Guild Wars 2

This is a topic that a number of players have claimed that they want, but we’ve never really gotten a set of requirements for. Let’s talk about this and see where it leads.

TurtleDragon.3108 provided a good starting point for discussion in another thread where this appeared as quoted below:

TurtleDragon.3108:

Ideally, I think there should be options for people to get into instance groups. An automated one and a modified version of the existing LFG system

1. Automated group finder with heavy vote kick restrictions and no real “leader”. The option for new players or when you just don’t care about getting a zerker group for CoF p1 or w/e. You get a debuff that prevents you from using this option if you rage quit while the party is full. You can not initiate vote kicks in combat, or after the final boss has been killed.

2. The current LFG system modified to request party invites instead of automatically joining the group. The party leader will see a list of people who applied to join the party and can see their gear. Only the leader can accept join requests and invite other people. Only the leader can kick people and it doesn’t require a vote kick. This is the option to join if you want join a zerker meta p1 speed run or clerics only run or achievement run etc.

What do you all think?

EDIT: Keep in mind that this is not bringing the old system back. The old system had an instance starter, who if kicked would eject everyone from the instance. What we’re talking about here is a proposed new system that would enable greater control over who can kick and so forth. I also think, in addition to this system, we would want some kind of opt-in for the party leader system and it shouldn’t be the default. ie. A party leader could forfeit party leader control over a team and it would function as we have it now.

Rising Dusk.2408:

This is a topic that a number of players have claimed that they want, but we’ve never really gotten a set of requirements for. Let’s talk about this and see where it leads.

TurtleDragon.3108 provided a good starting point for discussion in another thread where this appeared as quoted below:

TurtleDragon.3108:

Ideally, I think there should be options for people to get into instance groups. An automated one and a modified version of the existing LFG system

1. Automated group finder with heavy vote kick restrictions and no real “leader”. The option for new players or when you just don’t care about getting a zerker group for CoF p1 or w/e. You get a debuff that prevents you from using this option if you rage quit while the party is full. You can not initiate vote kicks in combat, or after the final boss has been killed.

2. The current LFG system modified to request party invites instead of automatically joining the group. The party leader will see a list of people who applied to join the party and can see their gear. Only the leader can accept join requests and invite other people. Only the leader can kick people and it doesn’t require a vote kick. This is the option to join if you want join a zerker meta p1 speed run or clerics only run or achievement run etc.

What do you all think?

EDIT: Keep in mind that this is not bringing the old system back. The old system had an instance starter, who if kicked would eject everyone from the instance. What we’re talking about here is a proposed new system that would enable greater control over who can kick and so forth. I also think, in addition to this system, we would want some kind of opt-in for the party leader system and it shouldn’t be the default. ie. A party leader could forfeit party leader control over a team and it would function as we have it now.

i suggested something similar, i dont think the see gear thing is required.
I would also allow for a 4 man kick option.
The game should tell you if someone was kicked or left of their own choice.

Hmm not bad.

However,

1. I don’t think that randomly putting people into random groups is a good idea. For those wanting a specialized group getting random pugs that don’t meet the requirements and not have the ability to kick would be horrible. I feel that forcing people together, without the option to leave would only cause rage, hate, trolling, ect.

2. This is much better. Although I would remove the gear check ability. Also a concern that comes to mind would be that the party leader gets a party, gets to the end, and than kicks everyone, and brings in his buddies. This already happens to an extent, and it certainly isn’t ok. But just having one person with kick power just invites such things.
Instead I would have it so only the party leader can initiate a kick, or have the party leader have to approve a kick, but it still needs to have a vote.

Ah, didn’t expect to start a discussion so I didn’t really plan it out or think of all the corner cases :P

But yeah, there are a lot of things need to be considered and I didn’t list every possible detail. I agree the gear thing is not required, but a more convenient way to ping your gear/build (like in GW1) would be nice.

Some other considerations:
- Story requirement/Contested Dungeon may need to be redesigned
- May need automated group finder to balance the group composition (eg. 1 class/party unless you queue with a friend?)

pdavis.8031:

Hmm not bad.

However,

1. I don’t think that randomly putting people into random groups is a good idea. For those wanting a specialized group getting random pugs that don’t meet the requirements and not have the ability to kick would be horrible. I feel that forcing people together, without the option to leave would only cause rage, hate, trolling, ect.

