"i need to go." *IDLE* --- annoying freeloaders
drowningfish999
How bout if a player is idle for a certain amount of time in a mission. All the other players get a dialog box asking if they want to drop this player. If they know hes afk or something, they can just say no. But if a majority say yes, he gets kicked.
Talesin Darkbriar
Curious.
Every other game has a /kick function in it for groups, yet there is never a hue and cry about how it is abused - much less used. I think this is much ado about nothing.
The 5+ years I played EQ, I kicked players from groups once - and it was because he kept training the group and getting us all killed repeatedly.
If people legitimately have to go AFK; a simple typed message:
"AFK - bio break" usually does wonders.
Otherwise, I agree with the poster who suggests "let them die" and continue from there. Joining a group and immediately going AFK is standard procedure for the freeloading crowd.
Every other game has a /kick function in it for groups, yet there is never a hue and cry about how it is abused - much less used. I think this is much ado about nothing.
The 5+ years I played EQ, I kicked players from groups once - and it was because he kept training the group and getting us all killed repeatedly.
If people legitimately have to go AFK; a simple typed message:
"AFK - bio break" usually does wonders.
Otherwise, I agree with the poster who suggests "let them die" and continue from there. Joining a group and immediately going AFK is standard procedure for the freeloading crowd.
Tsukiyomi
So I was trying to do Abaddon's Mouth (or whatever the second to the last mission is called) and the leader, who is also one of our warriors, says "sorry i g2g", but he doesn't leave the group, and just sits down and doesn't do anything. I couldn't stand the fact that I might give this guy a free ride through the mission, so I apologized to my team and leave. Also, besides for the afker, another person left, which would've made the mission harder to do with less people.
Anubis Set
ArenaNet should implement a feature that kicks anyone who is idling for more than 5 minutes during a mission. I don't see any reason why someone should be afk for more than 5 minutes during a mission. Once the player is kicked, a dialog box will appear asking the leader of the group to choose a henchman, if desired, to replace the kicked player.
A voting system could be nice, but it might not work well as everyone thought it would be. But I'm willing to try it out. After all, lately Guild Wars has been a game in progress as we have seen with all of these new features ingame from these patches.
A voting system could be nice, but it might not work well as everyone thought it would be. But I'm willing to try it out. After all, lately Guild Wars has been a game in progress as we have seen with all of these new features ingame from these patches.
Aniewiel
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anubis Set
ArenaNet should implement a feature that kicks anyone who is idling for more than 5 minutes during a mission. I don't see any reason why someone should be afk for more than 5 minutes during a mission. Once the player is kicked, a dialog box will appear asking the leader of the group to choose a henchman, if desired, to replace the kicked player.
|
Kudos, Anubis!
Algren Cole
actually....any mission can be completely with 5 out of 6, 3 out of 4, or 7 out of 8....there is really very little need to max out your party...it's just easier that way. Freeloaders don't bother me...it's his/her 50 bucks...not mine.
Sekkira
Hey, I once took down glint with a party of 5 + one henchman :>
Vilaptca
A time thing is the bad. If its the people who are going AFK to finish the mission without helping then they will do whatever needs to be done to stop the timer right before it ends. All they have to do is set a timer for like 4:55 minutes or something and then come back and move their character a little bit. Thus reseting their timer and coming back the next 4:55 to move again.
If you read my other post, I already addressed this. If they are going to do a timer, then it needs to be that the person has X minutes, say we'll use your 5 minutes, to run back to the "zone" (as one of the people said above me) that the group is currently in. In some missions this would be impossible. Some missions are huge, and if that AFKer was gone for 4mins then he'll have to run to where the current group is in a minute.
I think combination kicks would work best, like a vote/zone/timer/instancesplitting thing. Like they have a timer on them, which can get set off by them being in the wrong zone, and when that timer goes off, it initiates a vote, and if the vote has a majority (getting everyone to vote is a pain in the ass), then the instance is split and the afker is replaced with a henchmen of the SAME profession. I don't want Orion if we just lost a warrior. Actually I don't want Orion at all...
If you read my other post, I already addressed this. If they are going to do a timer, then it needs to be that the person has X minutes, say we'll use your 5 minutes, to run back to the "zone" (as one of the people said above me) that the group is currently in. In some missions this would be impossible. Some missions are huge, and if that AFKer was gone for 4mins then he'll have to run to where the current group is in a minute.
