"i need to go." *IDLE* --- annoying freeloaders

nachojim

Pre-Searing Cadet

Join Date: Jul 2005

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

Pre-Searing Cadet

Join Date: Jul 2005

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

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: May 2005

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

bobrath

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jun 2005

Texas

Scouts of Tyria

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

bobrath

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jun 2005

Texas

Scouts of Tyria

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

Pre-Searing Cadet

Join Date: Jul 2005

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

Aniewiel

Smite Mistress

Join Date: Jun 2005

The Land of AZ, USA

Rt/E

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

bobrath

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jun 2005

Texas

Scouts of Tyria

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

Pre-Searing Cadet

Join Date: Jul 2005

(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

bobrath

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jun 2005

Texas

Scouts of Tyria

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

Pre-Searing Cadet

Join Date: Jul 2005

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

EternalTempest

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Jun 2005

United States

Dark Side Ofthe Moon [DSM]

E/

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

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jun 2005

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

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Jun 2005

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

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Jun 2005

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

Aniewiel

Smite Mistress

Join Date: Jun 2005

The Land of AZ, USA

Rt/E

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

Miss Bailing

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jun 2005

A cubicle.

Free Collective [FC]

W/Mo

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

xaanix

Academy Page

Join Date: Jan 2005

Woodbridge NJ

[Nu] Nuclear Launch Detected

W/E

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

Pre-Searing Cadet

Join Date: Jul 2005

[TWM]

Mo/N

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

DrSLUGFly

Desert Nomad

Join Date: May 2005

European Server or International

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

tomcruisejr

tomcruisejr

Banned

Join Date: Apr 2005

well freeloaders are lesser evil than people who deliberately screw the whole mission.

anyhow, yea, i'd rather redo the whole mission even we're 99.9% done than finish it with a freeloader.

DrSLUGFly

DrSLUGFly

Desert Nomad

Join Date: May 2005

European Server or International

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcruisejr
well freeloaders are lesser evil than people who deliberately screw the whole mission.

anyhow, yea, i'd rather redo the whole mission even we're 99.9% done than finish it with a freeloader.
took me 2 hours to get our party into Snake Dance last night, then we had to quit cuz we were just getting wiped too badly...

I would have put up with a freeloader if there was a chance of getting past the dozens of trolls...

Kaylynn Of Ascalon

Kaylynn Of Ascalon

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: May 2005

California

i hate this as well. i have seen many times people pull this. they have to go but they leave their char in the group so they get the credit. Thats just soooo messed up.

snipes

snipes

Academy Page

Join Date: Apr 2005

i got fairly far with a group in the ring of fire. About 1/2 way though i went afk for ten minutes or so b/c the buildings fire alarn went off. I came back and they were waiting for me. so we went on and bea tthe mission. =). I had did tell them why i left bfore going afk.

Numa Pompilius

Numa Pompilius

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: May 2005

At an Insit.. Intis... a house.

Live Forever Or Die Trying [GLHF]

W/Me

1) Only leader can kick: Griefers Paradise. All the griefer has to do is start the team, then he's free to do whatever he likes, including kicking people criticising him. This option could kill the game, IMO. It's worth remembering that it takes absolutely nothing to become a leader in GW, it's not a position earned through trust or skill.

2) Only leader can initiate vote: much better, as it removes decision from ONE person and gives it to the group, so the risk of abuse is lower. Still means that griefers have an easy way of avoiding being kicked (through being leaders), the leader still has considerable power and considerable leeway for abuse (e.g. favoritism, or calling more or less random votekicks), and any leader will face tons of requests to call a vote when there's dissention in the group. Would probably lead to the fewest number of kicks over all.

3) FPS-style anyone-can-call votekick. Yes, there will be votekicks called back and forth and out of mischief or boredom. Hardly any of them will pass. The most likely to get griefers kicked, the least likely to lead to grief-kicking, but also the most likely to lead to bickering. Basically the only way to grief through anyone-can-call votekick is when everyone in the team except one player is in a guild or RL friends.

4) Kick-through-timeout. Really, truly, horribly bad idea. This game is instanced, and I'm sure I'm not the only guy who plays with all henchmen teams - meaning I can just leave my avatar & team in the middle of a mission to go eat dinner, and pick up again hours later.
Plus it's easy to bypass for malicious gamers. Scrap this idea, please.