They’ll have the ability to vote kick, just not as leniently as they can right now.’

Edit 2: I think you may have missed the point, option #1 is meant for quick grouping of people with no requirements. Not the mode you use for wanting a specialized group. E.g. you shouldn’t want to kick the 500 AP necro in this group mode (nor should you be allowed to vote kick someone in the first 1 minute of the party just cause you don’t like the group comp.) It’s meant for casual runs.

Well… i’m extremely pessimistic about this ever happening but here goes…

1) Party leader should not be tied to the dungeon but the party, this was the major flaw int he previous system, if he left dungeons went with him, that was wrong.

2) Party leader should have extra kick prevention, basically require unanimous confirmation to kick for the leader

3) Joining a dungeon from LFG should not instantly put you in the group, it should work the same as /join and require confirmation, that way people can refuse to accept people who clearly don’t fit the requirements or are known griefers.

4) Kicking should require a full team vote with a 20s vote time, if it does not create a majority and at least 2 kicks then the kick will not happen.

Give me those 4 things. The person who startst he group, posts the lfg, does the waiting, well they shouldn’t be able to be abused, at least not without everyone agreeing they’re a jerk. Point number 4 would prevent 2 people kicking the rest of the party, as the party could fight back, no more stories of 2 guildies kicking everyone at the end and hijacking the instance. This would also prevent the speed kick people do when stealing dungeons, you’d have 20s to respond. Point 3 would also help prevent that same thing, while also preventing low level characters from ever getting in and being kicked, so the 20s wait wouldn’t be an issue as the people you’re instantly kicking for not being what you ask never even make it into the group unless they skirt that system, which you still can kick and report for lfg abuse (lol).

I think those 4 things would create a system where there is less abuse while not being overbearing.

Rising Dusk.2408:

Only the leader can kick people and it doesn’t require a vote kick.

This is such a terrible idea. You want to give more power to toxic players? You need to outline the problems you are trying to fix before offering solutions.

I fear involving anything that looks or sounds like a gear check is going to scare Anet off, even if the proposed system is solid. That’s not to say its not worth talking about, I just feel like they may throw the baby out with the bath water if they see gear/class filtering.

The two things I’d really like to see that I think would go a long way towards reducing lfg abuse reports without shaking up the system to much is 1) joining from lfg starts an invite, rather than automatically joining, and 2) three votes to kick in a full party.

When the dev’s talked about why they chose to make lfg insta-join, they said they wanted you to get out and playing as quick as possible. Really the only benifit is that you don’t have to take the half-second it takes to click the check mark, and it comes at a pretty high cost. There is currently not protection against people you have blocked joining your party. Also, someone you have just kicked can immediately rejoin once you re-list, possibly bringing a friend to kick you. (I’ve had this happen.)

Three votes to kick in a full party is something they said they were going to do, gale said she would get back to us about why it never went through, but we still haven’t heard back.

Edit: I’m not against a party leader system, I worry that it could take some time to develop so I was proposing some more immediate solutions.

I know you guys are against the gear thing so much, but there is content that actually requires gear: Fractals. If not gear, then you should atleast be able to see their AR or you shouldn’t be able to join FotM 50 groups without 70 AR (Maybe 65). I don’t actually care about seeing people’s gear otherwise.

cthaeh.2168:

Rising Dusk.2408:

Only the leader can kick people and it doesn’t require a vote kick.

This is such a terrible idea. You want to give more power to toxic players? You need to outline the problems you are trying to fix before offering solutions.

More or less the 3 main problems:
1. Having 2 people join your LFG at the end of a run and hijacking your instance (Big problem for dungeon sellers or people giving away free spots)
2. Grief vote kicking (e.g. kicking people after Jade Maw dies even though you’ve successfully carried them just to spite them)
3. Vote kicking at the end of a dungeon/boss fractal to get guildies in. (When in reality most of the people that are getting kicked are dragging the team down or being a jerk in one way or another. They’re also not inviting friends and relisting in LFG)

Although, I don’t see why people are so against 1 person leaders. The burden of being a good leader falls on one person and I think the community is nice enough for it to not get it out hand (We have one of the nicer MMO community). We already have that issue right now anyways where you can kick anyone you want whenever you want if you bring a friend, and most people start groups with friends anyways. There are more people that wouldn’t abuse that then there are who would use it to their advantage and you just need one of those people to be the leader.

