Curse

xenoranger · May 22, 2006, 01:06 PM // 13:06

EDIT: Updated Suggestion

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 the 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.

Original Message

I will do my best to remain civil, since this has been a major source of frustration.

I love the Fort Aspenwood mission/PvP area. Despite the fact that I enjoy the faction versus faction areas and such, I've had quite a few matches where there are several players AFK. They're just looking for a free ride. I even snagged a shot of one such player. In fact, the one player that comes to mind said," We will loose in about 5 minutes and get 300 faction points."

Same guy was lated quoted as saying this in local," Luxons I will open gates for you dont kill me okay?"

It's not just him, but it's every AFKer in any mission or other. I was capping life transfer and had an AFK'er who just wanted everyone to run the mission so he could get credit for it (and infused) without lifting a finger.

I'm thinking ANet should put a /kickafk (character name) or /bootplayer (character name). Basically, if the player is not playing, it puts it up to the party for a vote. A little trade menu-type window (like where it says view/decline) pops up and players can vote yes/no to boot that player. This would be an incentive for them to stick around and play, since getting booted would drop you back to town. As a grace perdiod, the game would give a 30-60 second window where that player can not be booted. THis ensures that they have ample time to move and actually participate. (and prevents spiteful boots)

The boot option would be available for missions primarily, but also available for anytime someone decides to AFK/not participate. Again, since it's a majority rules vote, you'd need at least half the party voting against you to be booted. I know it could cause a whole new world of issues for ANet, but it could also save a lot of player frustration by giving more incentive for others to participate.

Besides, ANet doesn't seem to follow up on anything anyway, so why not empower the players a littles more to resolve player issues immediately. The ignore list is one way players can stop unwanted communications and put a halt to some issues. Being able to boot players who are looking for a free ride would just be another.

Murk · May 22, 2006, 01:10 PM // 13:10

/signed

Good idea, even with normal missions..
Players join and just leave the rest of the team playing the mission for them, Useless

zhai · May 22, 2006, 01:13 PM // 13:13

/signed
Or kick player in Aspenwood/Jade Q if he doesnt move for 1 minute. it's fast mission. If u are Afk - pity - cya

Avarre · May 22, 2006, 01:13 PM // 13:13

Majority of other players to kick someone?

Scene: A 2 man UW run

Ecto drops for player 1
Player 2 (100% of non-player-1) kicks player1 for being 'afk'
Player 2 picks up an Ecto

Now if it was made in a way to prevent anything of that sort happening, then /signed

sLiceR · May 22, 2006, 01:13 PM // 13:13

/signed

maybe they are going to implement it when reconnects come (that way they can replace the booted player with a henchmen) or with another player if you are in random arena.

Murk · May 22, 2006, 01:15 PM // 13:15

What if you need to go to the toilet?

And ask the players to wait?
They kick you.. Bastards

Tarun · May 22, 2006, 01:16 PM // 13:16

This has been talked about and there is the possibility for it to be abused. The one way I could see this working is if they had an idle monitor. It's been discussed that there should be a method to change your friendslist status from Online to Away or Idle when you're afk and the mouse cursor has not moved for X minutes (1-10). If that person enters an idle state for say, ten minutes; then the votekick would be possible without a chance for abuse. The reason I say this is because if it is anything less, that person may have gone to the bathroom or something and that can take maybe 5 minutes or so. Another reason the votekick should be idle based is because if you're in a guild group but not a part of their guild and a green or other excellent rare drops for you, this would stop them from kicking you out if they tried because you're active.

So, if they implement a system as commented above, then I'll /sign for votekicking.

Undivine · May 22, 2006, 01:18 PM // 13:18

Wow... People actually helping the other team. I never thought of that one, but damn that's such an asshole thing to do. Damn those filthy Luxons!!!

Your proposal is very much like the Kick System proposal that was suggested a while back. For the life of me I can't imagine what good reason ANet would have for not putting such a feature in the game. These faction missions only heighten the need for it.

Roupe · May 22, 2006, 01:39 PM // 13:39

Well, as I see it you describe diffrent problems

1, regular afk -food break for 15 minutes, and getting a free ride

2, Afg (Away from group)- people that does something else, while the group is doing what they should do. and not in the compass view. Often this coincides with 1 & 3

3, Regualar bastards, scammers -for example sabotaging the mission , for whatever the reason (farming or troll), or running rangers refusing to give up

4, envy-people who get that item the rest of the group desires

emotes that just let ju kick people from the team Will be abused by category 3 people, and cause much greif , especially due to category 4 -therefore

My suggestions (tribute to Henchman, ln kick system thread)

/kickplayer insert name - an emote that kicks people that are too far away from the group (not in view), or has shown no activity for x number of minutes -would very nice, and would relive some headaches (perhaps the offender gets an countdown clock before he is booted, that the emoters can stop

/reportplater insert name -an emote that puts someone on the "shortlist" if a number of diffrent people have voted on him -this person could then be investigated, and punished if its a bastard. Naturally if someone is to frequently using the emote he too could be investigated and punished if he is misusing the emote -like for instance using it on non-bastards

This could cover most bases.

Tarun · May 22, 2006, 01:46 PM // 13:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roupe

/reportplater insert name -an emote that puts someone on the "shortlist" if a number of diffrent people have voted on him -this person could then be investigated, and punished if its a bastard. Naturally if someone is to frequently using the emote he too could be investigated and punished if he is misusing the emote -like for instance using it on non-bastards

Sadly that could be overly abused and cause way too many issues. The current report system makes it so people actually have to go to the website and report people. Meaning they have to gather up the evidence and everything and not be lazy. :P

Undivine · May 22, 2006, 01:59 PM // 13:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roupe

/reportplater insert name -an emote that puts someone on the "shortlist" if a number of diffrent people have voted on him -this person could then be investigated, and punished if its a bastard. Naturally if someone is to frequently using the emote he too could be investigated and punished if he is misusing the emote -like for instance using it on non-bastards

Actually, I quite like this idea. Anyone use gmail? You know how it's so effective at detecting spam? People report it and a collection of known spam is stored.

