1(usually the low lvl) str8 away afk's, forcing you to restart mission & kick them, i think this prob woiuld be avoided if they reduced the ability to Rush the game, perhaps lvlcaps on some places need to be put in place, like the same lvl as the current allowed henchies lvl.

Makarei · Jun 17, 2005, 11:45 AM // 11:45

I disagree with the kick option. how I do beleave there could be other ways around it. I havent read all the posts - sorry if someone has mentioned this.. but ive goto do something personal in a minute.

Anyways Why not add some small point dot options to the circular maps radius. These could be:

Firstly: A Filter constant drawing on maps (where people abuse the map with scribble) allow this filter to work only with 3 second intervils of drawing.. enought to get your point across to your team mates. (you only need a line to show the way anyways)

Secondly: A filter to minimise contant click on the map.. allowing player to click on a map every 10 seconds or so. (contant clicking will auto matically be filtered)
Could also have option to disable ping noise cause via red dot alert on map.

Thirdly: In regards to Afk users. An option for leader to choose a wait time. example: before entering a mission/area the leader can choose a waiting period timer. lets say 2minutes. that way once in a mission/area the leader can not modify the time to suit there own needs. the wait period is there if some people need to do something "toilet" in most cases. however if there character idels for more then two minutes they are booted from the game displaying a message to all users in that party "Lord Ben was booted due to inactivity for more than 2 minutes"

Now the inactivity would work based on your character. not moving around.. you need to move around, you can stop to identify items etc, but no longer then what the host has set the timer too. that way it will encourage people to move around, and also aleart other players that they are not afk if they are moving around stupidly on the map.

Added with a more advanced detection, if that player isnt contributing to there party with healing, or attacking foes. there character will fail to recive gold, xp, and items. thus preventing the need to boot players from the mission/area. Its a fair cost or price to pay if you seek to be lazy and let other do your dirty work.

What do you think?

Acan Vishnu · Jun 17, 2005, 02:26 PM // 14:26

Saying that something should not be implemented because it could, in some way shape or form, be abused is something you really need to look carefully at. Right now there is a problem with the system -- One person can get in a team and totally screw up 7 other's experience.

Putting in that the leader can kick doesn't really help, the power is still in one person's hands, it is still that one person can totally screw over 7, not what I would call a solution.. But in the case of a majority vote system, it would take at least four people (if a 50% majority was required, or at least 6 if a 75% majority is required) I'd call that a vast improvement.. Sure, a group of people could get together and screw around with others, but what else is new? You can do that now pretty easily.

Its a restriction on griefing. Is it a perfect solution? Not really, I don't believe they exist. There is always going to be someone not happy with some fix or another, but it could help to improve the situation.

JoDiamonds · Jun 17, 2005, 03:42 PM // 15:42

I'm pretty strongly in favor of something like this at least being tried, assuming it's not very costly to implement.

The major existing problem is that one person CAN grief the rest of the party in some missions (usually by holding on to the vital quest item that no one else can advance with). This is obviously bad, and there's currently NO workaround.

If this were to happen at ALL, I'd hope it would require an otherwise-unanimous vote to kick someone out. i.e. if there are six humans in the group, it would require five "Yes, Kick!" votes to knock anyone out. The potential for abuse still exists, but it requires multiple jerks instead of just one (which is what can happen now). There's the same recourse here where the player can and SHOULD report it to ArenaNet. If it becomes a pattern where the same five people keep kicking one guy out, they'll notice. (Just as they can currently do if one individual repeatedly griefs.)

Obviously, if a party only has two humans in it, no one should be able to kick anyone.

JoDiamonds · Jun 17, 2005, 03:47 PM // 15:47

As a fairly minor aside, ArenaNet should consider replacing the removed party member with a henchman (preferably of similar class, but this doesn't need to be fancy). This would further reduce the problem of griefing, where a party sometimes just can't finish when lacking that last party member, but would be able to with a henchmen.

