3 times today I've had leeches on the group, people that join the group then instantly go Away from the Keyboard and don't play. I have to think it's intentional.
Well, that makes me pretty mad but the last one was dragon's lair. We're facing Glint one down and we lose which is ok. It was a really good fight just couldn't get the damage and the interupts worked out. Then we're all dead except for one red dot.
It's the leech. He's just sitting there alive and well and out of aggro range. We sat there for 5 minutes just thinking he'd have to come back. Then someone says to look at the map that it shows we succeded so all we'd need to do was map.
The problem with that is we're still in Dragon's Lair. They need a majority kick button or something to combat that badly.
Blasted Leeches!
asdar
Ultimate_Gaara
well a kick function would be nice, but i fear that like most other things it would be misused all the time....
Principa Discordia
This happened to me twice today on my new ranger character.
The first time was on the mission from Ruins Of Surmia, where another ranger in the group decided to "go AFK for a bath" half way through the mission and return only when the cutscene happened at the end.
The second time was on the mission from Nolani Academy where our monk, who had previously made threats over the bonus, decided to go AFK and later quit out.
I don't know why this is becoming a craze, but it's certainly annoying.
The first time was on the mission from Ruins Of Surmia, where another ranger in the group decided to "go AFK for a bath" half way through the mission and return only when the cutscene happened at the end.
The second time was on the mission from Nolani Academy where our monk, who had previously made threats over the bonus, decided to go AFK and later quit out.
I don't know why this is becoming a craze, but it's certainly annoying.
Indigo
I do fear abuse on something like a majority kick button.
I also have had a number of people try something like that. Usually we're close enough to the beginning that we can walk back into town and start over without the leach, but other times it's not an option. While frustrating, I'm not sure what could be done that would be equitable.
Threatening over the bonus? What is this? (sorry to hijack slightly, but I'm curious)
I also have had a number of people try something like that. Usually we're close enough to the beginning that we can walk back into town and start over without the leach, but other times it's not an option. While frustrating, I'm not sure what could be done that would be equitable.
Threatening over the bonus? What is this? (sorry to hijack slightly, but I'm curious)
Principa Discordia
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Indigo
Threatening over the bonus? What is this? (sorry to hijack slightly, but I'm curious)
|
Indigo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Principa Discordia
There's another thread about this; Some people have some strange mentality where they will a.) only want the bonus or b.) not want the bonus, and will threaten blackmail to get their way.
|
How juvenile.
Aniewiel
Isn't it, Indigo? LOL! That's why most players are so leery playing in PUGs. 
I don't know -why- people can't just say "LFG for bonus only" or "LFG for Mission AND bonus". A lot of people do so it's mysterious to me why there are any questions. I don't join a group that says mission only if I want both....and the same goes for any which way it is.
Nothing worse than finishing the bonus and seeing the nifty shield/sword cutscene thing and then coming back into the game and finding 2-3 players gone.
I don't know -why- people can't just say "LFG for bonus only" or "LFG for Mission AND bonus". A lot of people do so it's mysterious to me why there are any questions. I don't join a group that says mission only if I want both....and the same goes for any which way it is. Nothing worse than finishing the bonus and seeing the nifty shield/sword cutscene thing and then coming back into the game and finding 2-3 players gone.
Indigo
What I don't understand is, on a majority of the missions (prior to Sanctum Cay) the bonus is on the way with the mission, or part of the mission. I've been in groups where people have left, prior to starting (thankfully) because we weren't doing "bonus only". I understand that we were lucky. But really, how hard is it to help someone out and get what you want as well?
Teufel Eldritch
Yes a kick function would be nice. Guess what? At this very moment Im in a inf run where someone is leeching...... and we are all dead except him. Nice. Just swell. Oh but it isnt finshed yet...there is a Scroll of Slayer's Insight that dropped for me too. Wee so now the whole team but the leecher is dead & if that wasnt enough Im gonna miss this cool drop because of it. AWESOME!
Aniewiel
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Teufel Eldritch
Yes a kick function would be nice. Guess what? At this very moment Im in a inf run where someone is leeching...... and we are all dead except him. Nice. Just swell. Oh but it isnt finshed yet...there is a Scroll of Slayer's Insight that dropped for me too. Wee so now the whole team but the leecher is dead & if that wasnt enough Im gonna miss this cool drop because of it. AWESOME!
|
Forget the auto kick. Maybe instead, when it is a clear case of leeching, it should be AUTO SMITE with total gold/item removal AND putting them in the middle of the HoH as a smite dummy. 
