Guild Wars 2

After being kicked out of our own dungeons just again and feeling slowly growing hate into two directions (people being kittenes and still nothing happening about it), I got the idea of a community driven dungeon police.
In case somebody catches exploiters in action selling the path, or being kicked from a legitimely done path when selling, they can send video proof to mentioned “police”.
Those should have the rights to warn – or temporarily ban people for first and later on even give perma bans.

Ideas?

Great idea, too bad it’s in the trashcan subforum though.

Gyler.8150:

Great idea, too bad it’s in the trashcan subforum though.

So true. :/

Not a good idea. Stop playing alone.

But what happens if a chosen person develops a grudge on someone?

Who do you choose? You can’t use someone who does dungeon runs, they may be friends with potential rule breakers. That creates a conflict of interest.

You also can’t use those who don’t run dungeons. They don’t know the mechanics or what is vs what isn’t an exploit. And even then they may be friends with the dungeon runners who violated a rule.

And then there are the people who think that anyone who kicks them is violating a rule, even if they joined a group that they know they didn’t meet the requirements of.

People are prejudiced, actual enforcement is somewhere between massively inconvenient and impossible.

And seriously, players can’t be trusted with those powers. Players are petty and hold a grudge and are prone to mob reactions.

Then there’s the CS issues generated, “So and so person that doesn’t actually work for anet suspended me unjustly!”

Those issues you stated are all inapplicable to my suggestion, though. The “police” would have to request and keep video evidence of the kick or other forbidden action. That way, if there was an unjustified ban (I.e. no video proof) the person dishing out the suspension could lose his rights.

Iris Ng.9845:

Not a good idea. Stop playing alone.

How has that any relation to what’s being suggested?

The work of your described police is precisely what a Game Master does in game. Now let’s pretend this idea is feasible, how would Anet implement it? Should the police get employed by Anet as a GM? Then what makes it any different from the current GM staff?If it’s a community driven position, how would Anet hold them responsible for the abilityto ban people? Would they now have a different code of conduct? In the end, it is not workable.

Short solution for not getting kicked? Don’t give people the chance to. If you sell without slot holders you are exposed to risks.

Tbh, I wouldn’t mind something like the Tribunal in LoL. Make players vote over warnings and temporary bans and let GMs handle perma bans.

This has been suggested for WvW hackers/trolls many times as it’s pretty clear Anet doesn’t have (or doesn’t want to spend) the resources for proper enforcement. Don’t bet on it happening, though.

(I do think it would work assuming the player-mods work under the threat of insta-perma-ban if they abuse their power.)

Reputation system would work best. With enough negative votes you would lose ability to kick people.

I am a dedicated dungeoneer and you have my vote for this idea but we all know NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE.

ArenaNet screw all the dungeon community with removing instance owner and rejecting to give us party leader role for dungeons. How long is it? A year now?

It’s their responsibility to protect us grom those griefers and the only way I act now is to punish ArenaNet for their terrible oversight.

Every time something bad happens in dungeons because of the change year ago submit a new ticket. Spam their support mailboxes with the tickets about griefers destroying your fun and remind each time it’s only ArenaNet’s fault it happens.

Wethospu.6437:

Reputation system would work best. With enough negative votes you would lose ability to kick people.

Something like Dishonor system I can agree with.

Or make everyone in the group eligible to agree/disagree with the kick and only kick when majority agrees.

Iris Ng.9845:

The work of your described police is precisely what a Game Master does in game.

More like what game masters would be supposed to do. But I have not seen a single perma ban on griefers yet. Not even on heitred.
If a banned person doesn’t view his ban as justified or claims he didn’t do the action, anet could simply look in the log for the ban of that person and check if a video is embedded. Or just make it so that videos must be embedded for a ban to be given. In the rather unlikely (at least more unlikely than getting griefed now) of an unjustified ban given, anet would have to look over it.

This obviously means some work for them and therefore nothing is going to happen, but it is much less work than actively handling griefers themselves.

Iris Ng.9845:

If it’s a community driven position, how would Anet hold them responsible for the ability to ban people? Would they now have a different code of conduct? (What will be the benefit? Who will govern over this police body?)

