"Kick System" Proposal

I'm sure that many people have posted about this before, but for some reason I can't find any threads on it, so I decided to start one. I apologize if this is redundant.

Anyway, I'm sure that most everybody here would agree that the ability to expel a person from your group while outside of town would be a worthwhile and much appreciated addition to the game. I've come up with some basic rules that I believe would create a fair method of doing this. To explain them, I'll state the typical steps that the "Kick System" would go through before expelling a player from a group.

First, the group leader would select the offending player's name in the party window. A button would show up at the bottom of the party window that says "Kick". The leader would click this button, and a confirmation window would appear on his/her screen asking the leader whether or not to continue with the expulsion (options would be "Yes" or "No").

At this point, a small window would show up in the center of each group member's screen. For the leader, this window would have the option of cancelling the expulsion. For the offending player, the window would warn him/her that the leader has proposed that he/she be expelled from the group. For the rest of the group, the window would say, "GroupLeader'sName would like to expel OffendingPlayers'Name from the group. Do you agree?", and they would be given "Yes" and "No" as their options.

The necessary number of players that would have to be in agreement with the leader for successful expulsion would be different with different party sizes. This would simply follow a "majority rules" type of system (2 out of 3, 3 out of 4, 3 out of 5, 4 out of 6, 4 out of 7, 5 out of 8). In the case that the party size is only two members, expulsion would be disabled.
When a player is successfully kicked from a group, they are immediately sent to the last town they were at.

And, to deal with unfair kicking (if, say, a very rare or valuable item dropped for a player), I suggest two options. The first option (this is the one I like best) is this; when a person is kicked, any items that had been dropped for them will disappear from the map. The kicked player will then be able to claim those items right after they have reloaded into the last town they were at, much like you can claim items that were assigned to you but not picked up after the end of a mission.
The other option is this; after the group has successfully agreed to kick a player, that player will be given 20 seconds before they are automatically removed from the group. This time will allow the player to gather any items that were dropped for them. However, this option could create problems if the kicked player was upset (for example, they might drag in many monsters to get revenge on the group).

EDIT: Additionally, if the leader has proposed to expel a player and the group has rejected the expulsion, the leader will not be allowed to propose the expulsion of that player again for five minutes. (Credit to Undivine for this addition)


Thanks for reading. Any comments, suggestions or constructive criticism would be appreciated.

(Closed to prevent random thread resurrection. Please PM a mod if you wish to open this thread.)

It would open some interesting griefing possibilites, but NO.

Ok, but why?

This won't work, because the player being kicked could be dead, or otherwise unable to pick up said item. The "Unclaimed Items" window would be best IMHO.

Because there's no real reason that you would want to kick a player from your team in the first place. Other than talking sh1t and going AFK there's no real way to grief in this game- it's not an FPP shooter where your teammate can shoot you in the back for calling him a noob.

If you don't want a player in your team- kick him in the outpost.
If you don't want random jerks in your team- play with guildmates or henchmen. Simple.

no i like the idea of being able to kick people out. loads of people just talk poo or are just plainn asses and you don't know that till you start playing with them...

Only reason I can see is kick

A) inactive
B) goes off doing there own thing

I would like a kick system to only show up after a condition get's triggered.
inactive / no movement for 5 minutes for example, or they are away from the group and don't return, after 5 minute it then opens up.

I perfer to not have a kick system at all but Anet is proable going to do it against there wishes but due to player base wanting it.

Also all loot from player goes with them when kicked.
Voting won't work, Guild party + 1 non-guild gets used till no longer then needed then guild 7 vs 1 non-guild vote.

Lets think of some reasons:
1) Player decides to go AFK half way though the mission. I think most people would prefer to boot them instead of carry them.
2) Player decides to trash talk everyone on the team- no one can do anything about it.
3) Player decides to pull mobs inncorrectly and puts the party at risk.


This is an idiotic reply. Players should not be punished for trying to be social and recruit PUGs for Missions. If I randomly recruit someone to help with a mission and they go afk or do not perform up to par I would like the option to kick them from the group. I don't encorage socialism.

Not everyone is in a guild and not everyone wants to play with just henchies through the whole game. People play these games because they want to be social- lowering the risk of picking up a bad party member would greatly enhance the game play of the current Mission structure.

really good idea to think of those players afk but u thought wrong

if 5 of 6 players were from the same guild and the 6th outside of their guild and they decided to kick him for some reason even if he didnt do anything wrong, is this will be wright or fair???

ofcource isnt fair at all but i can say every mission must have 6 - 10 check points so those afk players if they didnt cross these lines or check point all togather to the end of the mission will not be able to finish it and who crossed these check points and finished the mission goals will automatically go to the next mission or place but the afk players will back again to the past mission place to do it again.


also this will put an end to some runners



its like the exp points when u kill some monesters, if u were away u'll not get the exp points


plus, if some1 left during the mission or quest i think its good idea that u can invite a friend to ur place

what if you want to kick the leader?

I think that ancient_chozo thought this out pretty well, and I'd say the option where they take all of their loot with them to the last town works just fine. I've been in plenty of situations with leechers, sh!ttalkers, and people who just sucked so bad they were making the mission harder. And they wouldn't listen. I see a place for a system like this, because of the player base that guildwars has.

