Guild Wars 2

The proper solution, is the nobody should EVER be removed from an instance because of other player actions. This will be the only way to prevent malicious use of the partying system, and give everybody a fair chance to play how they want.

That means, if a party is split by a kick, the instance should be replicated for the split parts.

Of course this will allow the replication of an instance that is in a desirable state, which can easily be exploited. But this kind of exploitation should be considered an acceptable and mitigatable risk.

Mitigation involves, restructuring rewards so that there is no time where an instance is in a highly preferred state. Most of the times a dungeon is in it’s most prefered state, just before the final boss as the majority of the reward is earned by fighting and killing that boss. One good way of restructuring the rewards is to distribute more rewards across the entirety of the dungeon instead loading it entirely at the end.

In the same vein, dungeon currencies should be rewarded based on the player’s actual participation throughout the dungeon (sorry to dungeon purchasers, but coming in at the final boss, and fighting just him should only be worth a fraction of the tokens. Dungeon selling is not supported by the game.). Perhaps 1/2 token for each gold medal event, and 1/3 token for silvered and bronzed events throughout the dungeon (or other fraction depending on the number of events). To reward completion, of course, these rewards would be withheld until the final boss falls (but if you are forced into a copy, your rewards follow you).

Other tools for mitigation is to apply a sort of DR and have an instance reward entropy if an instance is copied too many times. This will also add consequences for being unable to work with a party that you joined. Rewards can be docked to players who are affected by the party kicking system or choose to use it.

The solution is to simply have a game where the manager’s of the economy do not have to worry about it being wrecked because an instance’s state can be copied. Rebalancing them in this way will also be helpful in revitalizing the way in which people can play dungeons. If the designers of the game can make it so that in game economy issues are separate from the mechanics of starting, stopping, continuing, and finishing a dungeon, then, the game will have a platitude more flexibility when handling how to deal with instances along side the party systems and other potential technical and network issues.

Duke Nukem.6783:

the dungeon community is the most hostile, most unfriendly, most eager to kick community in this game, and their is almost no fixing that. one of the only ways to be safe in a long run is to be the opener. this update will only give dungeon elitists more power to kick the person WHO STARTED THE PARTY. this update is just going to make them more hostile and aggressive and now theirs no protection from that.

its also a problem for dungeon sellers who can now be kicked by the buyer although i dont really like runners anyways.

i dont wana play the meta, i dont always wana roll swamp i dont wana keep a set of full zerker armor to do the catacombs and i dont wana rush past every enemy in the game just to quickly do the boss chest. and now their is no way for me to safely join a dungeon. you have taken away one of the only things i still do in this game anet.

SOLUTION
make it so the dungeon does persist if the owner goes offline and they can be kicked after being offline for a set amount of time (lets say 5-10 mins?) but the dungeon will NOT persist if they are kicked

Dungeon owner is just the worst thing that could ever happen to an MMO.

• Why one person should be protected and 4 other no?
• Why the group has to be on a mercy on 1 persone?
• Why if someone goes afk and is being just boosted for free to not be able to be kicked only becasue he opened?
• Why if the opener dc/goes offline to not be able to be kicked?

None other MMO has such kittened system like the dungeon owner that inclusde GW1 too.This system just had to goWhat Anet has to do is to increase the votes for kicking to 3 and if anyone is kicked his party chat to not get deleted

PseudoNewb.5468:

The proper solution, is the nobody should EVER be removed from an instance because of other player actions. This will be the only way to prevent malicious use of the partying system, and give everybody a fair chance to play how they want.

That means, if a party is split by a kick, the instance should be replicated for the split parts.

Of course this will allow the replication of an instance that is in a desirable state, which can easily be exploited. But this kind of exploitation should be considered an acceptable and mitigatable risk.

Mitigation involves, restructuring rewards so that there is no time where an instance is in a highly preferred state. Most of the times a dungeon is in it’s most prefered state, just before the final boss as the majority of the reward is earned by fighting and killing that boss. One good way of restructuring the rewards is to distribute more rewards across the entirety of the dungeon instead loading it entirely at the end.

In the same vein, dungeon currencies should be rewarded based on the player’s actual participation throughout the dungeon (sorry to dungeon purchasers, but coming in at the final boss, and fighting just him should only be worth a fraction of the tokens. Dungeon selling is not supported by the game.). Perhaps 1/2 token for each gold medal event, and 1/3 token for silvered and bronzed events throughout the dungeon (or other fraction depending on the number of events). To reward completion, of course, these rewards would be withheld until the final boss falls (but if you are forced into a copy, your rewards follow you).

Other tools for mitigation is to apply a sort of DR and have an instance reward entropy if an instance is copied too many times. This will also add consequences for being unable to work with a party that you joined. Rewards can be docked to players who are affected by the party kicking system or choose to use it.

The solution is to simply have a game where the manager’s of the economy do not have to worry about it being wrecked because an instance’s state can be copied. Rebalancing them in this way will also be helpful in revitalizing the way in which people can play dungeons. If the designers of the game can make it so that in game economy issues are separate from the mechanics of starting, stopping, continuing, and finishing a dungeon, then, the game will have a platitude more flexibility when handling how to deal with instances along side the party systems and other potential technical and network issues.

That was a real great post of ideal and logical solutions for several issues.

This just comfirmes people will be people. I personally am thrilled with this change because i had pleasure to do fractals and dungeons with a dozen of kitten instance owners who did:

order other party members to change builds or kick, ordered to change weapons or kick, played tag for 5 min with his kittengy guildie and refuse to press rdy, pour kitten storm of profanity on ele who dropper fgs 1.2 sec later and then if you say something to defend poor guy and say that’s not ok, threaten to kick you, if you ask nicely and give advice to someone who wipes on every single thrash mob and he actually kicks you.