5) Instance split. An attractive option in that noone really suffers, but the low threshhold will also mean that it becomes very, very, common for instances to be split. I'm guessing hardly any PUG will finish a mission intact, as the slightest disagreement will lead to a split. From a game mechanics POV this solution is also much more difficult than the others; like I've said I don't think it's a serious option.

Finally a personal opinion: I don't think votekicked players should be replaced by henchmen. Players that lose connection or leave on their own accord should be replaced, but not votekicked ones. Why? Because there should be a cost involved in kicking a player. It should hurt. Kicking should be used when a player is so disruptive the team is better off without him, not just because they think Alesia is a better monk.

Divinitys Creature

Divinitys Creature

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Apr 2005

Somewhere between the Real World and Tyria ;P

The Gothic Embrace [Goth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius
1) Only leader can kick: Griefers Paradise. All the griefer has to do is start the team, then he's free to do whatever he likes, including kicking people criticising him. This option could kill the game, IMO. It's worth remembering that it takes absolutely nothing to become a leader in GW, it's not a position earned through trust or skill.

2) Only leader can initiate vote: much better, as it removes decision from ONE person and gives it to the group, so the risk of abuse is lower. Still means that griefers have an easy way of avoiding being kicked (through being leaders), the leader still has considerable power and considerable leeway for abuse (e.g. favoritism, or calling more or less random votekicks), and any leader will face tons of requests to call a vote when there's dissention in the group. Would probably lead to the fewest number of kicks over all.

3) FPS-style anyone-can-call votekick. Yes, there will be votekicks called back and forth and out of mischief or boredom. Hardly any of them will pass. The most likely to get griefers kicked, the least likely to lead to grief-kicking, but also the most likely to lead to bickering. Basically the only way to grief through anyone-can-call votekick is when everyone in the team except one player is in a guild or RL friends.

4) Kick-through-timeout. Really, truly, horribly bad idea. This game is instanced, and I'm sure I'm not the only guy who plays with all henchmen teams - meaning I can just leave my avatar & team in the middle of a mission to go eat dinner, and pick up again hours later.
Plus it's easy to bypass for malicious gamers. Scrap this idea, please.

5) Instance split. An attractive option in that noone really suffers, but the low threshhold will also mean that it becomes very, very, common for instances to be split. I'm guessing hardly any PUG will finish a mission intact, as the slightest disagreement will lead to a split. From a game mechanics POV this solution is also much more difficult than the others; like I've said I don't think it's a serious option.

Finally a personal opinion: I don't think votekicked players should be replaced by henchmen. Players that lose connection or leave on their own accord should be replaced, but not votekicked ones. Why? Because there should be a cost involved in kicking a player. It should hurt. Kicking should be used when a player is so disruptive the team is better off without him, not just because they think Alesia is a better monk.
This pretty much says everything I would say about this. The solution needs to avoid griefing. Instance split seems to be best or party-split with henchie replacements, but even that has room for griefing since people could do this near the end of a mission and other players are not good at managing with henchies. I guess it has least room for abuse though. That final paragraph of yours is quite clever. Also people would slit instance or party over the slightest of disagreements.

Ashley Twig

Ashley Twig

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: May 2005

germany

Guild Of Openhearted Deeds

R/Mo

Quote:
Originally Posted by FelineFury
If the guy is't fighting, it's the same as if he isn't there right. Kicking him dosen't change that so maybe you need to go back to town anyway.
If he's NOT fighting, then yes, the result remains the same.
But kicking that character at least would make sure, that es's getting no more experience.

And what if he IS fighting too much?
You agree on playing a mission nice and slow and you have a rusher on board.
The team might be better off loosing one member and still win the mission.

bobrath

bobrath

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jun 2005

Texas

Scouts of Tyria

Not sure why folks are so tied to the idea of instance splits instead of kicking back to town. If someone is causing the group pain... why enable them to benefit any further?

Sure its a nice idea if you're out wandering/exploring and the group wants to go in two different directions, but that's not a kicking scenario. Lets keep this to removal of drains on the group and generic greif cleaning.

static deathbringer

static deathbringer

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Feb 2005

Ft Lauderdale florida, its hot here :(

The Harpers

W/Mo

the only thing i would like to see is a kick hechmen command, in case one of them gets stuck and hes the only one alive, or if a real person leaves the group he is automaticaly replaced by a henchmen

arnansnow

arnansnow

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Jun 2005

DOOM

E/N

Quote:
Originally Posted by static deathbringer
the only thing i would like to see is a kick hechmen command, in case one of them gets stuck and hes the only one alive, or if a real person leaves the group he is automaticaly replaced by a henchmen

I like the kick henchman idea, It is the only one that can't be abused.