I think combination kicks would work best, like a vote/zone/timer/instancesplitting thing. Like they have a timer on them, which can get set off by them being in the wrong zone, and when that timer goes off, it initiates a vote, and if the vote has a majority (getting everyone to vote is a pain in the ass), then the instance is split and the afker is replaced with a henchmen of the SAME profession. I don't want Orion if we just lost a warrior. Actually I don't want Orion at all...
arnansnow
Maybe they could make it so that if people are AFK for more than a quarter of the time of the total mission time, they don't get the reward, and don't get the new town and get teleported back to the starting town with a warning.
Algren Cole
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vilaptca
A time thing is the bad. If its the people who are going AFK to finish the mission without helping then they will do whatever needs to be done to stop the timer right before it ends. All they have to do is set a timer for like 4:55 minutes or something and then come back and move their character a little bit. Thus reseting their timer and coming back the next 4:55 to move again.
|
run an application that moves your mouse every 30 seconds...you're character would never be "idle"
Calimar
Yeah, it's their 50 bucks, but I should have a choice to let myself be annoyed by them or not. If it happens once, no biggie, but there are times you have to sweat on missions, and pass lots of time in full concentration on keyboard/mouse/screen. It's fun, sure as hell. And it's tiring, sure as hell. Especially when you're trying the same mission for 3-4 times and everytime there's the idiot aggroing 6 groups, or the jerk rushing in when you should not, or people going afk for the entire mission... well, there are times when you'd just drop them and go without. There are times when someone fights their buttocks off for the whole mission and have to go.
Me says if someone idles for more than 5 minutes during a mission make them "kickable" - then the leader has the chance to kick the person but do not HAVE to - say it's a friend that does have a problem, or someone who fought with you all the way through and can't stay till the end for some reason. For the rest, I second Anubis proposal, sounds quite reasonable.
Ah, I'm still for the voting system: unanimous of course (except for the kicked one). Of course, if you meet a group of 7 jerks and you get booted at end of mission it's gonna be definitely a pain in the butt, but after what do they get from it? They won't get more experience. I can't see this being a big problem.
My .02.
Me says if someone idles for more than 5 minutes during a mission make them "kickable" - then the leader has the chance to kick the person but do not HAVE to - say it's a friend that does have a problem, or someone who fought with you all the way through and can't stay till the end for some reason. For the rest, I second Anubis proposal, sounds quite reasonable.
Ah, I'm still for the voting system: unanimous of course (except for the kicked one). Of course, if you meet a group of 7 jerks and you get booted at end of mission it's gonna be definitely a pain in the butt, but after what do they get from it? They won't get more experience. I can't see this being a big problem.
My .02.
Aniewiel
They could also make it that the AFKer (for lack of a better word) wouldn't get credit for the mission if they were not within X number of "screens" of the rest of the group. Since "autofollow" isn't presently IG (and NEVER should be), this would require them to keep up or get out.
Also, when the group moves X number of screens away from an AFKer, the option pops up to remove them from the party.
I realize that there are times when the group is mostly dead and one player is valiantly making a dash for the end or for a transition. I'm not sure how that instance could be handled in -any- system.
Also, when the group moves X number of screens away from an AFKer, the option pops up to remove them from the party.
I realize that there are times when the group is mostly dead and one player is valiantly making a dash for the end or for a transition. I'm not sure how that instance could be handled in -any- system.
Hoyt
When leading, I've started making the announcement at the beginning of any PuG that if at any point during the run/mission/quest/hunt someone seems to be freeloading & can't offer an explanation - the whole shebang (#!,0,end) will be restarted/regrouped and they will be bumped....regardless of the point of progress.
Anybody that has issue with this condition is free to leave before we even start & everybody knows from the get go that it is a condition of the run.
I always take into account lag, bio needs, phones, doorbells & babies.
I have yet to have a real player take issue with it.
This technique seems to weed out the ner-do-wells pretty well.
*knocks on wood*
Anybody that has issue with this condition is free to leave before we even start & everybody knows from the get go that it is a condition of the run.
I always take into account lag, bio needs, phones, doorbells & babies.
I have yet to have a real player take issue with it.
This technique seems to weed out the ner-do-wells pretty well.
*knocks on wood*
ZigZag Rollmeister
I've only had one problem with a freeloader to date, and he apparently did it because he was angry that someone else in the group was acting as leader, instead of him, the 'official' group leader. (The only thing official was his spot on the party list). Anyway, after he was single handedly responsible for blowing the bonus on our mission (about halfway through), he died and asked not to be ress'ed. When we asked him why he said it was because noone was listening to his commands, and he was pissed that people weren't following him. We ress'ed him anyway, then he proceeded to run far away on a suicide mission so we couldn't res him again.
