Guild Wars 2

I don’t understand the logic behind enabling this to happen.

It’s established that Arenanet either aren’t able to or are too stubborn to come up with a way to have instance ownership passed on to another person in the party if the host leaves, so why enable the host to get kicked…? Obviously if that happens then the instance is gone, so in what circumstance would it ever be a viable option to let party members do this besides griefing? I can’t think of any.

It’s illogical to let this happen.

Here is an example of it happening to me but get this…

http://www.twitch.tv/purpleishawt/c/3744743

I was kicked BEFORE I paid for help at tar in Arah P1. I didn’t even say anything besides “hi” to the person when he joined. All I was doing was killing time by clearing some of the trash to make it easier for the people joining to get to me… and I get this “pay or kick” nonsense.

I stream myself soloing this path nearly every night without exploiting a single thing. I don’t safespot ooze, I don’t maphack or jump over walls that weren’t intended to be jumped on, I kill Lupicus, I even kill Korga and let the buyers waypoint to come for the last boss to let them get bonus loot. I, like many others, still get griefed. I refuse to post on the LFG after I pay for tar help without placeholders because of this rotten system.

I don’t expect much, but I think the more people that speak up about this the higher the chance that MAYBE someday something will get done about this.

It’s not about making it more viable to sell paths, it’s about addressing a pathetic design flaw in this system that shouldn’t have even been released in the first place without preventative measures to ensure things like this never are to happen.

It’s too easy to grief, grab a friend and you can easily kill every open instance, hell you can do it solo with the merge bug.
It’s like putting a big red button in front of every player in the game, and thanks to party chat wiping/the lack of any party history, griefers can push that big red button anonymously.
Is it ArenaNet’s fault that a large group of the player base gets rock hard by destroying other people’s instances? No. But nevertheless the responsibility falls on them to fix it, to remove that big red button so to speak.

+1 good idea, it’s a bandage fix to a much greater problem but my word is it a push in the right direction.

That would turn all those griefers in Perma-Stealth thieves though “merging outside of the box”… Everytime i picture the merge system in my head i see a pirate ship brutally ramming into a trade-vessel with a troll face on the black flag, seriously there is no reason for a merge system, it just causes headaches. For the tar part, i usually invite friends.

Thanks for the posts guys.

I sometimes try to invite friends for it but often times I can’t. I play on Desolation but I live in America (chose to transfer to here a while ago because of friends) and when I do solo runs, it’s normally late at night my time and very early in the morning in Europe. It’s safe to say that the majority of my friends on this game aren’t from the same timezone, so most of them aren’t online.

Sometimes friends and viewers from my livestream are able to come, but it’s not always the case. Regardless, I want to focus on the bigger issue here and that’s the fact that instance hosts are capable of being kicked from a party when they obviously should not be.

Miku you bring up an interesting dynamic.

As much as I dislike the concept of being able to grief, Runners like those in your video showed. Having the Instance ownership transfer may not be the answer.

How would you feel If You solo ran a path and had 2 people jump in and kick you, and claim your end rewards. If the Instance ownership transferred I would imagine we would begetting MANY complaint of griefers basically stealing peoples runs.

By having the Instance owner getting kicked out and the run terminated…

As painful as it may seem, Arena Net may actually have the less of many evils method of instance management. This is an interesting Concept…..

The Only modification that I could see working would be what You would need Miku and be that instance owners are not capable of being kicked out. the option doesn’t even show up…

(ponders)

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/LFG-Tool-New-players-have-too-much-power/first#post3638217

I had started basically a similar thread with the same intent here…

Perhaps instance owners should have sole kicking power. It’s not an ideal, but possibly better than what we have now. Of course, the UI should make it clear exactly who is the instance owner.

As for the merge party button — it boggles my mind that Anet hasn’t disabled it. A one minute solution for a very major problem.

It’s a pretty ridiculous issue that never should have found the way into this game. I do not understand this and don’t get what they were thinking about this. Make it like in WoW: there is a leader, but if he leaves another player will automatically get the leading role and only he has the option for kicking proposal. This works best.

