“He will improve everything that ArenaNet added to infinity and beyond.”
Kicking "host" from dungeon
“He will improve everything that ArenaNet added to infinity and beyond.”
And what if he is being a jerk? This would allow the person who started the dungeon to go afk until the party finish the dungeon for him . In this kind of situation i’d rather kick him out instead of leaving .
Why? If hes leeching the end result of you leaving or kicking him is exactly the same. You get removed from the instance. Theres no need to grief him just because you are a bitter kitten. The best solution would be to make the instance save even if the host is kicked from the party. So the host keeps his instance and the others get kicked out.
(edited by spoj.9672)
Why? If hes leeching. The end result of you leaving or kicking him is exactly the same. You get removed from the instance. Theres no need to grief him just because you are a bitter kitten. The best solution would be to make the instance save even if the host is kicked from the party. So the host keeps his instance and the others get kicked out.
Then people will make dungeon instances — hundreds of them — post on LFG, and then A.F.K. hoping that others will finish the path for them. Wasteful and stupid.
Yeah cause im sure the people joining those groups are going to go along with that….. People can do that now, but they dont because they know its stupid and will never work rofl.
Yeah cause im sure the people joining those groups are going to go along with that….. People can do that now, but they dont because they know its stupid and will never work rofl.
Whether it works or not, its still a drain on server resources.
a) The first person to enter a dungeon is not a special snowflake. b) No one owns a group or an instance. c) Server resources need to be reclaimed as efficiently as possible. All of these considerations support the current system.
Actually the first person who enters the instance does own the instance… And the fact that they can be kicked from the group and everyone loses the instance is completely stupid. It promotes griefing. Afaik it use to save the instance to the host, it got bugged/changed when they allowed reconnecting in fractals. There was no issue of people “draining server resources” back then.
If the host is kicked by griefers then the whole group loses the instance. If however the instance is saved, then the host can reinv the other members back and no innocent has to lose their progress. Obviously it does create an issue of if the host leaves the party then he keeps the instance and everyone else loses it. So i would suggest the instance is saved on kick but if the host leaves the party it closes the instance.
(edited by spoj.9672)
How do you judge if the “host” (bad choice of word, btw) is kicked for legitimate or illegitimate (griefing) reasons? Once you starting defining “proper” kicks from improper kicks, Anet heads down the slippery slope of adjudicating group dynamics — an area that they have (wisely) stayed away from.
(edited by Berner.7289)
You dont. Thats why it should save to host on kick….
The easiest pseudo-solution to this is to just INCREASE THE NUMBER OF VOTES REQUIRED to kick someone. Therefore, it would at least take more than just “a guy and his buddy” to grief by kicking. I am really NOT understanding WHY anet refuses to make this change.
Dungeon host saving his instance would also solve a lot of griefing issues regarding dungeon sellers.
“People wanting content where Berserker sucks should remember that it needs be so hard
that they will cry, not just a river, but a huge ocean.” – Wethospu
Why there should be even instance owner first place? Does that solve something? As far as experienced, it leads up to %15 of the runs cause fail juz of owner leave/dc/switch/kicked