Curse

Priest Of Sin · May 22, 2006, 10:32 PM // 22:32

Due to the revisions to your suggestion, I am ALL for it!!! Just keep people from abusing it, and you've got yourself (as the asians say) A A-OK SUPER FINE IDEA!!!

felinette · May 25, 2006, 11:46 AM // 11:46

I'm not sure this is a good idea. As others have said, it's open to abuse. I'd rather there be some type of idle meter, as previously suggested, that automatically kicks someone who hasn't participated for a certain length of time.

Even though it would take votes, I can see parties kicking someone who's just learning, or who makes one mistake (and we've all made them), or who isn't playing the way someone else wants them to play. There's no way to limit the grounds to what is proposed. I hate afkers and people who repeatedly screw up as much as the next person, but at the end of the day, it's only a game, and a mission/quest can always be attempted again.

Ninna · May 25, 2006, 12:51 PM // 12:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by felinette

I'd rather there be some type of idle meter, as previously suggested, that automatically kicks someone who hasn't participated for a certain length of time

agree

Voting is abuseable -- Idle meter is not

Leon_Ux-ixen · May 25, 2006, 01:15 PM // 13:15

This idea can go both ways as it has been said a great many times. I like it for the most part. But the ways this can be abused can go on forever. The "dle Meter" is the only way this could not be abused. So like the one person people don't get kicked out for not playing the way the group leader wants or making a mistake. Now what would be cool is the hench of the same build. But would the hecnh copy the kicked playersskill set or just be the same proffesion. Example I'm a R/Mo say I was idel for to long 10mins being max. I get kicked would the Ranger hench replace me or one with my same build and proffesion?

For now
/unsigned

xenoranger · May 25, 2006, 01:46 PM // 13:46

Idle meter can be tricked. You can have people that aren't AFK but are doing stupid stuff like stepping every once in a while. Then it looks like they're doing something and you get a false count as to how much they're contributing.

In the match that sparked this topic, the monk that was not participating was chatting with us the entire time and saying how he didn't see a point to helping. Basically, he just figured he'd get away with just sitting there and that's it. Most people don't respond, but this guy was explaining how stupid we were for trying to win.

He basically got the free points for everyone else's effort.

Now, consider your idle meter. All someone would have to do is move every so many seconds, and it looks like they're never idle. Then you get false readings. I REALLY think a reputation meter should be in there, but I also think being able to boot people who are not participating or hindering progress should be an option. Y'all keep saying how it'll get abused. Well, what about the people who're currently abusing the system? They're abusing the fact that you can stay in a match and not do anything, while reaping the benefits. If ANet created some way to eject those players from the game, that'd be optimal. Especialy since the players who are being hurt by the actions (or lack there of) by the offender are working against them.

Abusable, sure, but what boot system isn't? In Halo, just stand infront of aplayer on your team you want to boot. When they kill you (prob not intentional on their part), you can hold "X" to eject them.The concept of filling in with a hench is and isn't good. It is good because you then replace teh lost player, but it isn't good because you don't make people carefully consider the ejections. In Halo, you boot someone, there is no bot to take his/her place. As such, your choice to boot or allow a player must be based in the overall scheme of things. If thsi player is really screwing with you and hurting your progress, then booting them is the best choice. If the player is OK and not doing much to really cause problems, then you should probably keep them around.

Yes, the loss of a teammember is hard on the rest, but if they were doing nothign to begin with, the concept of not replacing them with a hench makes players more cautious about their ejections.

Ira Blinks · May 25, 2006, 01:49 PM // 13:49

"idle meter" will always be either easy to fool or a troublemaker for support classes.

Roupe · May 25, 2006, 02:00 PM // 14:00

As for people doing something that the team wasnt wanting, like a monk that doesnt heal -but just follows (or another proffesion just following, but rarely doing any killing -skill capper for instance)

I have seen several instances where a Monk/W only have used healing breese (4+) as his only teammate heal.

I strongly suspects its sad Smiting monks -because they wouldnt be invited if they would be frank about their smiting. Often another monk in the group, manages to fill the hole left by the "non-healing" monk

There will always be leechers that adapts, and Rejects that masquerades in order to prevent rejection

Regarding the replacement hench, it is also to prevent the dropratio becoming better after kicking someone. The henches affect drops, as if they were real players.

Sure we could have a system where the drop ratio isnt improving after a teammate is lost, and no henchmen is sent as a substitute

Don Zardeone · May 25, 2006, 02:17 PM // 14:17

If this voting crap ever gets implemented I'll quit GW for ever, just how I quit all those other games with crap voting systems.

You know what will happen?

Example: RTCW: ET
If you're too good, you get kicked. No matter what, you'll get kicked.

I've been permabanned from several servers (public ones, just like these missions are public)
Why? I singlehandedly held a chokepoint or I played a medic and used my SMG-sniping techniques to kill people from long range with only a small machinegun.

Who kicked me? The enemy team because they were getting frustrated. My own team because they thought I was hacking or they were frustrated because they wanted my kills.

Same thing will happen here.

Other example: some freaky korean thing.
If they don't like your name, they kick.