And this is just a drop in a sea of kittengery i encountered with instance owners.

I’m just hoping the vote kick will be increased to 3. Cant tell how happy i am with this update, it will reduce the dungeon selling to minimum too.

My only concern are the elitist groups who insta kick engineers, rangers, or necros as soon as they join because those classes aren’t “optimal” for most dungeons.

Oxidia.8103:

This just comfirmes people will be people. I personally am thrilled with this change because i had pleasure to do fractals and dungeons with a dozen of kitten instance owners who did:

order other party members to change builds or kick, ordered to change weapons or kick, played tag for 5 min with his kittengy guildie and refuse to press rdy, pour kitten storm of profanity on ele who dropper fgs 1.2 sec later and then if you say something to defend poor guy and say that’s not ok, threaten to kick you, if you ask nicely and give advice to someone who wipes on every single thrash mob and he actually kicks you.

And this is just a drop in a sea of kittengery i encountered with instance owners.

I’m just hoping the vote kick will be increased to 3. Cant tell how happy i am with this update, it will reduce the dungeon selling to minimum too.

With the new update, anyone or the whole group can be kicked by 2 friends for whatever reasons near the end of the run AND invite their own friends to finish it.

Also it might actually increase dungeon selling prices instead, since sellers need to take extra precaution with spot fillers.

rojak.1894:

With the new update, anyone or the whole group can be kicked by 2 friends for whatever reasons near the end of the run AND invite their own friends to finish it.

And prior to the update they could have done almost the same. Only one person was immune. If the concern is players in general getting kicked then instance ownership does not address it.

Restricting or eliminating the kick function does.

Ashen.2907:

rojak.1894:

With the new update, anyone or the whole group can be kicked by 2 friends for whatever reasons near the end of the run AND invite their own friends to finish it.

And prior to the update they could have done almost the same. Only one person was immune. If the concern is players in general getting kicked then instance ownership does not address it.

Restricting or eliminating the kick function does.

I don’t know what you mean by restricting the kick function, but by eliminating the kick function it would be a pain to continue the dungeon/fractal especially when you are already 3/4 in and can’t kick someone who keeps hurling insults at the group or there’s 2 guys that refuse to co-operate (say half the group disagrees on the way something should be done, eg. someone wants to use a skip/exploit) knowing they wont be kicked.

It’s probably pugs that will face this more.

We really need party leader system , in many games leader exists and nobody cries about it . I am really sick of it when I create lfg, i check gear of every member and when we are 3/5 two random idiots join who things "full speedrun party I will join , they want 2 eles but probably they wont notice that they have condi engi instead " and what ?! they open dung and even kick me becasue I told them to switch to ele or leave . It is MY party , MY lfg , MY dung , dont like it ? create your own with only necros or whatever you want but it is my party and it will be done how I say .

I can understand why Duke is upset , right now he is protected becasue he starts dung but after this change probably every party even 2k ap heros will kick him because they know bearbow ranger is crap . Maybe Anet should enlarge lfg bar so everyone will see full description and before joining you will see that description in separate window and you will have to confirm that you read it and you still want to join it . I have seen so many exped full zerkers who cant kill spider queen in ac becasue after 10 sec queen still has 75% of hp.

Duke Nukem.6783:

if i start something, no matter how much or how little effort you think that is, i still started it, and i deserve a great say in what that thing does. many times 4 ppl are LESS capable of making good decisions than 1 (see the phenomenone known as groupthink).

ah, interesting, closing in on the narcissistic core of every saint personality.

chemiclord.3978:

And here we see the problems with changes.

Because I personally LOVE this change. I’ve had FAR more dungeon runs end because the dungeon “owner” DCed or rage quit (more than I can count) than end because I was kick scammed (never… and I main a ranger).

His fix would not affect your play.

The instance SHOULD change ownership is the opener goes offline for 5 min, or leaves the party.

however if kicked, the instance should dissolve.

This would keep the protection we need, but also save a dungeon should the opener leave. Win-win for everyone.

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

my solution:
always dungeon up with trusted guild members.

not a solution, friends are a much smaller pool than the public and are not always available, the party leader sets the rules for the trip and other people should follow those rules

rude players should not have all the power. This change is justified. Deal with it.

Mosharn.8357:

rude players should not have all the power. This change is justified. Deal with it.

rude? like you right now? overly concise players who make snap one line posts are a great comparison for snap judgement players who kick without justified reason. thank you for being an example of why we cant have this update

Mosharn.8357:

rude players should not have all the power. This change is justified. Deal with it.

The problem is, this gives every rude player ALL the power.

You see the faults in this system right?..no?

The kick system needs to be changed before this change is implemented. Nobody should be afraid to pug because of being kicked on a whim.

It was already risky enough starting a run with 2 or more players of the same guild. (not your own.).
Now EVEN the opener isn’t safe to abuse, something people used to at least be able to count.

(and in most cases the dungeon opener is the party “leader”/group organiser. And should be,)
There needs to be someone who is the leader of a party. It’s just too open to trolls now.

(I do think if the leader LEAVES….the instance should always pass on, because that’s annoying too.)

As long as the 2 randoms can kick whole run i will agree with Duke on this one.

Leader system was the only counter-action.

If first problem is solved, that’s another issue. But right now it’s not…

Duke Nukem.6783:

the dungeon community is the most hostile, most unfriendly, most eager to kick community in this game, and their is almost no fixing that. one of the only ways to be safe in a long run is to be the opener. this update will only give dungeon elitists more power to kick the person WHO STARTED THE PARTY. this update is just going to make them more hostile and aggressive and now theirs no protection from that.

its also a problem for dungeon sellers who can now be kicked by the buyer although i dont really like runners anyways.

i dont wana play the meta, i dont always wana roll swamp i dont wana keep a set of full zerker armor to do the catacombs and i dont wana rush past every enemy in the game just to quickly do the boss chest. and now their is no way for me to safely join a dungeon. you have taken away one of the only things i still do in this game anet.