It is more work for them. If they couldn’t handle the situations with their current personel, how would you think they are willing to create more work for themselves?

P.S. It’s ironic, to be honest.

Give power to players ban players? No. It will be exploited and not used properly.

Reputation system: No. Every kick would be at least 1 downvote regardless of circumstances. We can’t have a blind system.

Every player thinks the person that kicked her/him is griefing or just being a jerk, and most don’t troll-kick.

There has to be a judge to analyze the situation to see who’s in the wrong. Also, I do NOT trust nonprofessional players to do it.

The problem is that because kicking is so subjective it takes a lot of effort to get a good conclusion.

Not really. If you play fair you very rarely have to kick people mid run. So even if you automatically got a point for every kick you wouldn’t get over the threshold since you would degenerate points away.

The whole system could actually be very simple. Whenever you kick an active player mid run you get 10 points. With more than 100 points you can’t kick anyone until you get below 50 points. Whenever you complete a dungeon you lose 1 point. Your points can’t go below zero.

In this case mid run would mean that path has been chosen and active player would mean that player has been 5 minutes in the instance and hasn’t been afk too long.

Iris Ng.9845:

Wethospu.6437:

Reputation system would work best. With enough negative votes you would lose ability to kick people.

Something like Dishonor system I can agree with.

Or make everyone in the group eligible to agree/disagree with the kick and only kick when majority agrees.

That would involve actually putting some code time into fixing something dungeon related. They can’t have that…

Really there are many options that would work to create a better environment. ANet simply doesn’t care enough to spend the resources on it.

Dub.1273:

Iris Ng.9845:

The work of your described police is precisely what a Game Master does in game.

More like what game masters would be supposed to do. But I have not seen a single perma ban on griefers yet. Not even on heitred.
If a banned person doesn’t view his ban as justified or claims he didn’t do the action, anet could simply look in the log for the ban of that person and check if a video is embedded. Or just make it so that videos must be embedded for a ban to be given. In the rather unlikely (at least more unlikely than getting griefed now) of an unjustified ban given, anet would have to look over it.

This obviously means some work for them and therefore nothing is going to happen, but it is much less work than actively handling griefers themselves.

i’m (rightfully) frustrated about a certain lfg hijacker ruining parties for people so let’s suggest something which is beyond impractical as an idea to anet

like

i don’t like the guy either but i literally can not comprehend how this would even work in practice.

The real way to get something implemented is to suggest it in the context of (the very precious) PvP …hope that it gets put into effect there, then hope that the system is carried over to dungeons.

Hackers are actually appearing more and more in PvP. A few suggestions in the PvP forum would do much more than any post here.

Lol.

Wethospu.6437:

Reputation system would work best. With enough negative votes you would lose ability to kick people.

I support this one.

I feel like there’s great ideas here but I also say, be careful what you wish for. The legit sellers are vastly outnumbered by the kitten heads that grief and troll them, you certainly wouldn’t want them all banding together against you in a he said/she said scenario such as a player run tribunal. ( I may be making assumptions on how this works though, Idk)

That’s why video evidence would be required. If it didn’t exist, ban the guy who gave away the ban. In any way, it could only lead to better results than what we have now.

Dub.1273:

That’s why video evidence would be required. If it didn’t exist, ban the guy who gave away the ban. In any way, it could only lead to better results than what we have now.

It could lead to worse results.

I never had a problem with dungeon groups. So no, it would not be any better.

Wethospu.6437:

Reputation system would work best. With enough negative votes you would lose ability to kick people.

Disagreed. A griefer guild would simply downvote everyone that passes by. Making innocent players have bad rep.

• Not supporting selling dungeon run is the best idea.
• Not pugging dungeons is the best idea.

runeblade.7514:

Dub.1273:

That’s why video evidence would be required. If it didn’t exist, ban the guy who gave away the ban. In any way, it could only lead to better results than what we have now.

It could lead to worse results.

I never had a problem with dungeon groups. So no, it would not be any better.