Everybody votes yes, why?
BECAUSE EVERYONE IS TOO STUPID TO CHECK
or because they're lazy.

Once systems like this get implemented, everyone who gets a votekick is GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT

And you can't prove anything in the 2 seconds the kick stays on because people will want the dam message out of their screen.

A big /nonsigned

Why on earth did so many people sign this idea?

Go check other games.

If I'm allowed to post links to fora for other games in which there is a lot of swearing then I can give you links of polls in which the big majority of players go for the GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT way of thinking.

I refuse to hold back and act stupid just so a bunch of noober wammos don't kick me. I'll play to win and if that means crushing people then they'll be crushed.

This system WILL be abused.

Random quotes off other fora:

Quote:

A vote starts but you don't know why they're kicking the guy. Do you press Y or N?

Quote:

Guilty until proven innocent.

If I don't know the guy, I just kick him out.

Quote:

If I just joined or haven't seen any wrongdoing, I'll ask why, and if a bunch of people respond with reasons, then yes. Otherwise I either hit n or don't participate in the vote.

Quote:

I'd rather have the bastard out of the game ASAP rather than him just lingering around for 5 minutes until I figure out what's going on. If he didn't do anything....too bad for him I guess. There's always other games.

Quote:

I hit Y without discrimination.

Happens to me all the time. It's my God-given right to be a bitter sunnuva*****.

Quote:

I usually look at their name before anything else. First I check to make sure it's not me. Then I press y.

Quote:

this is gonna sound mean but
if im fighting som1 really hard ill push y cuz its ezer 2 get 2
but if i have time
ill just wait and see

Quote:

lol if its team deathmatch and there on the other team then i hit y everytime lol lol

Quote:

i'll just press Y, innocent or not im not taking chances....

Quote:

...remember this one time...i pressed y without knowing who im kicking...and it turns out its me!!!
and i got kicked

Quote:

I usually press Y everytime, hacker or no hacker. Well, sorry for him...

DONT GIVE POWER TO MORONS!

Ira Blinks · May 25, 2006, 02:31 PM // 14:31

quoted for truth:

Quote:

because people will want the dam message out of their screen.

Most players have no clue of what is going on on battlefield. They are too busy with they characters. Tho I would think it would be exactly opposite of what Don Zardeone described due to click-no-think-later reflex most online inhabitants have.

Don Zardeone · May 25, 2006, 02:33 PM // 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ira Blinks

quoted for truth:

Most players have no clue of what is going on on battlefield. They are too busy with they characters. Tho I would think it would be exactly opposite of what Don Zardeone described due to click-no-think-later reflex most online inhabitants have.

Huh what do you mean? I don't get it X.x

xenoranger · May 25, 2006, 02:42 PM // 14:42

So... you're saying you'd rather have people leeching your efforts? It's only your teammates that can kick you and the decision to kick should be considered before hand.

Sure, there will be abuse, but when I go into an Alliance Battle or other Faction Vs Faction battle, I want to have everyone working. No slackers.

If you have a better system for punishing slackers, I'd like to hear it. The ability to kick puts teh team at a disadvantage, but also empowers the team to drop useless players. You'd have to be an idiot to drop a good player. And if the person is running in and getting killed a lot, who cares, so long as he/she is helping. Yes, you get noob mistakes, but I'd rather have the ability to kick/boot a player than have to restart the mission.

I don't think ANet will put a system in of reputation any time soon. Plus, you can also descriminate against people with a reputation system. Kinda like Karma systems on some message boards. People see you have bad karma/repuation and either don't want you or ignore you. I know I would be weary about letting people with a negative on their repuation into my group. It usually means that they're abusive. Although, if ANet actually spent the manpower to review why some players are getting negatives to their karma, that would work toward the benefit of the community.

STill, let the community moderate itself. Not sure who said that earlier, but it's true. If the community moderates itself, you will come to a point where sometimes the power is abused, but other times it works to improve the game. And, you can report people who are requesting kicks for little to no reason. If enough ejects are requestsed by a player, it's obvious that they're abusing the system, or just ending up with worthless players.

Mr_eX · May 25, 2006, 02:43 PM // 14:43

The problem with a /votekick system is that people can just gang up and boot a player for a completely subjective reason that's irrelevant to gameplay. Democracy has no place on the internet.

An automatic idle-kicker doesn't work because not only is it easily circumvented, honest players who are getting food or going to the bathroom would probably get booted by it undeservedly.

IMO, the party leader should get a /bootafk option that the leader can activate after a certain period of time. This way, the leader has the ability to delineate who's leeching and who is just like "brb 5 minutes" and will actually come back.

Sphinx2k · May 25, 2006, 02:48 PM // 14:48

im gonna have to say a nah on this for now as well could see it doing some good but it is still very highly abuseable for I.E u could have say a guild go around and just for fun mess with ppl, let u in get so far and just kick u for no reason but there amusment, U could get it to where your grp ragekicks u becuz u r getting all the good drops so they kick u so u don't get anymore/RageKick u cuz the player is a noob/Ragekick u cuz u did somthing like argo 2 grps instead of one pissing off members in the grp etc etc the list can go on. Kicking afk ppl is somthing i don't see coming around as anets current stand is there is nothing in there rules that say there doing anything wrong.