SOLUTION
make it so the dungeon does persist if the owner goes offline and they can be kicked after being offline for a set amount of time (lets say 5-10 mins?) but the dungeon will NOT persist if they are kicked

Who came first chicken or the egg?

With your logic, everyone wants to be a “dungeon starter”. If thats all there was, there would be no groups.

Just up the vote restriction to 3 or 4 votes. Not going to be flawless 100% of the time, but its better than nothing.

And I HATED getting DC’d from the dungeon at the end of the run before I can click on any chest, because the instance owner left too quickly.

cesmode.4257:

Duke Nukem.6783:

the dungeon community is the most hostile, most unfriendly, most eager to kick community in this game, and their is almost no fixing that. one of the only ways to be safe in a long run is to be the opener. this update will only give dungeon elitists more power to kick the person WHO STARTED THE PARTY. this update is just going to make them more hostile and aggressive and now theirs no protection from that.

its also a problem for dungeon sellers who can now be kicked by the buyer although i dont really like runners anyways.

i dont wana play the meta, i dont always wana roll swamp i dont wana keep a set of full zerker armor to do the catacombs and i dont wana rush past every enemy in the game just to quickly do the boss chest. and now their is no way for me to safely join a dungeon. you have taken away one of the only things i still do in this game anet.

SOLUTION
make it so the dungeon does persist if the owner goes offline and they can be kicked after being offline for a set amount of time (lets say 5-10 mins?) but the dungeon will NOT persist if they are kicked

Who came first chicken or the egg?

With your logic, everyone wants to be a “dungeon starter”. If thats all there was, there would be no groups.

Just up the vote restriction to 3 or 4 votes. Not going to be flawless 100% of the time, but its better than nothing.

And I HATED getting DC’d from the dungeon at the end of the run before I can click on any chest, because the instance owner left too quickly.

the egg came first as it was around 100s of millions of years before dinosaurs began to shrink in orer to deal with the decreased supply of food, eventually becoming chickens and other birds you see today, the egg itself went through less changes only gaining a harder more brittle shell rather than the leathery shell of a dinosaur egg, now onto the rest of your post!

by your logic we should currently ONLY see party leaders cuz the system i am suggesting is already in place (expect for the D/c change) but we dont see that so your argument is empirically invalid.

3 votes is still too few , 4 is ok but id prefer a proper immunity

Duke Nukem.6783:

cesmode.4257:

Duke Nukem.6783:

the dungeon community is the most hostile, most unfriendly, most eager to kick community in this game, and their is almost no fixing that. one of the only ways to be safe in a long run is to be the opener. this update will only give dungeon elitists more power to kick the person WHO STARTED THE PARTY. this update is just going to make them more hostile and aggressive and now theirs no protection from that.

its also a problem for dungeon sellers who can now be kicked by the buyer although i dont really like runners anyways.

i dont wana play the meta, i dont always wana roll swamp i dont wana keep a set of full zerker armor to do the catacombs and i dont wana rush past every enemy in the game just to quickly do the boss chest. and now their is no way for me to safely join a dungeon. you have taken away one of the only things i still do in this game anet.

SOLUTION
make it so the dungeon does persist if the owner goes offline and they can be kicked after being offline for a set amount of time (lets say 5-10 mins?) but the dungeon will NOT persist if they are kicked

Who came first chicken or the egg?

With your logic, everyone wants to be a “dungeon starter”. If thats all there was, there would be no groups.

Just up the vote restriction to 3 or 4 votes. Not going to be flawless 100% of the time, but its better than nothing.

And I HATED getting DC’d from the dungeon at the end of the run before I can click on any chest, because the instance owner left too quickly.

the egg came first as it was around 100s of millions of years before dinosaurs began to shrink in orer to deal with the decreased supply of food, eventually becoming chickens and other birds you see today, the egg itself went through less changes only gaining a harder more brittle shell rather than the leathery shell of a dinosaur egg, now onto the rest of your post!

by your logic we should currently ONLY see party leaders cuz the system i am suggesting is already in place (expect for the D/c change) but we dont see that so your argument is empirically invalid.

3 votes is still too few , 4 is ok but id prefer a proper immunity

Don’t use dinosaur egg logic with me. How dare you bring logic into these forums.

And how about this one…your suggestion is empirically invalid because Im sure the Omnipotents at Arenanet have the statistics and know-how to know what would work and what wouldn’t work within the confines of their game.

Otherwise, they would have taken my brilliant suggestions on improving the game long, long ago.

tldr; They wont listen, whether or not we say increase the vote kick count to 4, or whether we all agree with your proposal. They know better, and aside from a 50 page CDI, our suggestions are hardly ever taken into account.

PseudoNewb.5468:

The proper solution, is the nobody should EVER be removed from an instance because of other player actions. This will be the only way to prevent malicious use of the partying system, and give everybody a fair chance to play how they want.

That means, if a party is split by a kick, the instance should be replicated for the split parts.

Of course this will allow the replication of an instance that is in a desirable state, which can easily be exploited. But this kind of exploitation should be considered an acceptable and mitigatable risk.

Mitigation involves, restructuring rewards so that there is no time where an instance is in a highly preferred state. Most of the times a dungeon is in it’s most prefered state, just before the final boss as the majority of the reward is earned by fighting and killing that boss. One good way of restructuring the rewards is to distribute more rewards across the entirety of the dungeon instead loading it entirely at the end.

