Feedback talk:User/Rose Of Kali/Kick player from team

I love this idea! --MushaTalk 00:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

horrible idea it sounds nice to kick leecghers but it also always invites to kick others becaus you dont liek them this should never exist 127.0.0.1 00:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would you party with someone you don't like already? And why would you all of a sudden start not liking a person after the fact, unless that person really is a troll or unfit for the task, i.e. leeching? Rose Of Kali 02:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

you could be in need of a player and toss him when you dont need him anymore in the mission also there are pugs where this happens that suddnely all dont like one 127.0.0.1 02:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example: One time I was in a guild party doing Rragar's Dungeon in HM. It took much longer than we anticipated, and I had to leave to work. My guildies told me to stay around so that I can get it to count for my book: I've been asking for that dungeon in guild chat for a while, it was my last HM dungeon. So, I stayed in the game afk and went to work. When I came back, I saw something that was funny and sad at the same time. Most of my party had died, and those that stayed had no res on them. Since I was still alive and stayed way back, a complete wipe would not let them res at a shrine. So, they tried pulling RATS from the dungeon to attack and kill me, so that they could wipe, but the rats wouldn't pull that far. Finally, they all left. I came back to find myself and 3 dead Dunkoros. I ressed them and finished the dungeon, they had already gotten the last key, only needed to get the final boss when their Dunkoros died. All I had to do was dodge some patrols on the way to the bosses and PI them to death while the monks healed me. I felt bad.

Example 2: I was doing DoA with some nice people in a PuG. One of us turned out to not be very experienced, or smart for that matter. He was a warrior and kept running ahead and aggroing half the map in HM. We asked him to stay back and let us pull, and he got mad, started cursing out everyone, and trolling, because we "offended him" by asking to stay back. We got sick of him quick, but still tried to finish, yet he kept pulling mobs on us causing casualties, and a non-English speaking monk kept ressing him not understanding that we wanted him to stay dead. Not fun.

Example 3: Drok's run. We got into Dreadnought's Drift, and one of the patrols came close and aggroed on us, as usual in that spot. One guy zoned back into Lornar's Pass. After a WTF we went back and tried again. Same thing. Turned out that even with a "no survivors warning" this guy decided to come and be a pain in the ass because he didn't want to die on his level 8 "survivor." The entire run had to be restarted to get rid of him.

There are plenty more examples where a feature like this would be great, and I really don't see the ability to "kick comeone you don't like or who is a burden to the party" as a drawback of any kind. It would only hurt trolls and leechers. Cases where a party would "entrap" a player, use him and then kick don't seem very likely to me, even if they could theoretically be possible. What's the point of that? And if "suddenly all don't like one" I think there must be a reason they don't like that player, this doesn't happen out of thin air. If anything, this would discourage trolling. Rose Of Kali 03:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

all your example only show why this feature shouldnt exist 127.0.0.1 03:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In #1, I wish my guildies could kick me and finish the run. In #2, are you saying that trolling is acceptable and shouldn't have any consequences? In #3, the person consciously joined a run he shouldn't have been on. We had to drop him, but it cost everyone a lot of time and having to restart the hardest part of the run. If you want to disagree, you sure can, but do explain yourself, don't throw around random phrases and act like you know better. Rose Of Kali 03:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

who decideds when a player whos afk is too long away? really you never know if hes back right when you kick him (and then those kickers feel bad)

that scenario much sounds like arrogance to an unexpericend player i think he shouldnt freak out that much but you shouldn kick him either but be nice and calm and explain what he did wrong (just say stay back is mean)

i did that run many times letting anyone die is pretty bad that can be avoided easiyl 127.0.0.1 03:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

oh and to note : any potantial new feature thate CAN be heavely misused will be misuesd and those features mustn exist thats like the old hero battles 127.0.0.1 03:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, we explained, he didn't want to hear it. They say there's a difference between "newb = new at something" and "noob = doesn't belong in a social environment." "New players" shouldn't troll in DoA in the first place, he was trying to get us killed on purpose, not even just staying back and leeching and keeping his pottymouth shut. I still don't see the "heavy misuse" you speak of unless you assume that the majority of players are inherently "evil" and hate everyone. And if you must go afk for too long, you're essentially leeching, so it should be up to your partners to let you stay for free or not. Rose Of Kali 03:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Anet was asked about this before (probably many times). They don't want a system like this because it would become too abusable. Guild teams would be able to kick out pugs. Cheaters in RA would be able to kick out people who messed up their sync. Etc. ~Shard 04:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard about that before, but thanks. I would still like to see something to discourage trolling, but oh well. Rose Of Kali 12:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why not limit it to PvE, Shard? And why would a guild team want to kick pugs in PvE unless that person was screwing up kinda badly? Or, for PvP, have it based off the leeching system aka, if you're declared a leecher, you get kicked? --JonTheMon 16:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, what's the point of kicking a non-synched player from a sync RA group? If I was synching, I'd just try again, rather than be left with one player short and end up with yet another random pug on the next match even if the team manages to win being a player short.