I’m all for the singular leader with full power, I just can’t see them doing it. I played EQ for 15 years with that system, very rarely had issues such that I can’t even think of a single example.

IMHO I don’t think any changes need to be made to the current party system. The real problem is lack of accountability of people hijacking parties. Solution, add a “Griefing” option in the reports menu and let internal GM’s take care of the issue.

cthaeh.2168:

Rising Dusk.2408:

Only the leader can kick people and it doesn’t require a vote kick.

This is such a terrible idea. You want to give more power to toxic players? You need to outline the problems you are trying to fix before offering solutions.

Exactly. So what are the problems you would want to fix about the party system we have now? That is a major part of the entire point of the thread!

Tree.3916:

IMHO I don’t think any changes need to be made to the current party system. The real problem is lack of accountability of people hijacking parties. Solution, add a “Griefing” option in the reports menu and let internal GM’s take care of the issue.

This is a valid point as well! If a lot of people feel this way, then I can report that to ANet as well. I’ll go through all posts in more detail later today after work.

Tree.3916:

IMHO I don’t think any changes need to be made to the current party system. The real problem is lack of accountability of people hijacking parties. Solution, add a “Griefing” option in the reports menu and let internal GM’s take care of the issue.

reporting is a bad option. It requires you first to get victimized, then maybe, eventually there is repercussions.
Also it uses resources in man hours.

Better to create a system that makes griefing less likely, and then people can report less griefing. (you can report someone for greifing already, its just not a drop down)

Tree.3916:

IMHO I don’t think any changes need to be made to the current party system. The real problem is lack of accountability of people hijacking parties. Solution, add a “Griefing” option in the reports menu and let internal GM’s take care of the issue.

By take care do you mean slap on the wrist like it seems they have done to those who they’ve “taken care of”?

If they’d actually do something you’re absolutely right.

phys.7689:

Tree.3916:

IMHO I don’t think any changes need to be made to the current party system. The real problem is lack of accountability of people hijacking parties. Solution, add a “Griefing” option in the reports menu and let internal GM’s take care of the issue.

reporting is a bad option. It requires you first to get victimized, then maybe, eventually there is repercussions.
Also it uses resources in man hours.

Better to create a system that makes griefing less likely, and then people can report less griefing. (you can report someone for greifing already, its just not a drop down)

I agree.

TurtleDragon.3108:

I know you guys are against the gear thing so much, but there is content that actually requires gear: Fractals. If not gear, then you should atleast be able to see their AR or you shouldn’t be able to join FotM 50 groups without 70 AR (Maybe 65). I don’t actually care about seeing people’s gear otherwise.

cthaeh.2168:

Rising Dusk.2408:

Only the leader can kick people and it doesn’t require a vote kick.

This is such a terrible idea. You want to give more power to toxic players? You need to outline the problems you are trying to fix before offering solutions.

More or less the 3 main problems:
1. Having 2 people join your LFG at the end of a run and hijacking your instance (Big problem for dungeon sellers or people giving away free spots)
2. Grief vote kicking (e.g. kicking people after Jade Maw dies even though you’ve successfully carried them just to spite them)
3. Vote kicking at the end of a dungeon/boss fractal to get guildies in. (When in reality most of the people that are getting kicked are dragging the team down or being a jerk in one way or another. They’re also not inviting friends and relisting in LFG)

Although, I don’t see why people are so against 1 person leaders. The burden of being a good leader falls on one person and I think the community is nice enough for it to not get it out hand (We have one of the nicer MMO community). We already have that issue right now anyways where you can kick anyone you want whenever you want if you bring a friend, and most people start groups with friends anyways. There are more people that wouldn’t abuse that then there are who would use it to their advantage and you just need one of those people to be the leader.

I’m against a Party Dictator system because it makes it easier to kick people, not harder. My Hobby Dungeon Explorer achievement count is now 500+ and I’ve been kicked maybe three times from a dungeon. I firmly believe that number will go up with a Party Dictator system. You say we already have the issue right now because they can bring a friend. A dictator system would remove the need for said friend, so the problem is worse.