In the same vein, dungeon currencies should be rewarded based on the player’s actual participation throughout the dungeon (sorry to dungeon purchasers, but coming in at the final boss, and fighting just him should only be worth a fraction of the tokens. Dungeon selling is not supported by the game.). Perhaps 1/2 token for each gold medal event, and 1/3 token for silvered and bronzed events throughout the dungeon (or other fraction depending on the number of events). To reward completion, of course, these rewards would be withheld until the final boss falls (but if you are forced into a copy, your rewards follow you).

Other tools for mitigation is to apply a sort of DR and have an instance reward entropy if an instance is copied too many times. This will also add consequences for being unable to work with a party that you joined. Rewards can be docked to players who are affected by the party kicking system or choose to use it.

The solution is to simply have a game where the manager’s of the economy do not have to worry about it being wrecked because an instance’s state can be copied. Rebalancing them in this way will also be helpful in revitalizing the way in which people can play dungeons. If the designers of the game can make it so that in game economy issues are separate from the mechanics of starting, stopping, continuing, and finishing a dungeon, then, the game will have a platitude more flexibility when handling how to deal with instances along side the party systems and other potential technical and network issues.

i wish but that exploit is way too huge, its less of an impact on the economy and the game to just allow the party leader immunity

cesmode.4257:

Duke Nukem.6783:

cesmode.4257:

Duke Nukem.6783:

the dungeon community is the most hostile, most unfriendly, most eager to kick community in this game, and their is almost no fixing that. one of the only ways to be safe in a long run is to be the opener. this update will only give dungeon elitists more power to kick the person WHO STARTED THE PARTY. this update is just going to make them more hostile and aggressive and now theirs no protection from that.

its also a problem for dungeon sellers who can now be kicked by the buyer although i dont really like runners anyways.

i dont wana play the meta, i dont always wana roll swamp i dont wana keep a set of full zerker armor to do the catacombs and i dont wana rush past every enemy in the game just to quickly do the boss chest. and now their is no way for me to safely join a dungeon. you have taken away one of the only things i still do in this game anet.

SOLUTION
make it so the dungeon does persist if the owner goes offline and they can be kicked after being offline for a set amount of time (lets say 5-10 mins?) but the dungeon will NOT persist if they are kicked

Who came first chicken or the egg?

With your logic, everyone wants to be a “dungeon starter”. If thats all there was, there would be no groups.

Just up the vote restriction to 3 or 4 votes. Not going to be flawless 100% of the time, but its better than nothing.

And I HATED getting DC’d from the dungeon at the end of the run before I can click on any chest, because the instance owner left too quickly.

the egg came first as it was around 100s of millions of years before dinosaurs began to shrink in orer to deal with the decreased supply of food, eventually becoming chickens and other birds you see today, the egg itself went through less changes only gaining a harder more brittle shell rather than the leathery shell of a dinosaur egg, now onto the rest of your post!

by your logic we should currently ONLY see party leaders cuz the system i am suggesting is already in place (expect for the D/c change) but we dont see that so your argument is empirically invalid.

3 votes is still too few , 4 is ok but id prefer a proper immunity

Don’t use dinosaur egg logic with me. How dare you bring logic into these forums.

And how about this one…your suggestion is empirically invalid because Im sure the Omnipotents at Arenanet have the statistics and know-how to know what would work and what wouldn’t work within the confines of their game.

Otherwise, they would have taken my brilliant suggestions on improving the game long, long ago.

tldr; They wont listen, whether or not we say increase the vote kick count to 4, or whether we all agree with your proposal. They know better, and aside from a 50 page CDI, our suggestions are hardly ever taken into account.

actually a mod already comented on this exact idea and said they would like to rethink the issue, i just hope they do the righ thing and make the party leader safe

1. Wait for someone to roll swamp.
2. Enter his party with a friend via LFG tool.
3. Kick him from party.
4. You and your friend start at swamp.

The person getting kicked wont even know what hit him, wont even know who to report because party members are not registered anywhere(unlike in GW1 when you had a “recent party members” list) and party chat get wiped the moment you leave/are kicked from party(not that we would have told him anything before kicking him anyway). He wont even know to block you or anything. Completely defenseless.

Now you want to apply this same method to Dungeon sellers among other things. They wont even know what hit them(or rather, they will know what hit them, but never who hit them). Can also be used on anything that says “at final boss” in LFG tool, such as parties with people who rage quit AC P2 for fast rewards.

Arenanet says this will be a bannable offense. But not really, because to be banned, you would need to get reported. To get reported, people need to be able to know your character name/account name, let alone type it.
Bring a character named Áæç Éüèöé Çéïì and let’s see them type that and report you.

Turtle Dragon.9241:

1. Wait for someone to roll swamp.
2. Enter his party with a friend via LFG tool.
3. Kick him from party.
4. You and your friend start at swamp.

The person getting kicked wont even know what hit him, wont even know who to report because party members are not registered anywhere(unlike in GW1 when you had a “recent party members” list) and party chat get wiped the moment you leave/are kicked from party(not that we would have told him anything before kicking him anyway). He wont even know to block you or anything. Completely defenseless.

Now you want to apply this same method to Dungeon sellers among other things. They wont even know what hit them(or rather, they will know what hit them, but never who hit them). Can also be used on anything that says “at final boss” in LFG tool, such as parties with people who rage quit AC P2 for fast rewards.

Arenanet says this will be a bannable offense. But not really, because to be banned, you would need to get reported. To get reported, people need to be able to know your character name/account name, let alone type it.
Bring a character named Áæç Éüèöé Çéïì and let’s see them type that and report you.

and will anet even be able to police it if you do manage to report them? it woudl be too common and we would have to also report peopel for kicking simply because “ranger used longbow”

Duke Nukem.6783:

Mosharn.8357:

rude players should not have all the power. This change is justified. Deal with it.

rude? like you right now? overly concise players who make snap one line posts are a great comparison for snap judgement players who kick without justified reason. thank you for being an example of why we cant have this update

The dungeon owner system is a huge flaw. Yes it gives power to kick the owner and yes people can abuse it. People will always abuse everything they can. Right now the host feels like the president of the universe and doesn’t have to worry about a thing. Everyone should be on even terms. If you pug, you expose your self to people like that.

