Curse

nachojim · Jul 05, 2005, 08:55 PM // 20:55

In my opinion, a straight-out kick option for a party leader is not a good thing for this particular game. True, it is used in many MMOs (I come from WoW mainly) and it is used effectively. However, in this particular game it can be abused too easily; this game is heavily instance based, whereas others are true MMOs. In the normal MMOs, being kicked out of a group means you just stay where you are, but just without any party members. You're free to pick up any items that dropped for you or continue running down a path. In this game, you would be immediately dropped from the instance. And for those that say "Who would kick for no reason?" Reading a few of the posts on scammers makes me wary of it.

A vote kick would be a step up, but still presents the same problems as before. People can easily gang up and vote someone out (albeit, this would be less likely - but still easily done).

An idle kick would not work because it's quite easy to write a program or a script to move your character every minute or so.

The idea of a kick screen coming up when the person is idle (or outside the main group, designated by the group leader, for too long) seems like the best option. I also liked the seperate instances idea, but I only read the jist of it from this page.

In fact, my idea is based off of that, and perhaps it was already in it to begin with. What I propose (or agree with if it's been mentioned) is a combination of the kick screen coming up when a person has been idle (or outside the main group's radius for too long) and the instance idea. Perhaps when someone meets the conditions to be kicked, a vote is done for the kick. If the kick is successful, the player would find himself in a different instance, with the option of obtaining henchmen to aid him. Also, with the main group, they have the option of having a henchman to replace said player. Whether or not the same enemies that died in the first instance are dead in the second instance I leave for discussion.
This gives certain conditions for the freeloader to meet, so it is not too hasty. It prevents kick hungry players from doing it. It also leaves it so no players just spam kicks all over the place (the shockwave game "Inklink" comes to mind). And, in the event that the player was kicked unjustly, he still has a chance to finish the mission.

-nacho

weeniecj · Jul 05, 2005, 09:28 PM // 21:28

I feel that a conditional kick button for the party leader would work well as long as the conditions are effective.

Conditions could include things like a message response time. For instance the party leader messages a player and if there is no response within a certain time limit the option to kick is given. Or the leader designates his current location as a rally point and anyone not within a certain distance after a given interval becomes kickable.

The idea here is to give the party leader ways to check for active players in a reasonable way that doesn't inconvenience the group too much or give the party leader too much power.

I do also feel that unanimous votes initiated by the group leader have thier place. This gives the option to the group to get rid of a player that is active but is annoying the rest of the group. It is more inconvenient to get people to vote to kick someone, but if a player is irritating enough to need to be kicked I think people would be willing to take the time to vote the offending player out.

Granted my suggestions do give a lot of power to the party leader, but if they took the time to put together a group they are responsible for the party and should be justified in having this power. The power is limitted in that there has to be a condition to kick a player.

In addition the group should have the ability to, through unanimous vote, kick the leader. It's not too unreasonable to ask for a unanimous vote on the rare occasion the party leader needs to be kicked.

In conclusion I feel the leader needs the ability to kick idle players without the need to consult the rest of the party and to, with the participation of the party, remove unsavory characters from the group. With the addition of ability to 'mutiny' when the leader is the problem.

Thoughts?

Creston · Jul 05, 2005, 09:29 PM // 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZigZag Rollmeister

As far as a votekick option is concerned...I vote "no". Groups aren't large enough to be able to account for more than one griefer in your party under the proposed system. My preference would be to just give the group leader a kick ability, and replace the kicked member with an NPC Henchie. Once kicked, the kickee goes directly back to the city from where the mission was taken. I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than that.

This will NEVER work. I for one will never again join a group with a leader whom I don't know. So we fight all the way through the mission, and just before the end, the jerk leader kicks all of us, so only he alone can finish it. Whee, that's great fun.

The best way to do this is to have an activity counter. Total mission time is xx minutes, any player that has not been active (moving, casting spells, doing damage, any one of a few easily implemented random checks) for 75% of that time does NOT get credit for the mission.
This can be overcome by clever botting, but most griefers will probably not go that far.

Creston

bobrath · Jul 05, 2005, 09:33 PM // 21:33

Obviously, kick vote spamming would have to be addressed in any solution.