Kha
I had a leech in Abaddon's Mouth mission. It was the other monk. Went AFK right away without even saying anything. Luckily it wasn't that hard with just me as the only monk. It was an ego boost 
Night Daftshadow
That's why GW needs a voting system. If there's a suspected leecher, the group can vote to kick that person. I don't understand why these punks do this. You get good drops during the latter missions. Since reaching the volcanic islands, I've gotten a few gold and purple drops during missions.
But my way of avoiding these damn leechers is to go through missions with people i trust and know on my friends list. Other than that, it's a 50/50 when doing missions with strangers.
But my way of avoiding these damn leechers is to go through missions with people i trust and know on my friends list. Other than that, it's a 50/50 when doing missions with strangers.
Synncial77
well, one system that might work is a "Vote-Kick" on IDLE players. Basically, you wouldn't be able to initiate a vote to kick someone out unless they've been idle for 'x' minutes (2 minutes?).
john little
I reckon there should be an auto kick for 3 mins of AFK'ness, which replaces the character with a NPC hench with exactly the same skills, armour and attributes (i'd also like to see the same happen when a player quits in the middle of a mission/match). I don't really think there is any excuse for long periods of inactivity, and if something requires you to be away for longer than 3 minutes then it's unlikely you will be able to aid the team in any way when you get back.
Aaaaagh
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by john little
I reckon there should be an auto kick for 3 mins of AFK'ness, which replaces the character with a NPC hench with exactly the same skills, armour and attributes (i'd also like to see the same happen when a player quits in the middle of a mission/match). I don't really think there is any excuse for long periods of inactivity, and if something requires you to be away for longer than 3 minutes then it's unlikely you will be able to aid the team in any way when you get back.
|
exploding flowers
some people really think a vote kick/unanimous kick/majority kick button will be abused. but the thing is... we're being abused RIGHT NOW without it.
if a the majority of the team wants to kick somebody, don't you think that says something? if the team doesn't think they want, or doesn't think they're getting along with one player, wouldn't it be a good idea to kick that one person in the first place? why would you want to hold onto a player that the majority of the team doesn't want?
i do agree that leader-only kick function will be abused to hell, but it doesn't have to BE just a leader-only kick function that should be implemented.
what if there's two (or more) players that's harrassing the team and they both refuse to leave and get kicked while the rest of the party are annoyed by them? the majority-vote-kick may not have worked in that situation, but it sure it would work in situations where abusive players number in one per group.
in instances like that, the team would have been screwed even without the vote-kick function, so why not have it anyway.
if a the majority of the team wants to kick somebody, don't you think that says something? if the team doesn't think they want, or doesn't think they're getting along with one player, wouldn't it be a good idea to kick that one person in the first place? why would you want to hold onto a player that the majority of the team doesn't want?
i do agree that leader-only kick function will be abused to hell, but it doesn't have to BE just a leader-only kick function that should be implemented.
what if there's two (or more) players that's harrassing the team and they both refuse to leave and get kicked while the rest of the party are annoyed by them? the majority-vote-kick may not have worked in that situation, but it sure it would work in situations where abusive players number in one per group.
in instances like that, the team would have been screwed even without the vote-kick function, so why not have it anyway.
Shiboo
I'd have to agree with a kick feature, or something similar.
A week ago or so I was in a group to go kill Galrath from ToA. We got all the way to galrath and this lvl 20 war was sitting at begining of zone waiting for talk of galrath, (we didn't notice him at begining sadly..) then he simply zones, and we're all screwed. So we go back since we have it cleared, and he zones again.
With no way of kicking him except regrouping in ToA just seems stupid.
Also for quest there should be a majority of ppl near the exit to zone.
My first post!
A week ago or so I was in a group to go kill Galrath from ToA. We got all the way to galrath and this lvl 20 war was sitting at begining of zone waiting for talk of galrath, (we didn't notice him at begining sadly..) then he simply zones, and we're all screwed. So we go back since we have it cleared, and he zones again.
With no way of kicking him except regrouping in ToA just seems stupid.
Also for quest there should be a majority of ppl near the exit to zone.
My first post!
Ashley Twig
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ultimate_Gaara
well a kick function would be nice, but i fear that like most other things it would be misused all the time....
|
The trade-system e.g. it's being abused (scamming)
Weired hip-dances are abused to harrass people.
But is that already enough to ban the trade-system or the dance-moves?
I don't think so. A kick button is necessary on quests and missions.
Last night (still in town) I had somebody on my team who would spam "need monk for team" all over the place.
I asked him once to stop.
He said: OK...
and continued.
He got a nice kick. Nobody else on the team complained.
calendae
Yeah, an in game kick would be nice. I don't think a leader kick fuction would be abused as much as you would think. What they would need to do is offer the kicked person the option to claim all of his drops, and to make it imposible to kick a dead player. Then there would be no insentive to kick a player, other then spite. But jackasses always find a way to be annoying.