I was going to piken square with henchman, and we all got killed against some enemies, but wait! Alesia is stuck behind a post way at the warp! I had to go back and try again, all because Alesia got stuck.

Ninna

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Apr 2005

Northeast USA

Guilded Rose

Me/

Id like to see an option to kick a member if someone hasent moved in over 15 minutes

I dont see how thats abuseable if they are an obvious leech

Aniewiel

Aniewiel

Smite Mistress

Join Date: Jun 2005

The Land of AZ, USA

Rt/E

Quote:
Finally a personal opinion: I don't think votekicked players should be replaced by henchmen. Players that lose connection or leave on their own accord should be replaced, but not votekicked ones. Why? Because there should be a cost involved in kicking a player. It should hurt. Kicking should be used when a player is so disruptive the team is better off without him, not just because they think Alesia is a better monk.
I don't like this. Why -should- hurt a bit to initiate a "last ditch option" to stop freeloaders? The team is already being penalized by having a non-playing person in the group. I suppose it's really no worse than the situation they're already in with a jerk hanging about the entrance to the mission but, still. When the party is formed, the assumption is that everyone will play. The rest of the team heads out believing this. When the sad reality of a freeloader shows up, they are stuck. I don't think that replacing a jackass freeloader with a henchman should be further punative in nature.

Besides...sometimes having a henchman is penalty enough.

Arvydas

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: May 2005

Soul Devourers

W/Mo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninna
Id like to see an option to kick a member if someone hasent moved in over 15 minutes

I dont see how thats abuseable if they are an obvious leech
as someone said before, set up a bot to just "move" your character every 15 mins.

an option to kick if someone hasn't interacted with the environment (attack/cast/loot) within the group radius would be better. it would require the freeloader to constantly keep up and do something, which is not what they want. it would not kick automatically because if someone need to rezone to save the party, he/she should not be kicked.

arnansnow

arnansnow

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Jun 2005

DOOM

E/N

I have the perfect Idea:

If someone is using a bot, they get kicked
If someone is leaching off a team, they get kicked
If someone is being a horrible jerk, screwing up the mission, they get kicked

I would love to have those implemented.

drowningfish999

drowningfish999

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: May 2005

Awakened Tempest [aT]

The only problem with kicking someone for standing there is it's so much easier just to tell your character to autofollow someone who's least likely to die. Most people don't pay attention to what other characters are doing in the battle, especially people like spellcasters. As long as it looks like the character is doing something, they won't get suspicious unless he doesn't pick up a rare drop or something.

Aniewiel

Aniewiel

Smite Mistress

Join Date: Jun 2005

The Land of AZ, USA

Rt/E

Of course, just because someone is 'least likely to die' doesn't mean they actually won't. Once that char dies and so does Mr./Ms. Autofollow who is then res'd, it becomes very apparent they aren't playing with the party. If they're AFK, they won't be able to institute autofollow again.

Arvydas

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: May 2005

Soul Devourers

W/Mo

Quote:
Originally Posted by drowningfish999
The only problem with kicking someone for standing there is it's so much easier just to tell your character to autofollow someone who's least likely to die. Most people don't pay attention to what other characters are doing in the battle, especially people like spellcasters. As long as it looks like the character is doing something, they won't get suspicious unless he doesn't pick up a rare drop or something.
autofollow will end when the one being followed stops, and u arrive at his/her spot.

Darkest Dawn

Darkest Dawn

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: May 2005

Ohio, USA

W/Mo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sereng Amaranth
Well if its done, it must be unanimous. In the AFK instance, this would be justified. But if 2-6 people don't like someone just because they stink, the last character that actually has respect for human kind would defeat the kick.
I agree. This is a good solution IMHO.

Mercury Angel

Mercury Angel

Avatar of Gwen

Join Date: Apr 2005

Wandering my own road.

Wow, first time it happened to me.

Start of the mission, Thunderhead Keep:


We kill 2 groups of mobs, and he AFK's.



And there's him later on, standing in the exact spot you get sent to after the cutscene. The group had 6/7 votes to skip the cutscene, but he was AFK, so we had to watch it all.

I'm going to send in the uncensored screenshots to ANET, and try and contact his guild. Such behaviour is intolerable.

DrSLUGFly

DrSLUGFly

Desert Nomad

Join Date: May 2005

European Server or International

bah... something like this not worth reporting

There's a chance that he was a parasite but there's also the chance that something serious came up... who knows...