In any case, a dictator system does not solve problems #2 and 3 you’ve outlined here. Having a dictator makes it worse because there’s no longer a vote. As for the first issue, I don’t think we should remove the democratization of the party system in service of path sellers. They are an exceedingly small portion of the player base engaging in a questionable activity.

The only change that ANet should make is increasing the number of votes it takes to kick a party member from 2 votes to >= 50% of the group. This alleviates much of problem, preserves the democratization of the party system, and doesn’t require a party dictator. I’m sorry if that eats into the path sellers profits, but you have the other 99.9% of the player base to worry about.

In the unlikely event that anet ever does add challenging instanced group content with more than 5 players, then the current system would be awful for it. There would be a lot of arguments and conflict between players when the group starts to wipe and people would vote kick each other (usually based on their misunderstanding of fight mechanics). This is the example where 1 leader would truly shine as he/she would be able to control the group and prevent irrational and misinformed vote kicks, especially in large groups of 10+ players. I already see this happening all the time in smaller scale content such as fractal/arah PUGs and I would have loved to prevented my one of my Fractal 50 PUGs from kicking a ranger who didn’t deserve it after Jade Maw died and not receive his daily/chest.

Of course this all moot since I’m 90% sure that the challenging group content they add is going be open world stuff that is zergable.

At this point I’m done defending my suggestion since it comes down to me thinking “People in this game are generally good and won’t abuse party leader” vs. “People in this game are generally toxic and more vote kicks will happen.” Neither is more correct and you can’t prove either of them. People are also looking at the idea I suggested in a vacuum and are completely ignoring the fact that I mentioned it was an opt-in system and there would be an automated group finder to accompany it with better vote-kick protection (Which I’m sure most people would use cause it’d lazier, faster, easier and most of the game’s content is easy enough to carry 1-2 inexperienced players). If you’re doing a zerker dungeon tour speed farm, you don’t grab 4 ppl form LFG to do it, most of your party is from guild/friends list.

I still want to read other people’s ideas though.

Jerus.4350:

Tree.3916:

IMHO I don’t think any changes need to be made to the current party system. The real problem is lack of accountability of people hijacking parties. Solution, add a “Griefing” option in the reports menu and let internal GM’s take care of the issue.

By take care do you mean slap on the wrist like it seems they have done to those who they’ve “taken care of”?

If they’d actually do something you’re absolutely right.

This thread is not about discussing potential repercussions to said actions. The people who maintain this game make the rules and we can only abide by them. If they feel a temporary 3 day ban is sufficient, who am I to say otherwise?

Regarding someone else’s post about abuse of the system, there is no way Anet can create a robust enough system to eliminate all griefing. Knowing this, we can use tools that are already in place to help mitigate current and future problems.

I only put your idea in the spotlight because it was in the other thread and I didn’t want to miss that idea in this discussion. There certainly may be other approaches we could use to formulate a party leader system.

The big questions, however, are things that need to be addressed and we’ve gotten some feedback on already. A lot of people have said “give us proper party leader controls” over the months but haven’t really qualified what they want or what problems they actually want to solve.

I think I can safely say the big issues we want to address are:

1. We want to minimize the likelihood that path sellers will get griefed and kicked out of their instances
2. We want to minimize the likelihood that groups will kick others out and either sell their slots or invite their friends to leech the spots. I distinguished this from the first bullet because both need to be specifically addressed.
3. We want to provide an architecture for players to more easily group up with others looking for specific sets of qualifications to avoid situations where players may be kicked.
4. We want to achieve this without creating a situation where a player is “immune” to being kicked from a party if they mistreat others or go afk forever or whatever.

I think those four bullets cover the major issues we want to address. The third I think we can address with a proper filter system like we discussed in a previous topic, or possibly there are other solutions.

A party leader system could be implemented that might limit the issues seen in bullets 1 and 2, but we want to be mindful of problem 4. Making someone immune to being kicked is taking steps backwards. This is why I think there may need to be an opt-in if the party leader is immune, or if that’s even a valid idea at all. I do agree with phys.7689 that if we can prevent griefing, then it is a worthwhile pursuit. The key is that we don’t want to unnecessarily divide or impede people forming groups at the same time.