The main issue I have with dungeon owner is that if the host bugs or wants to switch characters they can’t.

Also there is always a reason for a kick. If someone kicks for no reason then you brought your self into a party of kittens in the first place. It is very easy to avoid such parties. I don’t ever kick anyone or support a kick unless the person is very rude and or an elitist.

Also thank you for attacking my post with something that doesn’t contribute. I put simple words that have a straight forward meaning in the post you replied to. The dungeon owner system only added to the griefing trolls can do. It makes joining parties with friends a pain if you into a party with a troll for the owner.

Next time instead of attacking someone who replys to your thread you could discuss more. People like you are the reason a lot of players regret posting or even looking at the forums.

Mosharn.8357:

Duke Nukem.6783:

Mosharn.8357:

rude players should not have all the power. This change is justified. Deal with it.

rude? like you right now? overly concise players who make snap one line posts are a great comparison for snap judgement players who kick without justified reason. thank you for being an example of why we cant have this update

The dungeon owner system is a huge flaw. Yes it gives power to kick the owner and yes people can abuse it. People will always abuse everything they can. Right now the host feels like the president of the universe and doesn’t have to worry about a thing. Everyone should be on even terms. If you pug, you expose your self to people like that.

The main issue I have with dungeon owner is that if the host bugs or wants to switch characters they can’t.

Also there is always a reason for a kick. If someone kicks for no reason then you brought your self into a party of kittens in the first place. It is very easy to avoid such parties. I don’t ever kick anyone or support a kick unless the person is very rude and or an elitist.

Also thank you for attacking my post with something that doesn’t contribute. I put simple words that have a straight forward meaning in the post you replied to. The dungeon owner system only added to the griefing trolls can do. It makes joining parties with friends a pain if you into a party with a troll for the owner.

Next time instead of attacking someone who replys to your thread you could discuss more. People like you are the reason a lot of players regret posting or even looking at the forums.

no everyone should not be on even terms, people need order, and look at you making a one line post and saying to someone else “your not contributing”

and your “main issue” is fixed by my solution

Woljnir.7810:

My only concern are the elitist groups who insta kick engineers, rangers, or necros as soon as they join because those classes aren’t “optimal” for most dungeons.

There are groups all the time that don’t care. In fact whenever I do dungeons I specifically say any class is welcome and that it’s not a speed run.

The only thing that needs to be added now is an increase from 2 votes to 3 votes to kick and the system will be perfect.

TehPwnerer.7215:

Woljnir.7810:

My only concern are the elitist groups who insta kick engineers, rangers, or necros as soon as they join because those classes aren’t “optimal” for most dungeons.

There are groups all the time that don’t care. In fact whenever I do dungeons I specifically say any class is welcome and that it’s not a speed run.

The only thing that needs to be added now is an increase from 2 votes to 3 votes to kick and the system will be perfect.

many of those elitists dont even read party descriptions and will still harass people for not playing their way, and this increase from 2 to 3 votes does not address the principal concern i have, i am the party maker, i made it with a specific st of rules in mind and any1 who wants to violate these rules can now kick me, and do not say that i have to play with friends, i will not accept restrictions of any kind that other people do not have, if i have to only play with friends in my party we might aswell delete the entire lfg system

Duke Nukem.6783:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

If you don’t want to be kicked then don’t join speed runs with your sup-par build and your lack of experience.

Make your own group and specify you want a slow inexperienced casual run.

i love the jerks who instantly assume im joining parties that im unqualified for when i clearly said these concerns are about being the opener

1. Party creator and instance owner are two separate things. They have no relation to each other at all.

2. I find it very interesting that you have such a problem with getting kicked. Maybe the problem is that you go around calling people jerks? Try being nicer and you may not get kicked as often. I have pugged 7 dungeons a day (AC 123,SE 13, CF 1,2) almost every day for the last year. I think I have over 1000 dungeon runs. I have never once been kicked.

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Duke Nukem.6783:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

If you don’t want to be kicked then don’t join speed runs with your sup-par build and your lack of experience.

Make your own group and specify you want a slow inexperienced casual run.

i love the jerks who instantly assume im joining parties that im unqualified for when i clearly said these concerns are about being the opener

1. Party creator and instance owner are two separate things. They have no relation to each other at all.

2. I find it very interesting that you have such a problem with getting kicked. Maybe the problem is that you go around calling people jerks? Try being nicer and you may not get kicked as often. I have pugged 7 dungeons a day (AC 123,SE 13, CF 1,2) almost every day for the last year. I think I have over 1000 dungeon runs. I have never once been kicked.

1. i make no distinction between the two as i always open before i form a party, but for you, ok, this discussion is about the person making the group the “group pleader”

2. there are 5 threads on the front page of these forums saying the same thing so instead of trying to make me into a scapegoat you talk about the issue at hand.