As far as the 6 people are in a guild arguement, then you shouldn't have pissed them off. There are obviously aliances and biases in other systems were voting is in place, and no one complains about that.

Anyway yeah.. only thing is what would happen if you wanted to kick the party leader.

Anyone should be able to initiate the kick.

what about mass voting for kicks? If not only the leader could do it then everyone would mass vote for fun.

Yeah this would help loads, especially when youre running someone who wont pay where theyre supposed to. I hate not being able to kick them, but I dont feel like ripping off the rest of the party, so I finish the run and he gets it for free.... Some people..

I agree, it would be useful for runners to kick people from the group. I could actually start enforcing payment on elona reach I do think that if they implemented it, there would need to be alot of thought put into it to limit any abuses, spammage, etc problem it could cause.

Ohh, this is a good idea. This would be a great way to get rid of those morons who aggro 2 or 3 groups at a time then keep typing REZ!! BEEFCAKE IS DEAD!!. I like it.

Its a well thought out idea and I would like to see it in the game. Too many times I have been on a mission and someone goes AFK (to watch tv or something...) and when they come back, the mission is finished for them.

You could even have a 'buffer-zone' in towns where you could sign up for whatever mission and if someone got kicked from a game, you could be transported in to make up the numbers on the team that had done the kicking. Could be fun that, talking to a colleague one minute and the next you're in Glints Lair with flames licking your feet...

Just a thought.......

That's the privilege of being the leader; you can't be kicked (which is the same as in outposts). A lot of times, though, if a leader is going to be a poor player, you can tell when he/she is forming the group. Just don't join them.

If it were made so that anybody could initiate the expulsion, I believe it would create more problems than it would solve. There has to be some discretion.

I think that something should be done - the problem is, keeping it from being abused.

Someone said "there's no real reason" - what about the AFKers, as has been mentioned? The idiots that cause problems to the team by intentionally causing agros? The kid that won't quit trash talaking? The one who feels the need to contantly draw the ol' twig 'n berries on the mini-map?

Another (semi-related) thing I'd like to see would be to have a "sh1t-list" feature built in. Example:

I have been famring SF for about a month now. I have run across people who will get to a certain point in a mission, and if they haven't gotten anything, they leave. Yes, I know there are a lot of reasons this might happen - in one case, I went with the same person 3 different times, and each time, he left at the exact same point.

So let's say I can put him on my list. From then on, any time I form a party and he requests to join, I never even see the request. If I get an invite to join a party that he is in, I could have a message warning me that this person is in the party before I decide to accept the invite.

I like this idea.....why would we like to kick people? some people are just real asses.......they might be luring too much..........they might just be total noobs.........the party wont abuse this if the person is actually doing oko since they dont wanna risk loosing a guy who potentialy might help. i also like that item reclaim thing system.

Yes, please implement a boot feature.

*bump*

You should never ever be able to kick the leader of any party - he made the party.

Since some players are advocating that you should, I do not support a kick system. It would lead to griefing and illegitimate kicks.

Except for the fact that PUG you had in FOW contained a person who aggroes the whole zone on you, leaving only one to survive. There is no way to tell who will do stupid shit; therefore there should be SOME type of option, with a GROUP OK to kick people outside of towns. Plain and simple.

GROUP option meaning it has to be okayed by ALL before the expulsion from the map continues, this way, a leader can't just boot everyone when he sees fit to claim items.

I feel this is VERY MUCH needed, in SOME FORM, in which I DON'T CARE, as long as we get SOME type of option to kick idiots from the group out of outposts. By the way you posted, you seem like a lone wolf type of person.

Every try getting a good PUG then having "ONE PERSON" ruin it? We really need an option like this :P

//SIGNED

--The Shim

The first two are the reasons he gave. As for the 3rd I'd hate to see this feature be used to kick members of the party that aren't up to par. I'd say just explain to them how to pull the mobs and which mobs to pull etc. If they refuse to then thats a different story.

I too feel this is a needed feature but it definitely needs to be implemented carefully to avoid abuse. Perhaps in those situations when it is 6 guildies voting against 1 outsider, a kick is not allowed? Hmmm, but then the 6 guildies would never invite a PUG. That's my only concern with this, is friends abusing the kick priviledge.

Some sort of vote-kick system would be helpful, to deal with abusive types and the times someone goes AFK for the whole mission (hasn't happened to me yet but I can understand how it must irritate some)

The 3rd reason I don't agree with though, it's open to abuse by "i are teh l33t r0x0r omg u n00b lolz0r roflcopter fdihsfduhfsdibfkajb" types who can't appreciate that not everyone was born into the world with a copy of Guild Wars.

Not a bad idea even tho there will be plenty of peaple who've had a bad day and kick you to make you miserable but if you had to vote on it like with cut seens it would be fine

/signed

It needs to be in game and unfortunately the one downside is the 7 guildies/1nonguildie situation.