Tree.3916:

Jerus.4350:

Tree.3916:

IMHO I don’t think any changes need to be made to the current party system. The real problem is lack of accountability of people hijacking parties. Solution, add a “Griefing” option in the reports menu and let internal GM’s take care of the issue.

By take care do you mean slap on the wrist like it seems they have done to those who they’ve “taken care of”?

If they’d actually do something you’re absolutely right.

This thread is not about discussing potential repercussions to said actions. The people who maintain this game make the rules and we can only abide by them. If they feel a temporary 3 day ban is sufficient, who am I to say otherwise?

Regarding someone else’s post about abuse of the system, there is no way Anet can create a robust enough system to eliminate all griefing. Knowing this, we can use tools that are already in place to help mitigate current and future problems.

you dont need to totally eliminate a problem to make things better. An increase in the usage of condoms, reduces the transmission of STDs, which has the dual benefit of reducing the amount of people getting sick, and reducing the time and money spent treating them.

I don’t think we need to worry about development effort and things like that here. Let’s figure out what we want, and then we can propose the “ideal” solution to ANet and they can consider breaking it up into smaller bits based on time investment and such. What ANet is most concerned about is what we want, not how realistic we think it is that they’ll be able to fully implement it. I think any improvements we can make to reduce griefing by any appreciable amount are worth discussing.

Well, I don’t mind having having my post in the spotlight and I know it wasn’t a perfect (or whole) suggestion. Like someone mentioned above you can’t make a system that is fully not exploitable in one way or another. I just don’t want to argue glass is half full vs. half empty.

But yeah, I agree the focus should be on preventing griefing instead of policing and punishing it. Waste of dev resources to go through each dungeon kick case.

Rising Dusk.2408:

cthaeh.2168:

Rising Dusk.2408:

Only the leader can kick people and it doesn’t require a vote kick.

This is such a terrible idea. You want to give more power to toxic players? You need to outline the problems you are trying to fix before offering solutions.

Exactly. So what are the problems you would want to fix about the party system we have now? That is a major part of the entire point of the thread!

There are two problems I see with the party system as it functions today. One is that griefers have too much power over kicking another player. The solution to having too much power is not to consolidate that power. Toxic players will gravitate towards that power far more than players who wouldn’t kick someone else to begin with. I think a better solution to this problem is increasing the number of votes it takes to kick someone so that it requires a majority of the party to vote “yes”. If someone is proposing that it takes a unanimous vote to kick the party leader, then it should take a unanimous vote to kick any other party member.

The second problem is that ANet doesn’t seem to be punishing those that join a party with the sole intention of kicking others in the group. This is really just a perceived problem because we have no visibility into how many complaints are registered or how they are handling the complaints. In any case, it seems incredibly difficult to identify who the griefers are in those situations, so I’m not sure there really is a problem or solution here.

One thing I don’t want implemented is something similar to the mail suppression mechanic. In order to combat gold sellers or spammers, the normal player is hurt by the 2 messages per some time method. When I do giveaways on my stream or need to mail more than 2 people in a short period of time, I do not like being suppressed. This type of overarching suppression to mitigate potential abusers is draconic IMO.

Tree.3916:

Jerus.4350:

Tree.3916:

IMHO I don’t think any changes need to be made to the current party system. The real problem is lack of accountability of people hijacking parties. Solution, add a “Griefing” option in the reports menu and let internal GM’s take care of the issue.

By take care do you mean slap on the wrist like it seems they have done to those who they’ve “taken care of”?

If they’d actually do something you’re absolutely right.

This thread is not about discussing potential repercussions to said actions. The people who maintain this game make the rules and we can only abide by them. If they feel a temporary 3 day ban is sufficient, who am I to say otherwise?

Regarding someone else’s post about abuse of the system, there is no way Anet can create a robust enough system to eliminate all griefing. Knowing this, we can use tools that are already in place to help mitigate current and future problems.

Your claim is that proper punishment would be enough to prevent people from abusing the system is it not? Discussing said punishment seems to be warranted considering that the current risk of punishment simply isn’t enough to deter people.