So, we now have kittentons of exploiting dungeon sellers, griefers and people who kick unjustified.
With a dungeon police we’d have kittentons of banned exploiting path sellers, banned griefers and banned people who kicked. For normal dungeon runs without problems there wouldn’t be any change.

Now, please explain what would get worse.

runeblade.7514:

Wethospu.6437:

Reputation system would work best. With enough negative votes you would lose ability to kick people.

Disagreed. A griefer guild would simply downvote everyone that passes by. Making innocent players have bad rep.

• Not supporting selling dungeon run is the best idea.
• Not pugging dungeons is the best idea.

Naturally you couldn’t vote that you got unfairly kicked if you didn’t even get kicked.

I agree with a rep system, but it has to work the opposite way. Negative voting is notoriously bad. An honor system almost always promotes good things. People work for rewards. Give people the ability to award honor points to good team members. Possibly lose honor if separate team members vote against them.

Giving players de-facto GM rights is not possible in my opinion. Such rights would be abused sooner or later.

A reputation system that works automatically could be a solution.
The goal: a griefer must be unable to kick legitimate players, while legitimate players must be able to kick players as usual (to kick inactive/offline players, etc.)

- usually you kick very seldomly logged-in users while being in instances, if ever.
- in rare cases, you have to kick players who have gone offline during an instance, to be able to invite a replacement.

So I suggest the following kick cooldown mechanism:

- for every account there is a kick counter that starts with 2
- kicking players from a party in the open world doesn’t regard and doesn’t change the kick counter. Kick as much as you like.
- you are able to kick players from your party who are in an instance only if your kick counter is greater than 0
- kicking an offline player from a party in an instance decreases your kick counter by 1
- kicking an online player from a party who is in an instance decreases your kick counter by 2
- your kick counter is reset to 2 30 days after you last kicked someone from an instance

This means, essentially you can kick one party member once every 30 days who is in an instance. And you can kick 2 offline party members once every 30 days (or 1 offline and 1 online member). This should be enough. If you used up your kicks for the month and still have to kick a party member, the other members still have theirs usually, so there is no problem if it is necessary to kick once more.

I see one problem with dungeon sellers: griefers will join and not leave, and they cannot be kicked due to the kick limit. According to CS, it is possible to report these players for leeching, so that could be a solution. On the other hand, I saw from the discussion here that such reports are not honored and not acted upon from CS. Don’t know what to do here.

“All of us! Abandoned! This isn’t real! You can’t be here!” – Raving Asura

Silmar Alech.4305:

Giving players de-facto GM rights is not possible in my opinion. Such rights would be abused sooner or later.

It appears you didn’t actually read about the required video evidience, of in case it wouldn’t be present no action could be taken.

Video evidence doens’t cut it, because almost all situations are open to interpretation.

~~

Also, I’m not sure of the need for this who aside from sellers. I do a fair amount of runs (for someone with a full time job anyways) and just don’t see these purported kick problems that keep getting mentioned.

Windsagio.1340:

Video evidence doens’t cut it, because almost all situations are open to interpretation.

~~

Also, I’m not sure of the need for this who aside from sellers. I do a fair amount of runs (for someone with a full time job anyways) and just don’t see these purported kick problems that keep getting mentioned.

Not sure what’s interpretation when you do a dungeon for 20 minutes, post a lfg and get kicked out 10 seconds after. Or what’s interpretation on joining an arah p2 seller and see lupicus skipped.

The suggestion itself is by no means perfect Dub but it’s not something I immediately dismiss like a lot of others here are doing.

It’s at the very least better than what we have now.

Unfortunately the most important thing we have to remind ourselves when discussing things like this is the fact that ArenaNet as a whole doesn’t give the slightest ounce of a frosty —-- about dungeons and anything to improve them.

What could possibly go wrong if you give this power to players. Its not a crappy f2p game where noone cares if one person got banned unjustly.

Purple Miku.7032:

The suggestion itself is by no means perfect Dub but it’s not something I immediately dismiss like a lot of others here are doing.

It’s at the very least better than what we have now.

Exactly my point.