Curse

bobrath · Jul 05, 2005, 05:09 PM // 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWasp

I would have to disagree with vote kick. There is alot of situations were I would be kicked for having a good drop. Or kicked at the end of the mission because a bunch of freinds feel like being jerks and hogging the EXP. However if you are idle for over 10 minutes you should be kicked and replaced with a henchman.

I would think a screen shot in the case of a kick for drop scenario would be an easy piece of proof to send to ANet. If a group of folks want to be jerks... well that means you just found ignore list eligible folks in a much more efficient manner!

The thing is, that takes more folks to organize and the one thing I've notices is that griefers have a real hard time working together for any length of time. Not to mention if there is even one other "decent" fellow on your group... then the vote with all to kick works. Majority is open to abuse, Unanimous voting might be a bit of hassle as folks get used to it but far less able to be abused.

toastgodsupreme · Jul 05, 2005, 05:10 PM // 17:10

Shame these people. Post screenshots of the chats and such here on the forums. I've screenshotted pretty much every douchebag quiter I've played with.

If someone is truly an ass, post the screenshots here. Inform the community about these people.

Aniewiel · Jul 05, 2005, 05:14 PM // 17:14

Problem is, Toast, most of the people who act this way don't give a rat's behind what we or anyone else thinks. There will always be other victims for them to take advantage of and it will not matter to them one way or the other whether people post screenies of them.

As a schoolteacher, these people would remind me of children who only seek negative attention since that's the only kind they ever get. It's as, if not more, important to them than positive.

Venjance · Jul 05, 2005, 05:15 PM // 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobrath

I have a problem with a "leader only kick" system because it gives one griefer the ability to ruin a experience for up to 7 people.

I would have to absolutely disagree.
Having the leader have access to the kick(and replace with hench)button is the best and only good way to resolve this situation.

The reasons are simple.
Ultimately it is the leader who sits from 5 mins to an hour trying to build the right/best team for the task at hand.
The leader controls when the party and enters the mission
There is already a good deal of responsibility bestowed on this individual in the party, as such they should be able to make the calls that are best for the group.

Some tips for recognizing good leaders:

- they will say hello
- they will ask if rdy before going anywhere (jumpstarters suck)
- they won't have a name like "Harry BaalsaK" or a sentence name like "I am teh healer"
- they won't ask "who has done this before. will you lead?"(after organizing group and entering mission)
- they will take the extra few minutes to put together a solid group- instead of grabbing henchies ASAP

Algren Cole · Jul 05, 2005, 05:23 PM // 17:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Venjance

- they won't ask "who has done this before. will you lead?"

agreed with everything except for this...a good leader knows his strengths and his weakness'...if someone else knows the way a good leader will relinquish lead to that person.

Algren Cole · Jul 05, 2005, 05:24 PM // 17:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aniewiel

Problem is, Toast, most of the people who act this way don't give a rat's behind what we or anyone else thinks. There will always be other victims for them to take advantage of and it will not matter to them one way or the other whether people post screenies of them.

As a schoolteacher, these people would remind me of children who only seek negative attention since that's the only kind they ever get. It's as, if not more, important to them than positive.

I was that kid

Sir Skullcrasher · Jul 05, 2005, 05:34 PM // 17:34

its cool if they freeload, and i mean anything could happened while your playing this game. So far, i only ran into people who for no reason just drop out of the group that im in.

Numa Pompilius · Jul 05, 2005, 05:40 PM // 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Venjance

I would have to absolutely disagree.
Having the leader have access to the kick(and replace with hench)button is the best and only good way to resolve this situation.

And I would absolutely have to disagree with that. Giving what is essentially a random person complete control over who is kicked is _guaranteed_ to lead to severe abuse. Much worse than it is now.

womble · Jul 05, 2005, 06:02 PM // 18:02

Timeouts don't work as a general thing; a number of times we've been half way through an instance when the pizza arrives. We like to stop playing at that point and eat the pizza. The size of pizza we get it takes more than a 'reasonable timeout' if we were in a PUG to eat... so we'd be auto-kicked.

Feedback on characters is potentially open to abuse. First you'd have to have only positive marks, or bitter chowder-heads would automatically mark you down. You could perhaps limit exploits by only allowing players to feedback on any particular character once per instance area, ever, or only at the end of a quest or mission stage. Simplest would be a popup that asks "Recommend this character" for each character. It should be anonymous and not requires shades of grading, and 'recommendation' scores should be easily accessible to party leaders and the leader's score should be accessible to party joiners. It'd be like "Player Faction" for the character.