Tree.3916:

One thing I don’t want implemented is something similar to the mail suppression mechanic. In order to combat gold sellers or spammers, the normal player is hurt by the 2 messages per some time method. When I do giveaways on my stream or need to mail more than 2 people in a short period of time, I do not like being suppressed. This type of overarching suppression to mitigate potential abusers is draconic IMO.

I agree a great deal with this, so we’re on the same page there.

Tree.3916:

One thing I don’t want implemented is something similar to the mail suppression mechanic. In order to combat gold sellers or spammers, the normal player is hurt by the 2 messages per some time method. When I do giveaways on my stream or need to mail more than 2 people in a short period of time, I do not like being suppressed. This type of overarching suppression to mitigate potential abusers is draconic IMO.

100% agree here, It’s a very big concern that any changes not be so heavy handed as to be a burden.

I stick by the 4 suggestions I put above though. I think it’d be light enough to not be overbearing (20s for a kick isn’t too much is it? maybe 15s? has to be enough to allow people to respond as to not catch people in a situation where 2 guys kick and the 3rd/4th are busy and can’t vote against).

What if you had an optional dictator system? If someone wants to protect his own instance and Play How He Wants, he should have a checkbox to do so. If people still want to form their casual groups with no protection from kicks, let them form groups without such a checkbox.

Edit:

ORRR what if the instance owner can choose the kick threshold? IE the person who opens the instance can choose either no kicks, 4 votes required to kick, 3 votes required to kick, 2 votes required, 1 vote required – and make this info available on the LFG

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

What if you had an optional dictator system? If someone wants to protect his own instance and Play How He Wants, he should have a checkbox to do so. If people still want to form their casual groups with no protection from kicks, let them form groups without such a checkbox.

Edit:

ORRR what if the instance owner can choose the kick threshold? IE the person who opens the instance can choose either no kicks, 4 votes required to kick, 3 votes required to kick, 2 votes required, 1 vote required – and make this info available on the LFG

I’d be quite happy with that checkbox even if that was the only thing they added. Just put like a little crown above the profession icon in the listing to show it or something.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

What if you had an optional dictator system? If someone wants to protect his own instance and Play How He Wants, he should have a checkbox to do so. If people still want to form their casual groups with no protection from kicks, let them form groups without such a checkbox.

Edit:

ORRR what if the instance owner can choose the kick threshold? IE the person who opens the instance can choose either no kicks, 4 votes required to kick, 3 votes required to kick, 2 votes required, 1 vote required – and make this info available on the LFG

Pure devil’s advocate point here.

People are against even opt-in gear checks in great numbers because they fear the peer pressure and the “meta” eventually making this a “forced” thing to even have a chance of getting into a “real” group.

How is this opt-in system any different, if at all?

I’d like:

• Party leader where
• it’s absolutely clear who the leader is. That leader:
• has sole authority to kick.

You are a guest in his/her party. There will always be some griefing no matter what system you use, but this protects someone 100% if they are wary of being grief-kicked (make your own party). In contrast, the only way to be 100% safe currently is to have only one stranger in your party!

Dave.2536:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

What if you had an optional dictator system? If someone wants to protect his own instance and Play How He Wants, he should have a checkbox to do so. If people still want to form their casual groups with no protection from kicks, let them form groups without such a checkbox.

Edit:

ORRR what if the instance owner can choose the kick threshold? IE the person who opens the instance can choose either no kicks, 4 votes required to kick, 3 votes required to kick, 2 votes required, 1 vote required – and make this info available on the LFG

Pure devil’s advocate point here.

People are against even opt-in gear checks in great numbers because they fear the peer pressure and the “meta” eventually making this a “forced” thing to even have a chance of getting into a “real” group.

How is this opt-in system any different, if at all?

True, it’s not different.

But those people are wrong anyway.

I like the idea of 2 systems you can choose from, but an automated group finder and a party dictator with build-in gearcheck is too black-and-white.

Players with lower requirements than the meta crowd should be allowed to enforce them without being in the role of a party leader in which they might feel uncomfortable (lack of experience, getting blame for bad team performance or w/e).
For this case I’d just leave the LFG system as it is, but increase the kickvotes needed to partysize-1. With that kick requirement you’re safe if you enter random parties with 1 friend.