Funny thing is that in a party of six, we lost one guy as soon as the mission started, another guy when we blew the bonus, and then this guy...who, for some reason, was so hooked on his own ego, that he didn't want to play out the mission just to spite the group.
Needless to say, thanks to the assumed group leader, we still managed to finish the mission with only 3 party members (thank god we had a monk).
(As an afterthought, I scrolled up that chat window to see what 'commands' we had apparently ignored. There wasn't even one. Chances are that the guy was using the trade channel or guild channel to try to lead our PUG.)
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.
Funny thing is that in a party of six, we lost one guy as soon as the mission started, another guy when we blew the bonus, and then this guy...who, for some reason, was so hooked on his own ego, that he didn't want to play out the mission just to spite the group.
Needless to say, thanks to the assumed group leader, we still managed to finish the mission with only 3 party members (thank god we had a monk).
(As an afterthought, I scrolled up that chat window to see what 'commands' we had apparently ignored. There wasn't even one. Chances are that the guy was using the trade channel or guild channel to try to lead our PUG.)
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.
Algren Cole
if they are kicked they should be left in the mission alone...it'd be funnier than sending them back to the outpost
Vilaptca
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Algren Cole
run an application that moves your mouse every 30 seconds...you're character would never be "idle"
|
Algren Cole
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vilaptca
Oh! Wow...time things just completely won't work...well...if they are X "zones" away for so long, then they will get kicked. I don't know. It's annoying though, but my teams have beaten missions without that idler, who magically comes back when you finish.
|
computers arent bound by the same laws/physics people....there is literally nothing that is impossible for a computer to do(as long as you stay within the scope of computing)....there will always be a way to get around everything people find annoying in this game.
smitty-gw
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by exploding flowers
ANET, we need the vote kick system.
|
Agreed to many times over on many posts. Yes, their is always going to be abuse, but let's try it out. Changes aren't permanent. A-net can eliminate the function if they see or hear it does more harm than good.
It's not just a reaction for the idlers but the griefers as well. When you allow these minority nOOb types ruin the experience for the overwhelming majority of courteous and cooperative players, then you truly have failed.
If A-net allows the nOObs to misbehave with impunity, then the nOObs will continue to do so, obviously.
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.
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. How? Some punk starts a group for a mission, gets 95% of the way through the mission and then kicks everyone else. He completes the mission, gets the reward and you and the other players are left with wasted time and a bad taste in your mouth.
I don't understand why folks arae against the everyone has to vote yes rule. Sure, you could have two punks team up to make your group disfunctional, but then you can just resort to the leave and regroup tactic that we have now. Other folks say, "folks wont pay attention to a vote dialog"... That can be solved with a default vote after 30+ seconds. Ok, what about the "folks will just vote yes to get rid of the dialog"... Well assuming a punk decides to use this to his advantage, it will be obvious right away and you can either leave the group or turn it around and vote him out. Yes someone may have been unlucky enough to be the voted off one, but I'm willing to take that chance in exchange for the ability to keep idlers, map swastikaers, spammers, and rabid aggros off my team.
Sure there are a bunch of folks in this game that don't pass a clue check, but in general folks do get annoyed by the same things and given a chance to do something about it... they will.
I don't understand why folks arae against the everyone has to vote yes rule. Sure, you could have two punks team up to make your group disfunctional, but then you can just resort to the leave and regroup tactic that we have now. Other folks say, "folks wont pay attention to a vote dialog"... That can be solved with a default vote after 30+ seconds. Ok, what about the "folks will just vote yes to get rid of the dialog"... Well assuming a punk decides to use this to his advantage, it will be obvious right away and you can either leave the group or turn it around and vote him out. Yes someone may have been unlucky enough to be the voted off one, but I'm willing to take that chance in exchange for the ability to keep idlers, map swastikaers, spammers, and rabid aggros off my team.
Sure there are a bunch of folks in this game that don't pass a clue check, but in general folks do get annoyed by the same things and given a chance to do something about it... they will.
bobrath
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
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.
If someone is truly an ass, post the screenshots here. Inform the community about these people.
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.
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
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.
|
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
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
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. |
Sir Skullcrasher
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
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. |
womble
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.
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
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Algren Cole
I was that kid
|
Arvydas
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
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.
|
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
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.
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
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
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:
This limits the abuse on the leaders end because they need a reason to kick someone.
- 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
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
There's no perfect solution but, obviously, something needs to be done.
bobrath
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.
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
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.
"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
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?
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?