Going afk mid mission or adventure is just plain crappy - if you have kids to watch then watch them, if you "may" get a call you've been expecting then wait on the call dont make your party wait on you. There will always be loud mouth brat kids in MMO games or adults who act like children......and having to deal with them longer "just because".....isn't a good enough reason to not have a majority vote/kick system.
Unless Anet can support instant ingame moderators that can invisibly monitor a situation when its reported.....this is the only way to free us from an unwanted, unncessary and unneeded burden.

Horrible idea, would be abused no matter how you slice it. You all have played the game and know what many of the players in the community are really like, the maturity just isn't there to handle such a feature. Just would make the game all the more worst if not unplayable in the long run.

The part in the quote above that I bolded is what scares me about this.... Everyone was a noob once - I'm just glad it wasn't a kickable offense when I was one.

I could see this evolving into the same kind of grief for inexperienced players that rank is in PvP.

In regards to the "Seven guild members & One outsider" argument:
Why would the guild members invite the outsider in the first place if they only intended to kick that player later? It would leave the party at a disadvantage (one less person). It makes no sense to kick ANY player for no reason, no matter if your guild comprises the rest of the party or not. Unless, of course, the party is made up of immature players.

And about immature players:
Very true; the player base does sometimes seem less than capable of handling this type of feature. I'm trying to think of some way to deal with it, but I can't come up with anything.
Does anybody have an idea on how this issue might be handled?
Or is this just an inherent failing that can't be overcome?

I think this feature, as described by ancient_chozo is exactly right. Vote-kicking, intitiated by the leader, take all your drops with you. That's about as good as it's going to get. I would like to add one thing to ancient_chozo's design: Make it so that a leader cannot try to kick a person again after the group turned his request down for, say, 5 minutes. We don't want the leader to spam the group with kick requests when they keep turning him down.

You who argue against this, I cannot understand for the life of me how you can dispute this feature. The first time I needed this feature I was shocked - shocked to find that it wasn't there. It's something I just assumed would be there. There is an option like this in every multiplayer game I've ever played before this one. In many cases it wasn't even based on votes; just the leader's choice, and it still worked out fine.

How can it be exploited exactly? 7/1 guild group? Hard to believe 7 people could collectively be that much of an a-hole, and even if that does happen, that is such an obscure example. Even if it wasn't obscure, even if this sort of group setup happened all the time and the guildies really did exploit this each time to kick a guy unfairly, the benefits of this feature still far outweigh this potential situation.

The maturity isn't there? That wasn't a problem with many other multiplayer games. I don't even see how an immature person could abuse this. Immaturity is exactly the reason to have this feature.

No, here's the way you slice it: The few occasions when a person would be unfairly kicked can hardly outweigh the current inability to kick those f***ing swines who get away with leeching off your labour, weakening your group by filling the spot that a useful person could have held, endangering your group with thoughtless rushing... or worse:

Probably the most common way a single person can ruin your group is simply by cussing out people until they leave. The ass can cuss out the monk, the warrior can leave because he doesn't want a group that can't heal him, the rest leave because we are now two members short. In these situations the only thing we can do is leave the group, and all the progress we made with them.

Kicking out people is a major progress and it's rediculous that it wasn't in there from the start. It's been in multiplayer games since the start of multiplayer games.

The additional feature you mentioned sounds great. It should definitely be included. I'll edit my original post to include it.


I think you're right. Previously, I was thinking in terms of "what could happen." But "what could happen" is quite different from "what will happen." While it's true that there may be instances where people will be unfairly kicked, the vast majority of situations will not follow that route.

/signed again with the new change thingy


I can't believe no one else thought of the spam resistant-ness, seems like a no brainer now that you suggested it. Good job, Undivine.

Anyone who still doubts the usefulness of this feature can have a look at this post from The Biggest Jerk You Ever Encountered in GW thread from the Riverside Inn forum. It's a long read, but you can skip the first paragraph and don't have to read every story.

And if you like this feature, it's still an amusing read anyway.

Maybe there should be some kind of way that a party leader can turn this ''option'' on or off in the outpost, before leaving for the mission//run.
Because people will always find a way to abuse it. So the party can choose to have this kicking option enabled or disabled.

Rather than a kick system, I would prefer a system that recognizes a player is afk. This would prevent players from completing a mission while afk and at the same time prevent other players from kicking teammates for some cool drop.

And how can you detect if some1 is afk or not, looking for keyboard+mouse activity? Then a leecher can stand in the beginning of the mission bashing 1 key every now and then..?
And read the begin post, the suggestion made about drops(just like if u enter a town now in a mission u can ''accept'' items etc, using that same method if people are kicked..

This falls into the "i am teh r0x0r l33tz0r cuz i cant tipe but u sux teh rxs so nds hfd i kik u nub!!!1" category. Unfortunately people with crippling emotional/psychological problems (or just stupid kids) will want to initiate kicks just because someone in the group isn't perceived (in their opinion) to be as r0x0ring as they are. Hence a majority vote with the option for the group leader to override/cancel the vote. This relies heavily on the other members of the group having a bit of sense and/or the leader being a reasonable person who won't let pointless votes like this proceed.

That's asking a lot online I guess, but there aren't very many other ways to handle it. since Guild Wars has no active "admins" to monitor servers.