I gotta be honest here, i hate Sellers of dungeons, i’m against it because they cheat their way through to get money and it sucks. However, Purple Miku is the only one player that made me wrong. He never cheats, he solo the stuff in a proffesional way, he don’t exploit enemies or use jump skips. I’m proud to say that i respect him, and he’s probably the 1% of the Arah sellers that really deserves to have fun and money if he wants to solo + make some gold with a dungeon.

So, that said: Hey purple, you might remember me, as we played together sometimes. If this happens again, add me and i’ll join your group really fast. That wasn’t cool, man.

By the way, since that player is from my server and i’m a known commander in there, i’ll contact the major guilds and try to make a punishment ^^. Payback is coming. Take care.

Oh really? We cheat? Then how is it that a few days ago I soloed Arah p1 (excluding tar) and p3 just fine?

Thanks for generalising a whole group of people though, it just reminds me of how extremely opposed the GW2 player base is towards any sort of skill.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Of course, the UI should make it clear exactly who is the instance owner.

The UI should be improved, I totally agree. But while it’s not the case, you can still know who the instance owner is by watching (the start of) a dungeon video. The player being shown is the instance owner. Of couse, Fractals don’t have such videos so it doesn’t work everywhere.

Elrey.5472:

I gotta be honest here, i hate Sellers of dungeons, i’m against it because they cheat their way through to get money and it sucks. However, Purple Miku is the only one player that made me wrong. He never cheats, he solo the stuff in a proffesional way, he don’t exploit enemies or use jump skips. I’m proud to say that i respect him, and he’s probably the 1% of the Arah sellers that really deserves to have fun and money if he wants to solo + make some gold with a dungeon.

So, that said: Hey purple, you might remember me, as we played together sometimes. If this happens again, add me and i’ll join your group really fast. That wasn’t cool, man.

By the way, since that player is from my server and i’m a known commander in there, i’ll contact the major guilds and try to make a punishment ^^. Payback is coming. Take care.

Miku fanboy calling all other path sellers Cheaters/Exploiters.
Way to throw everyone infront of the bus.
Good job man X’).

No Seriously, Get real.
also trying to talk yourself up with the commander thing, just sad.

Elrey.5472:

I gotta be honest here, i hate Sellers of dungeons, i’m against it because they cheat their way through to get money and it sucks. However, Purple Miku is the only one player that made me wrong. He never cheats, he solo the stuff in a proffesional way, he don’t exploit enemies or use jump skips. I’m proud to say that i respect him, and he’s probably the 1% of the Arah sellers that really deserves to have fun and money if he wants to solo + make some gold with a dungeon.

So, that said: Hey purple, you might remember me, as we played together sometimes. If this happens again, add me and i’ll join your group really fast. That wasn’t cool, man.

By the way, since that player is from my server and i’m a known commander in there, i’ll contact the major guilds and try to make a punishment ^^. Payback is coming. Take care.

Aww thank you that was a nice thing to read

You don’t have to do anything for me but I will gladly accept your assistance if you wish to offer it. But, I will always pay for those that want to come help at tar! I have a problem with paying some but not all, makes me feel like a jerk to do that.

Also not all Arah sellers cheat, so perhaps you should edit your post to say “most” because that would be more accurate than saying “all.” If you leave it as it is, you might aggravate other people reading. Just offering some advice to prevent attracting negative attention upon yourself, like the poster above.

Ropechef.6192:

Miku you bring up an interesting dynamic.

As much as I dislike the concept of being able to grief, Runners like those in your video showed. Having the Instance ownership transfer may not be the answer.

How would you feel If You solo ran a path and had 2 people jump in and kick you, and claim your end rewards. If the Instance ownership transferred I would imagine we would begetting MANY complaint of griefers basically stealing peoples runs.

By having the Instance owner getting kicked out and the run terminated…

As painful as it may seem, Arena Net may actually have the less of many evils method of instance management. This is an interesting Concept…..

The Only modification that I could see working would be what You would need Miku and be that instance owners are not capable of being kicked out. the option doesn’t even show up…

(ponders)

Sorry, I’ll clarify exactly what I meant; I can sometimes be really wordy.

