/bootafk (for those who want a free ride)

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.

/signed

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

/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

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

/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.

What if you need to go to the toilet?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

yes my thoughts exacly

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.

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.

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.

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

/unsigned

/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.

/not signed

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

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.

It was mentioned earlier that you could just kick a player and their items are either lost or they get the dropped item summary (like when you complete a mission adn there are still items assigned to you). Sure the player would be gone, but so woudl their items. So, the jealous player 2-8 loose their chance at that item as well.

/signed for a vote kick

You have some really good idea's, I like reading this..
This could be a great implent for the game and sure it will add some justice

/signed


As long as thought implementing.And as said 2-8 kick you still get drop when your put back to town is a nice lil twist incase jealusy kicks happen.


I mostly think added to mission only and PvP arenas is the place to add this feature , as farming tours are possible scams with random groups

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 teh 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.

Starting to sound like America's Army votekick system. I can see the abusive language one getting abused though.

It could... but it's all on the party. Plus, people have to vote. If only 4/8 vote, the player stays.

Still, if it's an obnoxious little prick, you can get him out right away. I had a guy named Jew Slayer in a party. Half-way through the mission, he started shooting off Nazi propoganda. It's like WTF dude, just STFU and finish. It was so bad, I just dropped before finishing b/c I wasn't about to listen to that crap a moment longer.

That's a reason for booting based on language.

/signed

It would have to be very carefully implemented.

Maybe if they had been AFK for ages then their drops would be destroyed.

If they had not been AFK then their drops would be offered to them back at town.

Under no circumstances would drops be given to other players.

Trouble is people could just strafe a little every few seconds, or follow the group behind but not do anything useful, just double click a party member's name every few seconds. My brain is tired ATM, someone else come up with a solution please.

PS in number two of the first post, you have typoed and written 'teh' in the description. You might like to change it before someone decides to call you a leet no0b, or whatever the word is

the problem I see happenning most is players who sit there.

but I've also seen players who type occassionally during missions to contest that they're doing nothign wrong.

Doing this would give too much power.... I wish there was a way to do this without getting innocent people smacked in the face. When I got out with my groups I have kids and sometimes things happen. I type and afk and if what lies ahead isn't to horrible I tell them I will catch up. Sometimes it can't be helped and for those people (not that I would be kicked cause the groups I go with are friends or guildies) but I would hate to see it happen to someone who just walked out of the room during the cut scene only to come back and find himself kicked cause he didn't instantly move.

Some people are over zealous that way and would easily do that to people. So while I like the idea I don't think it would ever fly -_- It's just too complicated for the honest folks.

Cases 1 and 2 have more to do with game design, than with players. If they didn't get anything, they wouldn't need to do this.

Case 3 is a real "social" problem, common to all MMO games. No real solution, really. Ejecting is an option, but then, who defines what is "acceptable" ? Most players ? Hmm... a bit dangerous, i think. What about if the majority are guildies ?

/signed

I like the idea, but I agree that there is a bit of room for abuse whereas players of similar maturity or thinking may find it funny just to sabatoge a group or kick a person for no apparent reason.

What about if a player is kicked a henchie replaces that person's class? As much as a player may get on my nerves I'd rather have them complete the mission then lose a key character in the mission's role.

this is a great idea, sort out the flaws and it could be one of arenanets best updates in a long time.

/signed

i agree, but what i think would be better would be if the henchie had the same build as the kicked player, as in several missions (ring of fire + abbadons) echo nukers are really quite essential for those monk bosses.

yeah, I have kids as well. Sometimes I have to AFK, but if you're going to have to AFK, you need to let the others know. Most players are reasonable. Still.. I can see potential for abuse, but empowering players more (like in other games) would speed up the turnaround time for correcting situations with players.

Also, the replacing the kicked player with a hench of the same/similar build would be nice.

Nope, as already stated someone could get an item that everyone is jealous of, or consectutive rare items but they dont want to share them. This brings me onto my next point that in 2 man UW, if one person gets an ecto, the other one kicks them and steals the ecto. When putting in a feature like this, Anet cant just make it avaliable to teams of 8 so there will be a genuine flaw.

However, I suppose you could have the box that comes up when you finish a story mission with your uncollected items in.. so no one can steal them.

Not sure.. but as of now-
/unsigned

Yes, replacing a kicked player with its counterpart hench would be good.

For two reasons, on the top of my head

1. Obviously the mission, etc would be tougher with less members and a replacement hench would therefor help.
2. Kicking players BEFORE killing the item giving boss wouldnt improve the chances of getting that desired item, since henches take away their player quota of loot for themselfs

If a hench got added, I'd vote to kick it. They can cause way too many problems.

While I completely agree, seeing how I've been in plenty of missions with leeches, I would like to be able to kick them. /signed

I also think it has the potential to be abused to a certain extent, which means it needs better ideas to prevent that.