=HT=Ingram
I'm worried about a kick command because of possible forseeable abuse. BUT I would support an Idle command of some kind. Giving the offender like 3-5mins to move or he is kicked from the mission. Allowing a respawn of the rest or a mission end. I think that would solve the abuse worry.
/Idle 5 (command from party leader only)
sets internal timer. anyone that does not move for a solid 5 mins is then kicked from the instance. But those that are playing it will never effect.
Interesting? Yes no?
/Idle 5 (command from party leader only)
sets internal timer. anyone that does not move for a solid 5 mins is then kicked from the instance. But those that are playing it will never effect.
Interesting? Yes no?
Ashley Twig
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by calendae
and to make it imposible to kick a dead player.
|
If s/he's expendable and is spamming "rezrezrez" all over the screen: Kick!
Ashley Twig
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by =HT=Ingram
anyone that does not move for a solid 5 mins is then kicked from the instance. But those that are playing it will never effect.
Interesting? Yes no? |
But it's worth a try.
asdar
How about a unanimous kick?
I'd be for that in a second. I can't imagine everyone kicking someone in an abusive way. I wouldn't boot someone for messing up as long as they weren't being intentionally destructive.
We'd have all clicked it, it could be initiated by anyone or the leech's would just be leaders.
I'd be for that in a second. I can't imagine everyone kicking someone in an abusive way. I wouldn't boot someone for messing up as long as they weren't being intentionally destructive.
We'd have all clicked it, it could be initiated by anyone or the leech's would just be leaders.
Ninna
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by =HT=Ingram
/Idle 5 (command from party leader only)
sets internal timer. anyone that does not move for a solid 5 mins is then kicked from the instance. But those that are playing it will never effect. Interesting? Yes no? |
it wont solve the problem of leeching but it certainly will reduce it
bobrath
Any solution based on criteria will be defeated by a bot.
In another similar thread last week, we hashed over all of the options, and I believe the consensus best option was allowing the group leader to initiate a vote and having that vote be an all or none kick. (well all but the person in question). Combined with the group's ability to vote out the leader (if he's the one that goes leech).
This avoids the majority of the single griefer scenarios by requiring a consensus vote but also avoid vote spamming fest where two guys try to get the other kicked out.
Until some solution is implemented, we're stuck with recreating teams if you have a leecher. Last night on Bloodstone, had a ranger say something to the effect of "Dang! have to go afk!" right as the mission started. I waited after the first mob battle and the player still hadn't moved (tho a purp item dropped for him). So I told the group I wouldn't go any further until the ranger moved. Waited about 2 mins and then I said, ok fine lets regroup in dis 2 and not invite the leecher....
20 seconds later the leecher dropped and the purp composite bow was left behind as his apology for being a dork. Sure we got lucky, but I'd much rather go through the hassle of restarting a group then allowing some random chuckle to progress through the game without helping.
In another similar thread last week, we hashed over all of the options, and I believe the consensus best option was allowing the group leader to initiate a vote and having that vote be an all or none kick. (well all but the person in question). Combined with the group's ability to vote out the leader (if he's the one that goes leech).
This avoids the majority of the single griefer scenarios by requiring a consensus vote but also avoid vote spamming fest where two guys try to get the other kicked out.
Until some solution is implemented, we're stuck with recreating teams if you have a leecher. Last night on Bloodstone, had a ranger say something to the effect of "Dang! have to go afk!" right as the mission started. I waited after the first mob battle and the player still hadn't moved (tho a purp item dropped for him). So I told the group I wouldn't go any further until the ranger moved. Waited about 2 mins and then I said, ok fine lets regroup in dis 2 and not invite the leecher....
20 seconds later the leecher dropped and the purp composite bow was left behind as his apology for being a dork. Sure we got lucky, but I'd much rather go through the hassle of restarting a group then allowing some random chuckle to progress through the game without helping.
Dwiggit
I try to deal with the problem up front. My solution is similar to this one:
I almost always start a group instead of waiting to join one. I then always say something to the effect of "Starting group COMMITTED to mission AND bonus". Knowing how so many people cringe at the word "COMMIT", I usually end up with a reasonable bunch of people.
When you are clear of the intentions up front, people tend to be in agreement. (I also find it funny how many people are just waiting to join any group that invites them, just to find out they are only doing the bonus or such.)
So I offer the suggestion to take the lead on forming a group and be clear about the intentions. This works well for now until a better option is available in-game. (I'll probably continue using it past any fixes anyway, it just works!)
My two cents....