Reporting people doesn't neccessarily have to go straight to ANet. In most MMORPGs there is such a thing as reputation. This is because most MMORPGs take place on a server consisting of only 2000 people or so, so you are likely to see those people again.

ANet set up their network differently, and so you are not likely to see anyone on your ignore list ever again (thank goodness), or for that matter anyone else who you didn't put on your friends list. The population that you can meet is just too big to have a reputation.

Now if you have something like a /reportplayer command, and it can only be used on people you have grouped with in the last 5 minutes, and it can only be used once per person you report, then we can build a player reputation.

I'd have to give that idea some thought though.

xenoranger · May 22, 2006, 02:16 PM // 14:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Majority of other players to kick someone?

Scene: A 2 man UW run

Ecto drops for player 1
Player 2 (100% of non-player-1) kicks player1 for being 'afk'
Player 2 picks up an Ecto

Now if it was made in a way to prevent anything of that sort happening, then /signed

That's wrong.
It has to be a majority.

2 man.. 1 votes yes, 1 doesn't vote (or votes no), both stay.

It could be abused, but consider this...

You're given 1-2 min to vote.
A player can only be the target of a vote 3x (no more) per field excussion
Majority must agree ... IE: group of 8, 5 must vote yes.

GW Could use a repuatation, but then again, you could also get spiteful players who knock a players rep. No offense, but compared to other MMO's, GW does seem to have a more childish audience. Believe me, I enjoy the game, but I see a lot of players who pull stuff or flame others. I've filled up my ignore list more times than I can count in 3 months b/c of players.

Still, even if a person has a bad rep, then what? In random teams, you can't choose your group. What if you end up with 2-3 lazy SOB's in your group with bad reps. Also, rep can be used for player descrimination. I see the benefits and cons to a rep system. Then again, you could have people selling rep stuff. STupid things in Ascalon like... "Pay me 200g and I'll increase your rep". I've honestly never played in a game with a rep system, so I'm nto sure how that'd work, but I can say that the ability to kick players would be much better.

Roupe · May 22, 2006, 02:17 PM // 14:17

Quote:

Anyone use gmail? You know how it's so effective at detecting spam? People report it and a collection of known spam is stored.

Reporting people doesn't neccessarily have to go straight to ANet.

yes my thoughts exacly

Lepton CFd · May 22, 2006, 02:50 PM // 14:50

There should be a /votekick <playername> command. Everyone in the group has to vote if the player should be kicked. If that player is kicked and they have items that have dropped for them, those items are eliminated. This would limit the /kick abuse, and would eliminate the desire to kick someone simply because they have an item that they want.

I'm not sure if the /votekick should be a unanimous only vote, meaning that EVERYONE has to vote that that player should be kicked, or if it should only be majority.

xenoranger · May 22, 2006, 02:57 PM // 14:57

Didn't think of it that way, but yea, if they have a glob of ecto (as in a previous example), once they're kicked, that is offered to them in the town/outpost.

Or, just eliminate that drop entirely. I mean, the player is getting kicked for a reason.

Unreal CHampionship II (Xbox) had a system where it measured a player's reliability. THey recorded your drops and aveage life time in a game. You could view another player's profile and see if he/she is prone to dropping. I don't recall offhend, bu it think you could set the server to disallow players with a certain % drop rate according to Epic's servers.

Some players take the game seriously (rather.. play it hardcore). As such, there needs to be a way for more serious players to avoid the frustration caused by others who don't want to participate.

kryshnysh · May 22, 2006, 03:26 PM // 15:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roupe

/reportplater insert name -an emote that puts someone on the "shortlist" if a number of diffrent people have voted on him -this person could then be investigated, and punished if its a bastard. Naturally if someone is to frequently using the emote he too could be investigated and punished if he is misusing the emote -like for instance using it on non-bastards

If ANet can spare the manpower to analyze logs, this is the best idea I've seen for how to deal with afkers. It doesn't have nearly the same potential for abuse, and whether you like it or not, ANet has to keep the potential for abuse down.

It would also allow ANet to easily prioritize. 1 vote against someone, probably someone being spiteful. 11 votes, they were afk a battle. 100 votes, they were mostly likely afk 10+ battles, missions, etc.

Priest Of Sin · May 22, 2006, 03:38 PM // 15:38

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

/unsigned

Drow Lor · May 22, 2006, 03:44 PM // 15:44

/signed

It is a pet peeve of mine as well. I just dont understand it. Mostly, I have seen it from lower level char and I have run into some 20 lvl that are trying to complete back log missions and such...but mostly lower level who dont have the skill set to do alot. Especially in the maguuma and the desert. As for the infusion mission, that has to be the worst one of all. Both times I have went on that mission, atleast one char just sits back and rides the coaster in the back. On a third try, we had one and the char was waiting by the seer and I went and agro'd some shadows...he was offed quickly and nobody revived him. I died as well and left telling the team not to revive me since I punk'd one of our team members. I hope that taught that char a lesson.

Ira Blinks · May 22, 2006, 03:45 PM // 15:45

/not signed

as it been pointed out, there is no sure way to prevent abuse of this feature

Tarun · May 22, 2006, 03:48 PM // 15:48

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

Check out my post, it might help. Or if they get kicked it does like the end of a mission where you still get your loot.