As for #2 i've personal havn't seen anyone just start sacing them selfs in a kill count arena so the other team can win but there r easier ways of handeling with this and a very simple one go with ppl u know id rather see anet do somthing about the ppl who go into the pvp arenas that r simply built for running and just run and run and run til your team had enough and leaves giviing them and easy win.

as for #3 ppl who r being excessivly abusive through words or actions should be left the way it is take a screenshot of it and report them to guild wars support. As this can also get abused I.E player is a noob and makes a mistake player2-6 start pissing off the noob, Noob responds with cures words etc oh look we have an excuse to kick him now cuz hes being abusive and using bad words lets kick him and get a henchie so he doesn't get any credit for helping us up to this point in the mission.

/un-signed

Caleb · May 25, 2006, 02:50 PM // 14:50

Imagine being 4 hours into Urgoz or The Deep, and suddenly realizing that the incredible guild group that let you in as their *insert profession here* only needs their core 7 of 12 to finish off the important stuff?

"Thanks for your time guys, you did great!" you hear before they vote kick all 5 of the non Guild members, and then complete the final areas alone and collect the proceeds of everyone's hours of hard work.

/NOT SIGNED - anyone that has ever played CSS or other games with majority vote kick should realize that it would be a horrid implementation in a game where some missions/quest areas can take hours to complete. It's one thing to have to restart a 4 minute CSS map, quite another to restart ThunderHead Keep because 5 people thought it would be funny to finish without you.

xenoranger · May 25, 2006, 02:55 PM // 14:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_eX

IMO, the party leader should get a /bootafk option that the leader can activate after a certain period of time. This way, the leader has the ability to delineate who's leeching and who is just like "brb 5 minutes" and will actually come back.

In some matches (IE: Jade Quarrey & Fort Aspenwood) you can't choose your party leader.

Thief™ · May 25, 2006, 03:02 PM // 15:02

I am all for this! I am finding a rise in the number of afk's or "free-riders" recently.

I see a few problems though. If it is an AFK boot vote, we need to consider the fact that people will be kicked for other reasons.

● Guy accidentally lures a group
● Team engages group
● Few team members die and gain DP
● Team defeats group
● Team flames Guy
● Team-members that die vote to kick Guy
● Rest of team votes to kick Guy (Don't want to seem to be on Guys side)
● Guy has been voted out of the group
● Guy is warped back to Outpost/Town

I don't think this will be implemented, but if it does, and is only able to kick actual afk's, then only one thing to do:

/signed

Ninna · May 25, 2006, 03:02 PM // 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ira Blinks

"idle meter" will always be either easy to fool or a troublemaker for support classes.

if someone NEVER MOVES, NEVER SPEAKS, NEVER USES a SPELL/SKILL

thats what I call a ticking Idle meter

if someone is Idle like that for 10 minutes-- they are leeching

Ira Blinks · May 25, 2006, 03:08 PM // 15:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninna

if someone NEVER MOVES, NEVER SPEAKS, NEVER USES a SPELL/SKILL

thats what I call a ticking Idle meter

if someone is Idle like that for 10 minutes-- they are leeching

so what? If you can make a bot to keep clicking "enter mission" button, you can make same bot take a step forward and cast healing sig every 30 seconds. "Idle timer" will only create problems for legimate players, thats it.

KIDGOOCH · May 25, 2006, 03:09 PM // 15:09

seems it could be misused, if majority are guildies, they could eject non-guildies at end of mission at payoff (Tombs comes to mind). If you ejected non-guildies there with only The Darkness' left, who could stop you, and your guildmates would take all the spoils. An alternative would be for anyone AFG (away from group to recieve a notice to rejoin group within 3 - 5 minutes or be kicked (though this could work against runners as well).

xenoranger · May 25, 2006, 03:15 PM // 15:15

Y'know....

They could always divy points out based on actions performed.

I mean like... give each action a rating and then divy teh ammount at the end.

Say,

Attacking, casting, maintaining enchantments all have points given.

Players who are actually helping will be doing all of this. So, when it tallies up the end of the match, they could divy points out based on who did what. Realistically, in an 8 man team, you should have people performing 12.5% (roughly) of the actions on your team. So, if there are 1000 faction points awarded to the team, whatever your percentage must be above a certain % of the total actions to gain a fair share.

hmm.... thinking.
I mean, a monk who only self heals will only get .. say.... 1 action point. Healing another gives 5. Necros managing minions get a certain count based on how many minions they're managing. Warriors get 1 action poitn per attack (since they'll no doubtedly be attacking at all times and could seriously swing the curve).

Just a thought since y'all are saying the ability to kick players isn't good. I vote to kick players, but if you want it to be a matter of participation, then having an action count would work best. Plus, fi the player fails to make so many actions, they would fail the quest/mission and not get credit for it.

At this point, I can see abuse, but there really is no PERFECT way to prevent AFK's and leechers.