The ownership of an instance should indeed be transferred, but ONLY in the case of the owner leaving through their own decision. It is illogical to offer the option of kicking the instance owner, as the instance would be lost for everyone including the owner. There is no situation that I can think of where it would be viable to permit anyone to kick the owner of an instance for any purpose other than griefing and as such, it shouldn’t be enabled.

My friend’s father’s friend’s uncle works at arenanet, i could get you all banned if i wanted to.

I am also a well known Dungeon Commander and have armies of pugs/dungeon buyers worshipping me and following every single one of my orders.. You better be careful who you insult, whelp, otherwise you might end up with a not justified ban like some other people around here. :^)

(Also: Podex-kissing is bad, almost as bad as white-knighting. Don’t do it!)

Purple Miku.7032:

Ropechef.6192:

Miku you bring up an interesting dynamic.

As much as I dislike the concept of being able to grief, Runners like those in your video showed. Having the Instance ownership transfer may not be the answer.

How would you feel If You solo ran a path and had 2 people jump in and kick you, and claim your end rewards. If the Instance ownership transferred I would imagine we would begetting MANY complaint of griefers basically stealing peoples runs.

By having the Instance owner getting kicked out and the run terminated…

As painful as it may seem, Arena Net may actually have the less of many evils method of instance management. This is an interesting Concept…..

The Only modification that I could see working would be what You would need Miku and be that instance owners are not capable of being kicked out. the option doesn’t even show up…

(ponders)

Sorry, I’ll clarify exactly what I meant; I can sometimes be really wordy.

The ownership of an instance should indeed be transferred, but ONLY in the case of the owner leaving through their own decision. It is illogical to offer the option of kicking the instance owner, as the instance would be lost for everyone including the owner. There is no situation that I can think of where it would be viable to permit anyone to kick the owner of an instance for any purpose other than griefing and as such, it shouldn’t be enabled.

Heh,
Don’t worry I get wordy too and more often than not lose track of anything I am trying to get at. )

Nuts and bolts to it. The Instance owner situation is I would think in an acceptable situation currently but with evolution things would need to change. As Always people are getting “smarter”

Instance owners should not be able to get kicked from the run. the option should not even be available. HOWEVER… the instance owner should have the ability to transfer the ownership.. somehow…. But even then, what happens if just something goes catywumpus with the owners net or something and is DC’ed. It would be very nice to be able to transfer the ownership to another player so that you do not lose all of your progress in the run. But how would you remove the irremovable player?

I think at this point we are talking mechanics and technical that I will be the first to admit I know so very little about…. If YOU were given the design choice. how would YOU set up the instance ownership concept?

Ropechef.6192:

If YOU were given the design choice. how would YOU set up the instance ownership concept?

Not have one in the first place, which also means removing the story mode requirements and the unlocking events for CoE and CoF. I’d also add a separate party mode where you have one party leader, and only he can kick, invite or transfer ownership of the party. The current party mode also needs a bit more restrictions on kicking, as well as major improvements to the LFG system.

There is no reason for dungeon opener/owner to get kicked. It’s obvious that it breaks the instance so only griefers would do it. But GG Anet.

With the question you’ve asked me, I respond with simply: I would change far too many things that would be out of the scope of this thread’s topic. So many that you’d probably request a tl;dr.

A simple yet effective solution would be to simply do what I’ve suggested in the previous post:

1) Instance owner cannot be kicked
2) The moment the instance owner LEAVES the party OR gets automatically removed from the party after X minutes of being disconnected (Is it 5 or 10 minutes?), the ownership is transferred to either a person in the party at random, or a person will receive the ownership based off of some other criteria. I’m going to go with the person that was in the instance longest. It wouldn’t be difficult to keep track of, and it’d reset for a person upon disconnecting/leaving the instance.

I owe you an apology Miku,
As I read and RE read your original answer I realized you answered before hand and I just didn’t quite grasp it.

So..

Sorry, my bad I need to slow down somedays and really read what is being put in front of me.