I agree on most things about the party leader, but the current gearcheck is sufficient, imo. And not sure what I think about kick immunity, a fixed 4 kickvote requirement might be reasonable.
Also the party leader should be allowed to remove/transfer leader rights mid-run. If he just leaves, the rights will be removed or transfered to 2nd person who joined the party, idc.

Edit: What about 4 kickvotes + no veto from party leader = kick? that prevents the leader from being kicked, unless he goes afk.

Another idea is to keep current system but make dungeons less griefable. Currently the biggest problem is that you get kicked at end. What if dungeon tracked your participation?

For example if you get kicked at end you would still get 80%-90% of the rewards. This could also be extended to solos so that you would get 500% rewards if you solo.

Also one quick idea to protect sellers is that you can only kick previous players if you have been in the instance for 5 minutes.

1. Increase vote kicks from 2 to 3.So 3 people will need to accept before a person is kicked.
2. When player is kicked from already started instance add a 30 minute debuff not letting him join other groups.
3. When player leaves already started instance add 15 minute debuff not letting him join other groups.
4. Creat a time frame that starts counting the same moment the dungeon is opened and everyone is inside.It will remove the leave or kick penatly when a specific minute is reached from being inside and actually doing the instance.If the group just sits afking then the AFK mode will kick them all out.
5. Give the group 5 vote kickes maximum.If all 5 are used then the 6th person joining will be imune to kicks.
6. Player joining in the end of instances won’t be able to perform vote kick for 10 mins.
7. Add afk timer removing automatically the players for afking more than 15 minutes.
8. If the instance is not started and anyone is kicked or leaves then next time he tries to join the same group a window will pop-up to the party leader giving him the option to accept or decline player’s request to join.

@ moiraine
1) yup.
2) Umm, no thanks, 30 min lockout because you got kicked? So the whims of others should not only get you dropped from the group but also prevent cooperative play for 30 mins? yeah kitten no
3) Again, KITTEN NO, punishing me for leaving if I’m not having fun? that’s horse kitten
4) So when you have to kick 5 lvl 30s when asking for 80s that 6th one gets in without any possible repercussions?
5) Ok, this one I can support, no reason you should be kicking if you joined at the end.
6) I’m not against this idea, though I fear the implimentation, I like that you actually seem to have a longer afk window in dungeons, it lets me do things like go out and get something to eat in the middle of an Arah run. Though there are easy ways to get around the games afk checks.
7) Why not just have that window from the start?

@Moraine
#2, #3, #7 are terrible for groups that don’t even use the LFG system. Why punish those who aren’t even PUGing.

Penalties like the ones you suggested are appropriate for an automated LFG system like the ones you see in other MMORPGs but not the current LFG system we have.

Wethospu.6437:

Another idea is to keep current system but make dungeons less griefable. Currently the biggest problem is that you get kicked at end. What if dungeon tracked your participation?

For example if you get kicked at end you would still get 80%-90% of the rewards. This could also be extended to solos so that you would get 500% rewards if you solo.

This is interesting. I think it would still be griefing to get kicked at the end, but at least getting 80-90% of the rewards would lessen the sting. The primary issue with this I see is that it would kill dungeon selling because people wouldn’t get rewards for joining at the end.

Wethospu.6437:

Also one quick idea to protect sellers is that you can only kick previous players if you have been in the instance for 5 minutes.

Something like this could certainly work, and might be an easier solution than a full-blown party leader system at least for protecting path sellers. This alone, however, doesn’t address the issue of being grief-kicked at the end of a dungeon path to be replaced by the other players’ guild members.

Yes, dungeon selling would die which in my opinion is not a bad thing. However solo rewards would improve drastically.

Wethospu.6437:

For example if you get kicked at end you would still get 80%-90% of the rewards. This could also be extended to solos so that you would get 500% rewards if you solo.

Good idea in theory, but I don’t see any chance they would actually increase rewards for doing dungeons with fewer than 5 people.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Wethospu.6437:

For example if you get kicked at end you would still get 80%-90% of the rewards. This could also be extended to solos so that you would get 500% rewards if you solo.

Good idea in theory, but I don’t see any chance they would actually increase rewards for doing dungeons with fewer than 5 people.

Increasing gold rewards would probably be a terrible idea. Increasing other rewards could be a good thing. It’d have an impact on the economy surely but if you spread it out between various worthwhile materials it could be mitigated pretty well.