And as far as PvE, like Jon said, why would you want to lose a player that you took in the first place, unless he was really screwing with you?

Any chance of finding where this convo with Anet happened? I've never seen it before. Rose Of Kali 16:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If you notice, all of the first negative responses were submitted from someone who habitually avoids signing their posts. (127.0.0.1 03:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)) The 127.0.0.1 is a dead giveaway of someone using certain tricks to hide where their posts originate from. Personally, I think in a forum such as this, it shows the type of player you're dealing with. Quite likely a habtitual leecher themselves. Filofax1us 11:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, you could use a dash of common sense and realize it's a registered username. GWW is NOT a forum, nor do we advocate generating conspiracy theories over something as silly and minor as usernames/IPs. P.S. In case you were too busy psychoanalyzing how usernames can make a worser or better person, he DID sign his posts. Pika Fan 11:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And, perhaps you believe expressing an opinion, right or wrong, opens an imaginary door for you to reply with nothing truly constructive yourself. Other than to be scarcastic and denegrating, that is. Just because the site is not titled "Forum" means absolutely nothing. Any discussion page becomes a "forum" for expressing opinions, and THAT is how the word was intended. Whom is "we" by the way? It would be nice if you clarified how you are "we"? As to your next point..."conspiracy theories"? Please! Honestly, rather than simply correct my misunderstanding of what kinds of usernames are allowed on this site, all you wanted to do was put me down. Go take a laxative, you'll feel better. Filofax1us 03:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not continue this here, go to userspace somewhere... Rose Of Kali 03:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Even though I also have had my share of "wish I could kick X" moments, I still do not like this idea. It basically creates more problems than it solves. People getting kicked once they helped with a "hard part" to allow for the rest of the team to get to the profitable place without having to share drops comes to mind. Also groups kicking people not because they are leeching or trolling, just for being "bad". Also, a tip for the future if you wish to afk while your guildies finish the dungeon: suicide and afk as a corpse. If there are several levels, make your team pull the first group at you to get you dead at the beginning of each level. That way your team would have to wipe twice before there could potentially be a problem.--Lensor (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC) ADD: To clarify, when choosing between a system that allows one person to troll a group, and a system that allows a group to bully one person, I choose the former.

Fair enough. I do wish there was something we could do about the trolls. Rose Of Kali 03:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't see the problem, I just play with heroes or friends. If you play with randoms it's common that someone leaves, leeches or just disappoint you. Thank ANet, that the whole Hardmode is playable with NSC. --Kali Shin Shivara 12:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am behind this 100%. I think some heavy restrictions need to be in place of course to minimize abuse, but the leeching is being abused now, so its not like that factor will break the game anyway. Also, to those of you who have been adamantly against this, sounds dangerously like you are condoning leeching and afk-ing, which is unacceptable in a live real time game such as this. Certain situations IRL of course require going afk, but if you are gonna be gone for extended periods you either need to leave or have the option for the party to kick you after a while. Many people work very hard in this game and leeching, trolling, ect ect just undermines the whole aspect of playing to have fun.I think Kali has the right idea and limiting it to pve will reduce the overall abuse of this feature. I don't see how it can be useful in pvp, and honestly its not really needed because you won't spend 2 hours crawling through an elite dungeon, so just map out and reform your party. the leeching problem in pvp can not be fixed with this, its an issue in the reporting system. I will spread the word Kali and hopefully we can get this implemented. Nay the One and Only 23:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am also fully behind this idea, with the proper restrictions there would be very little chance of abuse, and it would definately solve the problem of leechers and those really annoying trolls. My friend and I have discussed how great this sort of thing would be countless times after a terrible PUG group. I really hope Arena Net takes note of this, it would be a fantastic fix against terrible PvE experiences. It would also help promote PUG groups again, personally I hate partying with people I don't know for this very reason. RunningInTheMist 07:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)