(Yes, this creates more incentive, perhaps, for a group of seven players to kick someone else, but I doubt this would make someone be a jerk if they weren't going to be a jerk anyway.)

Also, if there is any kind of voting: It should be an anonymous, secret ballot, just like skipping cutscenes is right now. This should include the person who brings up the vote to kick -- it should just bring up a box saying, "There's been a vote to kick Bob. Choose: [[Yes, kick Bob.]] [[No, Bob is cool.]]" Arguably, this box shouldn't even pop up unless two people request it (i.e., like seconding a motion), otherwise you create a situation where a single person can keep making the box pop up, griefing others. =p

GW Monkey · Jun 19, 2005, 03:43 PM // 15:43

I mean we can discuss procedural checks to insure it can't be heavily abused. One feasible solution would make the kick flag party leader specific, and joiners might get a popup like:

"This team leader has vote kicking enabled. If you join this group, you could be kicked. Join this team? Yes / No ?"

But it's still a bad idea. You pick your teammates. Choose them. PUGs don't have to mean totally random, run-through-town-and-take-the-first-##-willing. Screaming "Protect me!" gets you nowhere in this game, nor in real life... You got one of those [expletive deleted]? You might find this harsh but "sucks to be you." Be more selective of the teams you join and the people you invite. If you need to feel better, come to GWG and rant about it.

Besides that, this is

Join a guild, already!

silvertemplar · Jun 19, 2005, 08:51 PM // 20:51

Well i think this would be a good feature implemented right, and now i'm going to punt an idea i mentioned in a nother thread related to "rejoining group when disconnected in missions etc".

Original idea was to allow a means for players to rejoin their group when they got disconnected. After some debate it is clear there is some issues with simply letting them "pop" back in when they log in. So my idea was to merely add "in-mission"-outposts, or simply a mini-hub. Scattered over the map will be "entrances" to this mini-hub. The mini-hub will contain nothing special, can't change skills [debatable], no NPCs, [maybe some henchmen?], and NO EXIT. Now the only reason you would go into this mini-hub is to regroup or rather "fetch" a member that disconnected and returned. Only way to exit is for leader/group to click a "return to mission" button and team is returned to the "entrance" which team originally used to reach the hub. [So if it was near the end of the mission, then that is where everyone will pop out]. Being in the hub one will get no benefits, won't even unlock the mission, you must be IN the mission for that [so you can't disconnect, and reconnect to pop back and idle in the hub]. Essentially if your team don't come and fetch you, or don't find a hub-entrance , then well tough luck for you.

Now to get to the whole kicking effect. I would think this would be ideal to add the ability to kick people ONLY inside the mini-hub. So firstly, the leader/whoever must find this hub entrance, and then kick the person and then return to the mission.

Catch? Firstly, you will essentially be ZONING = everything respawns. Sure you might be deeper into the mission, but you will not be able to kick your team in the hub and complete the mission on your own [assuming the hub entrance is placed at tricky spots]. Obviously whatever dropped will not be there when you return either, so can't kick for that reason either. Basically it will be a semi pain in the butt to go into the hub to kick someone, especially if it means you have to backtrack...but at least you CAN. [The relative pain to kick someone, should be enough not to want to "abuse" it]. From here it is debatable whether you might be able to add/replace a henchmen inside the mini-hub too....all up for grabs.

...same applies for far-off areas , just add a mini-hub feature and some "entrances" or "portals" on the map to get to it.

Siren · Jun 19, 2005, 10:11 PM // 22:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by smitty-gw

I have to agree with Magus here.

Last night we were in a mission group and about minutes into it the writing on the minimap started accompanied by the mini-map pinging. It was so annoying.

It took about 10 more mintes to figure out who the clown was. At that point is was unfair to have to restart. Peace was restored when the clown died. We didn't rez him, but had to use rebirth so the healing henchies didn't rez him either...more wasted time for the majority to avoid this one parasite...not fair.