Moving on, I am in agreeance with you, I think the best way would be if the instance owner does in fact leave whether by their own reasoning, or by force (DC etc). the ownership of said instance can either be manually transferred by said owner, (emergency phone call, hand it off to a guild mate), or automatically transferred to another player, (connection lags out and getting back in takes to long. Or just flat out bailing on run ). However the instance owner cannot be removed (kicked), by anyone else. Only by themselves.

It’s fine, as long as you get it now that’s all that matters. =P

i never said “all”… probably you guys missunderstood me there. I just said i hate sellers and that’s my own opinnion, however i didn’t said that i hate “all”, actually that was a comment that i didnt finished and was suppose to be “i hate exploiters sellers”.

My apologies, it wasn’t my intention to offense anyone. Maybe it’s also my lack of english words a problem there. Again i’m sorry.

“I hate sellers” = “I hate all sellers” unless I’m missing something here. That’s like admitting you hate black people and then saying since you didn’t say all, you didn’t mean all.

But sure, I guess hating players who are more skilled than you is the “thing” on these forums, the amount of abuse players get just for suggesting good builds is unbelievable.

He already clarified that he meant the ones that exploit in his above post.

This is so messed up. I could just feel the feeling of helplessness as the two players were trying to extort money from you. Such a horrible move to do on their part. Like seriously. Why hasn’t there been a fix for this yet?

Rogue!

I know, I’m glad that I saved the clip for reference. I had no idea what to really say. I was going to pay the POS either way in the end, so it made no sense to me why that happened.

What you wrote in OP is not what I saw in the video.

Your fanboys see what they wanna see.

Beleth.8249:

What you wrote in OP is not what I saw in the video.

Your fanboys see what they wanna see.

I haven’t seen the clips though… what does that make me ^^?

Beleth.8249:

What you wrote in OP is not what I saw in the video.

Your fanboys see what they wanna see.

Oh, I’m sorry then.

Try opening your eyes the next time you play a video.

See obviously you don’t know how this process works. When you buy help, you’re paying for a service. A random person doesn’t just enter the party to earn the 1gold— they’re obligated to help take out the boss if they want it. Since the boss requires a minimum of four people to even spawn, let alone fight, anyone with any understanding of Arah would know that the person in the party was only there for the purpose of griefing.

Reporting him for scamming was about as relevant as any of the options could be, along with LFG system abuse. The person was griefing and taking advantage of a flaw in the design of the system in order to put me in a position where I am at the mercy of his abuse, for his own personal gain and for my loss.

You need to understand what specifically “buying tar help 1g ea” means; it means that I’m paying 3 people to enter the instance and kill the boss with me for the payment; they get a coffer + some RNG loot along with 1 gold from me and are sent on their ways.

In my opinion selling should be fixed. Dungeon should track which players complete which events. Once the dungeon gets completed each player would get his share.

So if you solo a dungeon on your own you would get 5 x end reward. Or if you are on a pug group and get kicked at end boss you would get ~80% of end rewards (for doing ~80% of encounters).

Seems it’s working as intended?

Vigilantes need to police the game. It allows them to kick solo runners.
So maybe thats why Anet don’t change it? and keep silent about it.

Wethospu.6437:

In my opinion selling should be fixed. Dungeon should track which players complete which events. Once the dungeon gets completed each player would get his share.

So if you solo a dungeon on your own you would get 5 x end reward. Or if you are on a pug group and get kicked at end boss you would get ~80% of end rewards (for doing ~80% of encounters).

I agree, but Arenanet seems to be apathetic.

Beleth.8249:

Seems it’s working as intended?

Vigilantes need to police the game. It allows them to kick solo runners.
So maybe thats why Anet don’t change it? and keep silent about it.

My god, I really hope you’re just a troll.

Wethospu isn’t posting with the intention of attacking somebody that solos a dungeon he’s commenting in regards to the fact that people shouldn’t even be able to get the end reward without actually partaking in the dungeon. The act of selling isn’t the issue it’s the act of buying that is because there’s simply no reason not to sell a path when it’s easy to do and legal by Arenanet’s rules.

If his idea were to actually become a part of the game then people would be forced to either pay to AFK at the start of a dungeon and waypoint only to tag something once, or actually do the dungeons. Seems like a great idea to me but unfortunately one that probably won’t ever make its way into the game.