@ZudetGambeous

I agree with you on everything you said.What i want is OP to answer to those questions:

• Why one persone should be protected and 4 other no?Only because he open he can do what ever he wants.
• Why the group has to be on a mercy on 1 persone?He can leave at any time and booting us out.
• Why if someone goes afk and is being just boosted for free to not be able to be kicked only becasue he opened the instance?
• Why if the opener dc or rage quits and goes offline we shouldn’t be able to kick?
• Why being to much time offline the whole group has to be kicked out?

moiraine.2753:

@ZudetGambeous

I agree with you on everything you said.What i want is OP to answer to those questions:

• Why one persone should be protected and 4 other no?Only because he open he can do what ever he wants.
• Why the group has to be on a mercy on 1 persone?He can leave at any time and booting us out.
• Why if someone goes afk and is being just boosted for free to not be able to be kicked only becasue he opened the instance?
• Why if the opener dc or rage quits and goes offline we shouldn’t be able to kick?
• Why being to much time offline the whole group has to be kicked out?

your answers in order:
1. the group leader formed the party for specific reasons, if his reason was simply wanting to get going then he deserves to get what he wants, a quick and easy going party, but if his reasons were to avoid persecution for something the “meta” frowns upon then he also deserves that, its an issue of autonomy, my party my rules, dont like it? get out.
2. did u even read my solution? pay attention to the solution under OP it clearly says you WILL NOT be booted if the party leader leaves
3. if i open the party maybe i want a slow relaxed run, this might mean some afking is to be expected to handle other things, i went in a party with a woman the other day who was putting her baby to sleep and we didnt mind waiting, it was her party, her rules. while it certainly is reproachable to go afk for a long time i would certainly be willing to amend my suggestion in the OP to say that if the party leader goes idle for too long they also lose party ownership.

4. again, did you even read the OP ? shame on you
5. seriously cant you read

Nobody should ever be booted from the dungeon just because someone else leaves. End of story. Whatever else they implement to prevent griefing I’m all for. Increase vote kick to 3 votes? Definitely. Give party leader some form of control over how things work? Perfect.

But nobody should ever be removed from an instance because the first person who left, or the party leader, left or got kick or got disconnected.

End of story. That’s how ArenaNet has decided dungeons should now work.

TehPwnerer.7215:

Nobody should ever be booted from the dungeon just because someone else leaves. End of story. Whatever else they implement to prevent griefing I’m all for. Increase vote kick to 3 votes? Definitely. Give party leader some form of control over how things work? Perfect.

But nobody should ever be removed from an instance because the first person who left, or the party leader, left or got kick or got disconnected.

End of story. That’s how ArenaNet has decided dungeons should now work.

we aggree on that, and it is not at all related to this thread because the topic we are discussing is the autonomy of party leaders NOT suggesting that the party leader leaving should still close the dungeon

Duke Nukem.6783:

TehPwnerer.7215:

Nobody should ever be booted from the dungeon just because someone else leaves. End of story. Whatever else they implement to prevent griefing I’m all for. Increase vote kick to 3 votes? Definitely. Give party leader some form of control over how things work? Perfect.

But nobody should ever be removed from an instance because the first person who left, or the party leader, left or got kick or got disconnected.

End of story. That’s how ArenaNet has decided dungeons should now work.

we aggree on that, and it is not at all related to this thread because the topic we are discussing is the autonomy of party leaders NOT suggesting that the party leader leaving should still close the dungeon

Fair enough. Glad we’re on the same page on that then. As far as what is and isn’t given to party leaders, I could care less so I’ll take my leave of this thread.

Duke Nukem.6783:

its a classic issue of autonomy and freedom, those 4 playes are guests in the party of the leader and if they dont like the way they do it they can leave and get a new party, they are guests in his home and no matter what insane thing he asks of you in his home you do it or get out, you do not steal his home because you dont want it, dont assume that those 4 people are more qualified to make choices jsut because they are 4 and the leader is one, many parties will kick just bcuz u didnt stack (im a ranger and i use a longbow and i dont want to stack) and putting casual in the description means little as some ppl dont even read descriptions, if i start something, no matter how much or how little effort you think that is, i still started it, and i deserve a great say in what that thing does. many times 4 ppl are LESS capable of making good decisions than 1 (see the phenomenone known as groupthink).

Your analogy is wrong. The “party starter” has basically leased an instance from anet and has opened that lease to others. If the starter then goes on to behave like a kittenbag then the other players electing to kick the starter is the same as 4 people in a house share telling the landlord that the first tenant is being a prat and getting him booted. The current system means that kicking the first tenant results in all the tenants being kicked, the new system will treat all tenants the same regardless of when they joined in.

This is what the change will fix. The fact that a player started the instance should not result in that player being granted some sort of special status. If that player paid to open the instance then sure but otherwise no.

rojak.1894:

Ashen.2907:

rojak.1894:

With the new update, anyone or the whole group can be kicked by 2 friends for whatever reasons near the end of the run AND invite their own friends to finish it.

And prior to the update they could have done almost the same. Only one person was immune. If the concern is players in general getting kicked then instance ownership does not address it.

Restricting or eliminating the kick function does.

I don’t know what you mean by restricting the kick function, but by eliminating the kick function it would be a pain to continue the dungeon/fractal especially when you are already 3/4 in and can’t kick someone who keeps hurling insults at the group or there’s 2 guys that refuse to co-operate (say half the group disagrees on the way something should be done, eg. someone wants to use a skip/exploit) knowing they wont be kicked.

It’s probably pugs that will face this more.

Restricting the kick function might include:

1) Requiring 3 or 4 kick votes rather than 2.

2) Instead of having a blank kick option you have a multiple choice check box with options like AFK, Abusive Language/Behavior, etc." This input would then be saved for review in case the kicked individual files a complaint. If he was kicked for AFK and it is determined that he was demonstrably not actually AFK the kick voters receive a ban.

In general though I do not think that giving group A the power to grief group B is a good way to prevent group B from griefing group A.

Azrael.4960:

If that player paid to open the instance then sure but otherwise no.

Hmm, PvE private queue ?

Player buys a gem store token that prevents them from being kicked from instances that they start ?

The amount of trolling that will be caused by this change will be insane. No more LFM @ endboss or anything of the sorts. You can simply votekick anyone in the group, without fear of who is the opener, invite guildies, profit.