This guy then went afk for about 20 minutes. Things were nice and peaceful.
Unfortunately this bozo was ressurected at the first cutscene and all the nonsense began again immediately.

Near missions end he died again thankfully and we responded in kind. So he sat there writing all over the map and calling us names while we completed the mission for him.

Call me crazy, but that just doesn't seem right. Not only is he leeching at this point, but he is so obnoxious that he ruined the experience for the rest of us.

I know that a "kick' function can and will be abused as ReLLiK said, but I am willing to take that chance. If I join a group of all guildmates then it will be more prevalent, but regular PUG's, I'd say no.

Its time to make some people take responsibility for their actions in on-line gaming. If this kid got booted last night, maybe he would readjust his behavior in the next group he joined. Who knows, maybe he would become a cooperative productive on-line gamer, which is what A-net wants anyway, right?

Well said. I think this is reason enough to institute such a function. My PUG sure could have used a Kick function last night. Some dilweed was drawing obscene things on the map, writing racial/ethnic slurs...we were getting sick of it.

/supports a Kick function

Goonter · Jun 19, 2005, 11:14 PM // 23:14

How about a kick vote function.

If all of the players want one person gone then they can kick him. The only time you couldnt use this function is if there was only 2 human players. Otherwise, the voting would be all against one in order to kick. He would then be replaced with henchman of like primary class.

Edit: Oops, I see this idea has already been discussed here. Oh well. I think its a good idea, as it requires multible griefers working together as opposed to one griefer distrupting the whole team. To me I would think that with this the odds for stable play outway the odds for griefing.

I also support a /kick function

Tactical-Dillusions · Jun 19, 2005, 11:36 PM // 23:36

I was one of two monks in a game at dunes of despair (We had 2R, 2W and 2Mo). The hero was following a ranger.

When we got to the bridge with the wurm on the left side, the ranger who the monk was following was trying to kill the wurm with his hunters shots, yeah sure, pfff.

Anyway, the leader told him to move the hero to the bridge...he never. The fracas continued even though every member had told him to move several times. He ran around in circles, looking like he was annoying us on purpose!

With the constant barrage from the wurm, you can imagine the amount of heals that myself and the other monkey were dishing out. I had the clever idea of saying "Elwyn, i'm not healing you anymore!" and guess what popped up in the text box after that...the other monk replied "and neither am i".

LMAO...he soon moved his backside to the bridge.

So, get your monks on the correct side and let them deal the punishments!

As for abusers going AFK. How about a autokick feature which is secretly activated by the leader? If that person has not got an assisted kill in X minutes..he is automatically disconnected.

When people beep the compass, how about a symbol next to the name (in a different colour to the current red) to show who did the beep.
Maybe have different colours for when people are drawing on the compass...Player 1 (leader) has white, player 2 has blue etc.

There needs to be some form of punishment/discipline in place. Don't know what or how though.

TaG Eledhel · Jun 20, 2005, 12:31 AM // 00:31

after paying out 1k to enter fissure of woe to find that 1 of the team of 8 was a complete idiot, charging ahead, giving abuse and generally saying they were gonna ruin the game leads me to think that a kick option should definatly be introduced by way of player vote, also so as not to reduce the number of players in the team in missions like fissure , underworld etc a booted player is automatically replaced by a henchman. this would be an easier solution than having option of inviting another player cos thn its who gets to decide who joins whereas a henchmen has nothing to benefitfrom joining 3/4 way thru a quest. im just sick of the stupid noob idiots who just join missions purely to leech/farm or spoil the mission and particularly fissure and underworld where u have to pay. as regards to how to implement how about within the main chat box, a simple case of /boot (player name) and if say in a team of 6 4 or 5 type that then the player is removed, this then resolves issue of pop ups on screen and most players already know how to use the emotes commands so would be easy enough.