"Kick System" Proposal
5 pages • Page 2
N
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Overnite
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. |
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
K
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chase the Sky
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. |
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.
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.
F
V
/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.
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.
S
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Son Of Morgoth
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.
|
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?
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.
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undivine
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.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undivine
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. |
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.
And if you like this feature, it's still an amusing read anyway.
A
D
A
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..
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..
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ancient_chozo
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? |
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.