In my mind, any solution which relies on criteria leaves room for exploitation. Idle time -> click every 30 secs bot just as an example.

bobrath · Jul 05, 2005, 09:41 PM // 21:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by weeniecj

In conclusion I feel the leader needs the ability to kick idle players without the need to consult the rest of the party and to, with the participation of the party, remove unsavory characters from the group. With the addition of ability to 'mutiny' when the leader is the problem.

Thoughts?

I guess I'm stuck on why you want to limit the ability to do the kick to just the leader. Especially since you've included the mutiny option. How is voting out the leader any different then voting out player B?

weeniecj · Jul 05, 2005, 09:43 PM // 21:43

bobrath,

I agree. Let me go even further and say that any solution that can be implemented can be exploited. Period. There is no solution that anyone here can propose that will solve all of the problems and cannot be exploited.

I am not suggesting my ideas will stops bot farming, fix the economy, and stop world hunger. I am merely putting forward ideas that will give party leaders and party members alike the ability to minimize the grief they have to deal with in a PUG. Doing so with as much simplicity and little impact to gameplay as possible.

The beauty of placing conditions on kicking is that game code will not decide it wants to kick you because you got an uber drop from a mob. You are either kickable or not in the eyes of the logic behind conditions.

Aniewiel · Jul 05, 2005, 09:47 PM // 21:47

The other nice thing about some sort of a 'kick' option is that if a player -legitimately- gets dropped or is a just a jerk and leaves the mission party, the leader has the option to kick that gray square and replace it with a henchman, thereby keeping the party size intact.

bobrath · Jul 05, 2005, 09:48 PM // 21:48

Makes sense that a conditional based system protects drops, but imo once you start using anything beyond common sense (ie voting) you're opening loopholes that we can't think of but someone else will. You can minimize the voting abuse by requiring complete agreement. Sure that errs on the side of leaving folks in, but conditions do that as well.

Arkham's razor (or however its spelled), sometimes the simple solution is the best.

weeniecj · Jul 05, 2005, 09:53 PM // 21:53

(In response to message #85)

Bobrath,

I agree you should be able to kick player B, but I feel that only the group leader should have the ability to initiate a vote to kick player B. Reason being...

Player A feels that player B is messing up the way he/she wants to fight the mobs. Player B is simply doing what the party leader is suggesting. Player A decides to try and get player B kick and begins proposing votes every ten seconds to get player B kicked. Player B is bugged and starts initiating votes to get player A kicked. Player C now wants both kicked and initiates votes of thier own. Party chat spam ensues and nothing get accomplished.

If the party leader is the only one who can initiate a player kick than player A has to convince the leader that there is a valid reason to kick player A.

It boils down to the fact that someone has to be responsible for the group. The most obvious choice would be the party leader.

bobrath · Jul 05, 2005, 10:01 PM // 22:01

Interesting point. That's definitly where smart rules regarding initiating a vote kick (no more then 1 per minute for instance) would be very important. There could definitly be scenarios with belt measuring contests would occur. However I wonder how much of a minority they would be.

In the FPS world, majority rules kicks from servers are the norm, but there's also the admin that can step in and do whatever they want to. The distinction is you don't lose progress and the server is being paid for by that admin (in most cases). Being a leader in GW in my mind doesn't entitle you to as much...

You've got a very valid point tho weeniecj. I guess I'm willing to accept that a party leader being the only one to initiate a vote. Just as long as it would fall under the same vote spamming rules and not have any pre-conditions.

weeniecj · Jul 05, 2005, 10:15 PM // 22:15

That is precisely what I am proposing. The party leader can initiate a kick vote any time. Within reason of course.

The conditions are placed on kicks that don't involve the party. Does the party really need to vote to kick a player who went afk at the beggining of the mission and hasn't moved the entire mission?

I proposed the conditions as a way for the party leader to 'clean up' the party without getting everyone involved and dealing with the headache of getting a unanimous vote passed. Do you really want the party leader to ask you to get rid of the guy that went afk at the start of the mission? Or would you rather he just throw out the trash and get a henchman who will at least attempt to help the party?

EternalTempest · Jul 05, 2005, 10:21 PM // 22:21

I have similiar thoughts as weeniecj

Have a userless kick system in place. If person is afk, have a time out function or at worst a button that the leader can hit to start a time out timmer and if still afk there gone. Also may have a distance, say if one member is going to the other side of the map to do his thing leaving everyone hi and dry have a sytem after x min to kick or timmer button.

Also have it warn the potential player but not how it was iniated be it system or leader hitting the timmer button if they don't return.