Ashen.2907:

Azrael.4960:

If that player paid to open the instance then sure but otherwise no.

Hmm, PvE private queue ?

Player buys a gem store token that prevents them from being kicked from instances that they start ?

Don’t give anet ideas…

Azrael.4960:

Ashen.2907:

Azrael.4960:

If that player paid to open the instance then sure but otherwise no.

Hmm, PvE private queue ?

Player buys a gem store token that prevents them from being kicked from instances that they start ?

Don’t give anet ideas…

yea seriously nobody wins in that….not even anet as id still quit

What are your rules, Duke Nukem?

PUGs aren’t really the place for a huge set of rules and that may be what’s getting you kicked if you have too many or they are too complex.

Since that’s really what your true issue is. Getting kicked when it’s your group. And it’s obviously happened enough times and most likely not at the beginning of the run for you to be worried about this change.

If your rules are not venturing into the realm of breaking the rules, then yes, it is a jerk move that you got kicked. But too many trolls would abuse the party leader is immune function. Too many rule breakers would.

But if they kicked you early in the run, that’s all the better for you if you’re rules aren’t breaking ANet’s rules. Because only jerks kick someone else when it’s not their group. And you don’t really want to help a jerk, do you?

Seera.5916:

What are your rules, Duke Nukem?

PUGs aren’t really the place for a huge set of rules and that may be what’s getting you kicked if you have too many or they are too complex.

Since that’s really what your true issue is. Getting kicked when it’s your group. And it’s obviously happened enough times and most likely not at the beginning of the run for you to be worried about this change.

If your rules are not venturing into the realm of breaking the rules, then yes, it is a jerk move that you got kicked. But too many trolls would abuse the party leader is immune function. Too many rule breakers would.

But if they kicked you early in the run, that’s all the better for you if you’re rules aren’t breaking ANet’s rules. Because only jerks kick someone else when it’s not their group. And you don’t really want to help a jerk, do you?

what my rules are is irrelivent im not even sure i have any

and your absolutly wrong about “people would abuse the immunity” we have it RIGHT NOW and it works fine, it is literally how things have been running for 2 years, so the only change is that the leader leaving no longer causes instance to close

Duke Nukem.6783:

Seera.5916:

What are your rules, Duke Nukem?

PUGs aren’t really the place for a huge set of rules and that may be what’s getting you kicked if you have too many or they are too complex.

Since that’s really what your true issue is. Getting kicked when it’s your group. And it’s obviously happened enough times and most likely not at the beginning of the run for you to be worried about this change.

If your rules are not venturing into the realm of breaking the rules, then yes, it is a jerk move that you got kicked. But too many trolls would abuse the party leader is immune function. Too many rule breakers would.

But if they kicked you early in the run, that’s all the better for you if you’re rules aren’t breaking ANet’s rules. Because only jerks kick someone else when it’s not their group. And you don’t really want to help a jerk, do you?

what my rules are is irrelivent im not even sure i have any

and your absolutly wrong about “people would abuse the immunity” we have it RIGHT NOW and it works fine, it is literally how things have been running for 2 years, so the only change is that the leader leaving no longer causes instance to close

Currently:

The true trolls don’t care if you own the instance and it will kick everyone out. They know a portion will go running to the forums to complain and ask for the change that is about to come.

The exploiter will be lead because he knows people don’t want to lose their progress and can use that as a form of blackmail. “I get to exploit or you get to lose all your progress.”

And if you aren’t getting kicked at the beginning of the run before it even starts, then it’s you. You come off as someone who makes it perfectly clear that you own the instance. So obviously you do things most PUG players don’t like to such a degree that people are willing to LOSE THEIR PROGRESS to get rid of you.

Which means if it isn’t your build, it’s your rules. Which is why I asked. You already stated you’re a bowbear, which is probably why you get kicked at the beginning of the runs by jerks. And you don’t want to run with them anyway. They did you a favor. But once the run starts, it’s you. Something about your personality or your rules is causing you to get kicked. And you obviously haven’t realized it. You’re biased towards your own personality (we’re all biased towards our own) so I can’t ask you about your personality. I can ask you about your rules. Maybe help you figure out what’s causing you to get kicked so often. Because you’re obviously so scared of getting kicked after this change is implemented. And there has to be a reason behind it. If you never to rarely get kicked, you’d likely not be this stuck on party leader immunity.

The change is coming, there’s not enough uproar over it to cause them to reverse their decision. Most seem in favor of it as long as the change to kicking is raised from 2 to 3. And that’s what ANet will likely try first. It’s a lot simpler than party leader immunity. And a lot less prone to being exploited by rule breakers (jerks and game exploiters).

If jerks and exploiters wouldn’t use their immunity from being kicked against the others in their party, I’d be all for it. But unfortunately, that’s not the case. I can’t let a decision that would let a game rule breaker force other players to either choose to lose upwards of an hour’s progress or profit off of them exploiting the dungeon. Or allow a jerk to be incredibly rude to someone in the middle of the run without being able to be kicked (if you’re being incredibly rude, you have earned the kick and a likely ban as I’m talking ban worthy levels of rudeness).

No matter what happens in this thread, at the end of the day, you are not the patent
owner of guild wars 2, you don’t own the pixels on the screen and you don’t get to decide what happens with changes in the game. The change is going through no matter how much you complain and you have literally no say in it. No amount of your arguing with almost everyone in this thread and being rude to everyone here (despite stating how EVERYONE else but you is rude) is going to change these facts. However, when you do decide to create and manufacture your own MMO, feel free to add these changes to it.

sevenDEADLY.5281:

No matter what happens in this thread, at the end of the day, you are not the patent
owner of guild wars 2, you don’t own the pixels on the screen and you don’t get to decide what happens with changes in the game. The change is going through no matter how much you complain and you have literally no say in it. No amount of your arguing with almost everyone in this thread and being rude to everyone here (despite stating how EVERYONE else but you is rude) is going to change these facts. However, when you do decide to create and manufacture your own MMO, feel free to add these changes to it.

lol, look whose talking

Seera.5916:

Duke Nukem.6783:

Seera.5916:

What are your rules, Duke Nukem?