Large organised groups could artificially inflate "Recommended" scores, but organised groups might have a better chance of being reasonable people than the individual/buddy-pair griefers I see complained about on the Forums.

Aniewiel · Jul 05, 2005, 06:04 PM // 18:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algren Cole

I was that kid

*hands Algren a cookie*

Arvydas · Jul 05, 2005, 06:33 PM // 18:33

maybe X minute without interaction with the environment works better than just idle for X minutes, then you'll not only have to move your character, but you have to kill/heal/do-something within the "bubble" of the group. so an application to just move you character will not work.

ZigZag Rollmeister · Jul 05, 2005, 06:44 PM // 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

And I would absolutely have to disagree with that. Giving what is essentially a random person complete control over who is kicked is _guaranteed_ to lead to severe abuse. Much worse than it is now.

The difference between what you quoted by Vengence and what you stated as your opinion is that Vengence at least laid out some evidence to support his conviction, whereas you did not.

Leader Kick makes sense. Only have the vote option if team is trying to kick the GL.

This way you kill two birds with ah....two stones? :P

Acan Vishnu · Jul 05, 2005, 07:05 PM // 19:05

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.

Aniewiel · Jul 05, 2005, 07:11 PM // 19:11

Perhaps leaving pre-mission, the group could select a leader---or have a leader randomly selected after entering the mission. This way no one would be sure who would have the "kick" vote and it couldn't be abused by idiots who spam areas, form groups then vote everyone 'off the island' right at mission's end.

weeniecj · Jul 05, 2005, 07:56 PM // 19:56

Perhaps the solution is a combination of the two prominent ideas. The leader has the ability to kick the player who is freeloading but they are only given the option after certain conditions are met. Conditions would be some of the things already suggested such as:

X number of screens away
X number of minutes idle
X number of complaints from other group members

This limits the abuse on the leaders end because they need a reason to kick someone.

Algren Cole · Jul 05, 2005, 07:58 PM // 19:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aniewiel

Perhaps leaving pre-mission, the group could select a leader---or have a leader randomly selected after entering the mission. This way no one would be sure who would have the "kick" vote and it couldn't be abused by idiots who spam areas, form groups then vote everyone 'off the island' right at mission's end.

you'd get people that would start monk characters(because they are always in high demand)...then join a group enter a mission and if they didn't have the "kick button" drop...leaving the group high and dry. Doen repeatadly this would be quite an annoyance.

Aniewiel · Jul 05, 2005, 08:07 PM // 20:07

There's no perfect solution but, obviously, something needs to be done.

bobrath · Jul 05, 2005, 08:29 PM // 20:29

Whatever solution comes out, it has to be simple to be functional and used.

Its great to think of a model where only a certain set of circumstances make a player kickable upon which the leader could choose to kick unless that person is the leader in which case a group vote.... ugh!

There is currently a voting system in GW. Its the skip scene voting. If not everyone in the group wants to skip, then you have to wait. Does anyone have a severe issue with this system? I'd hope not. Extending this to a kick (or perhaps force-solo if you're into the split instance idea) is not a huge leap. If its not unanimus, then no kick happens.

As I've stated before, a majority based voting does leave an opening for abuse as just three coordinated people is enough to ruin a 6 person party (majority of the game time). A leader based kick allows griefers to ruin an entire party. Its fine to say that you would only join a party if the leader showed maturity(?), but how does that help the vast majority of folks out there right now that join the first group they come across?

Simple rule: If everyone else in your party wants you gone, you're gone. I don't know about code implementation or anything like that, but the logic is easy enough that new folks just buying the game can grasp and use it.

Drakron · Jul 05, 2005, 08:36 PM // 20:36

Just something to think about.

"Leader" (first player in the party window) is the one that made the group, he made the party and you joined by your own free will.

Also be careful of what you ask ... imagine a party that is going around during a battle there are 3 gold drops, the leader knows he can have it all if he kicks the players fast and wait the minute so they are unassigned.

A voting system is not much better because if its requires everyone to vote and one vote no that group is pretty much done for, a voting system that requires majority also face that problem and others.

bobrath · Jul 05, 2005, 08:45 PM // 20:45

Sure, one "no" vote will derail a all-or-none vote... but that same face makes it far less prone to abuse by griefers.

If we assume that a way to kick is needed, then the real question is what is the option that is easiest to use, but also least likely to be abused?