Dwig
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aniewiel
I don't know -why- people can't just say "LFG for bonus only" or "LFG for Mission AND bonus". A lot of people do so it's mysterious to me why there are any questions. I don't join a group that says mission only if I want both....and the same goes for any which way it is.
|
When you are clear of the intentions up front, people tend to be in agreement. (I also find it funny how many people are just waiting to join any group that invites them, just to find out they are only doing the bonus or such.)
So I offer the suggestion to take the lead on forming a group and be clear about the intentions. This works well for now until a better option is available in-game. (I'll probably continue using it past any fixes anyway, it just works!)
My two cents....
Dwig
Talesin Darkbriar
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Indigo
I do fear abuse on something like a majority kick button.
|
Please list all the myriads of ways this will be abused, or otherwise used to screw people over - as if all the current methods don't exist?
No, the KICK function gives players their only defense against being screwed.
Which may explain why so many are against it...
Sekkira
I'm two minds about it. Although it can defend against being screwed over, it also can cause a lot of griefers to have fun. Say, get to near the end of the mission and right before it's finished *KICK* LOLOLOLOLOLOL
exploding flowers
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sekkira
I'm two minds about it. Although it can defend against being screwed over, it also can cause a lot of griefers to have fun. Say, get to near the end of the mission and right before it's finished *KICK* LOLOLOLOLOLOL
|
Elite
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shiboo
I'd have to agree with a kick feature, or something similar.
A week ago or so I was in a group to go kill Galrath from ToA. We got all the way to galrath and this lvl 20 war was sitting at begining of zone waiting for talk of galrath, (we didn't notice him at begining sadly..) then he simply zones, and we're all screwed. So we go back since we have it cleared, and he zones again. With no way of kicking him except regrouping in ToA just seems stupid. Also for quest there should be a majority of ppl near the exit to zone. My first post! |
Sekkira
I'm sure griefers will get a team together as well just to piss others off.
Tutompop
All this talk about abuse this and abuse that, maybe nobody thought to realize they already have the tools they need to screw over groups. Giving them a new toy might be fun for them a couple of times but in the long run there isn't going to be any more or less greifing from these motivated individuals.
Tool 1: pull huge group of mobs and wreck mission group.
Tool 2: make monk and withhold healing
Tool 3: leech!
Tool 4: heal area mobs
These are just what I have thought of doing in my play time. I haven't actually DONE it but if you think these jackasses are motivated enough to form groups with the sole intent of kicking people then ANYTHING is possible and surely more creative. One more wrench in their toolbox isn't going to break the game. Sure there will be abuse, but killing off leechers isn't the only thing a vote kick system would accomplish, make that kamikaze war rethink his ways. Kick that racist smacktard who can't do anything but utter expletives about why this player sucks because of this random thought.
Tool 1: pull huge group of mobs and wreck mission group.
Tool 2: make monk and withhold healing
Tool 3: leech!
Tool 4: heal area mobs
These are just what I have thought of doing in my play time. I haven't actually DONE it but if you think these jackasses are motivated enough to form groups with the sole intent of kicking people then ANYTHING is possible and surely more creative. One more wrench in their toolbox isn't going to break the game. Sure there will be abuse, but killing off leechers isn't the only thing a vote kick system would accomplish, make that kamikaze war rethink his ways. Kick that racist smacktard who can't do anything but utter expletives about why this player sucks because of this random thought.
MSecorsky
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asdar
How about a unanimous kick?
I'd be for that in a second. I can't imagine everyone kicking someone in an abusive way. I wouldn't boot someone for messing up as long as they weren't being intentionally destructive. We'd have all clicked it, it could be initiated by anyone or the leech's would just be leaders. |
silvertemplar
Quote:
| Beat me to it. A unanimous kick would be a great feature. |
I still want instanced outposts in missions/areas which have the same effect as the big outposts, except for a few limits [i.e. no skill swopping]. Portals [i.e. like rez shrines] are scattered around the map, you enter it and go into this instanced outpost [only available to the particular team]. When you leave it, map respawns, but you return to where you entered it. Then use outpost to kick/reform party [i.e. henchmen swopping]. The trouble of finding the portal and enduring a possible backtrack/respawn should outweigh the possible non-sensical abuse that may occur just to kick someone from the team to be spiteful. Same system could be used to handle disconnects/return to party [team must come and fetch you though].
Now lets assume you can split in the outpost and reform entirely new groups [and going into their own instances from there]. There is an idea floating on the forums regarding INSTANCE SPLITTING which i think will be just fine. Assuming when you DO split from a group you can replace the empty slots with henchmen [with the appropriate DPs etc]. So the leader can kick all he wants, wouldn't hurt as much, the player will go into his own instance with a full party...etc etc