PUGs aren’t really the place for a huge set of rules and that may be what’s getting you kicked if you have too many or they are too complex.

Since that’s really what your true issue is. Getting kicked when it’s your group. And it’s obviously happened enough times and most likely not at the beginning of the run for you to be worried about this change.

If your rules are not venturing into the realm of breaking the rules, then yes, it is a jerk move that you got kicked. But too many trolls would abuse the party leader is immune function. Too many rule breakers would.

But if they kicked you early in the run, that’s all the better for you if you’re rules aren’t breaking ANet’s rules. Because only jerks kick someone else when it’s not their group. And you don’t really want to help a jerk, do you?

what my rules are is irrelivent im not even sure i have any

and your absolutly wrong about “people would abuse the immunity” we have it RIGHT NOW and it works fine, it is literally how things have been running for 2 years, so the only change is that the leader leaving no longer causes instance to close

Currently:

The true trolls don’t care if you own the instance and it will kick everyone out. They know a portion will go running to the forums to complain and ask for the change that is about to come.

The exploiter will be lead because he knows people don’t want to lose their progress and can use that as a form of blackmail. “I get to exploit or you get to lose all your progress.”

dont make assumptions about why someone gets kicked or if they even do, iv never been kicked from my own party ever
And if you aren’t getting kicked at the beginning of the run before it even starts, then it’s you. You come off as someone who makes it perfectly clear that you own the instance. So obviously you do things most PUG players don’t like to such a degree that people are willing to LOSE THEIR PROGRESS to get rid of you.

Which means if it isn’t your build, it’s your rules. Which is why I asked. You already stated you’re a bowbear, which is probably why you get kicked at the beginning of the runs by jerks. And you don’t want to run with them anyway. They did you a favor. But once the run starts, it’s you. Something about your personality or your rules is causing you to get kicked. And you obviously haven’t realized it. You’re biased towards your own personality (we’re all biased towards our own) so I can’t ask you about your personality. I can ask you about your rules. Maybe help you figure out what’s causing you to get kicked so often. Because you’re obviously so scared of getting kicked after this change is implemented. And there has to be a reason behind it. If you never to rarely get kicked, you’d likely not be this stuck on party leader immunity.

The change is coming, there’s not enough uproar over it to cause them to reverse their decision. Most seem in favor of it as long as the change to kicking is raised from 2 to 3. And that’s what ANet will likely try first. It’s a lot simpler than party leader immunity. And a lot less prone to being exploited by rule breakers (jerks and game exploiters).

If jerks and exploiters wouldn’t use their immunity from being kicked against the others in their party, I’d be all for it. But unfortunately, that’s not the case. I can’t let a decision that would let a game rule breaker force other players to either choose to lose upwards of an hour’s progress or profit off of them exploiting the dungeon. Or allow a jerk to be incredibly rude to someone in the middle of the run without being able to be kicked (if you’re being incredibly rude, you have earned the kick and a likely ban as I’m talking ban worthy levels of rudeness).

Duke Nukem.6783:

the dungeon community is the most hostile, most unfriendly, most eager to kick community in this game, and their is almost no fixing that. one of the only ways to be safe in a long run is to be the opener. this update will only give dungeon elitists more power to kick the person WHO STARTED THE PARTY. this update is just going to make them more hostile and aggressive and now theirs no protection from that.

its also a problem for dungeon sellers who can now be kicked by the buyer although i dont really like runners anyways.

i dont wana play the meta, i dont always wana roll swamp i dont wana keep a set of full zerker armor to do the catacombs and i dont wana rush past every enemy in the game just to quickly do the boss chest. and now their is no way for me to safely join a dungeon. you have taken away one of the only things i still do in this game anet.

SOLUTION
make it so the dungeon does persist if the owner goes offline and they can be kicked after being offline for a set amount of time (lets say 5-10 mins?) but the dungeon will NOT persist if they are kicked

If you don’t want to play the way everyone else does in a social game then you need to find your own group of friends who want to play your way. Sorry.

Duke Nukem.6783:

VOLTCIEAGE.3029:

no opener system is good we need new kicking/party owner system

if i start the party then it should be up to me who stays and who goes, il admit if i want to LEAVE the party then they should get their own instance but if i get kicked then yes the dungeon should close.

Why? Your assumption that the starter of the party can’t be incompetent (or an childish prig) is quite arrogant (but the rest of your comments here make that an unsurprising statement). While you have made statements about not wanting the change, you have yet to point out how this change would be unfair to anyone. Please do so (and you being unable to control the party is not “unfair” to you).

Question for whiners: has any of you guys did a dungeon ex. fractals that every thing went smooth and after 3rd frac suddenly one guy said brb then after 30mins he hasn’t come back yet? What’s worst party cant kick him cause his the instance owner? Try it! And maybe you’ll support this change…. it will greatly ruduce trolls in dungeon/leavers too.

WingLegacy.7159:

Question for whiners: has any of you guys did a dungeon ex. fractals that every thing went smooth and after 3rd frac suddenly one guy said brb then after 30mins he hasn’t come back yet? What’s worst party cant kick him cause his the instance owner? Try it! And maybe you’ll support this change…. it will greatly ruduce trolls in dungeon/leavers too.

my solution is better: it addresses your problem with an afk party leader (changes party leader if idle or offline for 5 mins) and still protects the autonomy of the party