The big problem with vote is having a mostly guild party kicking the non-guild member out right after they used them for what ever they needed.

Devino · Jul 05, 2005, 11:09 PM // 23:09

I disagree with any kick option and seems instance splitting would have similar problems.

How about an area that all players must be in (an AOE) to get into the cinema or to zone with the group. If one member is sitting idle half way across the zone and the end of the mission or the cinema is started then that player is left behind, its as if the group has 'mapped out' on him/her. They can still run the zone but the next instance they would be alone. Alot of missions are split like that with at least one cinema in the middle.

If one player is not with the group (ie. way outside the radar circle) then they won't get the exp. or get pulled to the next instance/town. This would also stop players from greiving others during a quest where your just about to finish the quest and one guy standing idle next to the zone pulls the group back out. And no more running low levels though the map.

See, no kicking, but give the player the option to kick themself, so-to-say.

generik · Jul 05, 2005, 11:48 PM // 23:48

Has anyone been to Thunderhead keep lately?

Recently there have been bots posing as monks who'd automatically join parties, and once mission started they DO NOTHING.

The fact that they do it whole day 24/7 does make it quite suspicious, but some hypothesized that by doing so, they get a share of gold from the other party members, and are getting rich slowly.

Sounds logical to me...

generik · Jul 05, 2005, 11:50 PM // 23:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devino

I disagree with any kick option and seems instance splitting would have similar problems.

How about an area that all players must be in (an AOE) to get into the cinema or to zone with the group. If one member is sitting idle half way across the zone and the end of the mission or the cinema is started then that player is left behind, its as if the group has 'mapped out' on him/her. They can still run the zone but the next instance they would be alone. Alot of missions are split like that with at least one cinema in the middle.

If one player is not with the group (ie. way outside the radar circle) then they won't get the exp. or get pulled to the next instance/town. This would also stop players from greiving others during a quest where your just about to finish the quest and one guy standing idle next to the zone pulls the group back out. And no more running low levels though the map.

See, no kicking, but give the player the option to kick themself, so-to-say.

Nah, I hope they don't do that.

There are those towns from time to time when you just have to have some strong beefy warrior run you through.. like Grendich courthouse (and I'm not talking about coming from Nolani, but from Piken)

You just won't make it otherwise

Aniewiel · Jul 05, 2005, 11:51 PM // 23:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by generik

Has anyone been to Thunderhead keep lately?

Recently there have been bots posing as monks who'd automatically join parties, and once mission started they DO NOTHING.

The fact that they do it whole day 24/7 does make it quite suspicious, but some hypothesized that by doing so, they get a share of gold from the other party members, and are getting rich slowly.

Sounds logical to me...

That's just.....frighteningly annoying.

Miss Bailing · Jul 06, 2005, 01:38 AM // 01:38

This has happened on my Mo/Me a few times, and quite frankly I ain't taking that crap no mores. But since I'm the precious monk (when I use her), I'll say what goes. 5-10 minutes into the mission and some punk AFKs on me thinking he'll get a free rush? **** no.

"We got a freeloader/afker. Regroup in Dist2. I ain't giving them the satisfaction."

Miss Bailing has left the game.

xaanix · Jul 06, 2005, 03:20 AM // 03:20

prior to the pvp patch, I would have defended these types of actions as retribution for forcing pvp players to endure pve. I'd done it myself when a team pissed me off. Actually had some morons calling me a noob in a mission.. while i was in n0 no less.

Hyperious Satanicus · Jul 06, 2005, 03:42 AM // 03:42

Being that Im a 20th level Monk, when I sign on to play, before the game can even load and render i get join requests up the arse. Its like being a super hot chick at a Gaming Convention.

Anyways, this isnt really a problem, most people take it in stride if they get refused. This one asswipe just insisted and kept on bugging the hell out of me. I told him to stop nicely, he wouldnt. So after 15 minutes of this I joined and the once in game I just sat on my ass and let everyone know what happend. Pissed off people but oh well, his fault.

The group did try to soldier on, but wouldnt you know, the same jerk was a horrible teamate. Just charge in, no game plan, no listening to his mates... die die and die.

After the game he kept sending me a Whisper cussing me out. I didnt reply and he just faded away...lesson learned? I dunno, nor do I care.

DrSLUGFly · Jul 06, 2005, 03:49 AM // 03:49

votekick or instance split... no parasites and no heroes, no room for either...