Guild Wars 2

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.

I support him on 100%.OP is just arguing with everyone…..I can say only one thing.Dungeon owner had to go and Anet agreed on that.So deal with it.

moiraine.2753:

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.

I support him on 100%.OP is just arguing with everyone…..I can say only one thing.Dungeon owner had to go and Anet agreed on that.So deal with it.

OP is arguing with half the people with one perspective, and dont say deal with it cuz anet has already said they are re consdiering certain parts of this, so i am getting what i want

Duke Nukem.6783:

moiraine.2753:

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.

I support him on 100%.OP is just arguing with everyone…..I can say only one thing.Dungeon owner had to go and Anet agreed on that.So deal with it.

OP is arguing with half the people with one perspective, and dont say deal with it cuz anet has already said they are re consdiering certain parts of this, so i am getting what i want

So, until then, deal with it. I’m sure that all of us who have posted in this thread have seen the dev’s comments regarding this issue (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Dungeon-Instance-Owner-change-FTW/first if you haven’t). They want to change the kick vote number to 3? Awesome, but with programming issues, it’ll take time. They want to add the ability to see who your party members were even after you were kicked so you could report them if need be? Great, but with their current state of rolling out the feature patch, it could take a while as well.

You may sound childish with your “i am getting what i want” attitude, but at least they’re trying to fix a problem they created. The patch won’t launch for another week and a half, so do try and enjoy the dungeons before the clusterkitten happens. And hopefully, the system will be altered so that EVERYONE is protected, not just the dungeon owner.

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).

That’s my experience as well. I hear so many people talk about people getting kicked out of groups (on forums only), but it’s never happened to me. Ever. And I run dungeons regularly. Just asked in guild chat (there are 15 online right now), not one of them has ever been kicked out of a dungeon run maliciously so someone else could join, but eight of them have said they’ve been kicked because owner left. Which I’ve been the victim of at least 10 times.

Things might not be what they seem to the typical forum dweller.

This change sounds good.

OP suggests to let there be a “leader” that is immune to being kicked. Or at least if they do get kicked, they still kick the rest of the party out with them. The reasoning being that they “own” the party/instance. Correct?

First, none of us players own anything in the game. The instance isn’t your house. You, the player, are actually an invader or helper of the true owners.

Second, just because you think typing a LFG message is “more work” doesn’t make you more special. Want a real life example? Who does more work the grunt or the boss? Who does the firing? Sounds fair, right?

Third, a much better solution would be that when a player (any player) is kicked, they get prompted that they were kicked and and if they would like to stay in the instance. If they chose to stay, they are there at the point they were kicked (or some checkpoint system close to it) and can freely repopulate another group to finish said instance. Yes, this is entirely a huge undertaking to make possible, but IMO is the best solution to this kicking problem as a whole.

Pennry.9215:

OP suggests to let there be a “leader” that is immune to being kicked. Or at least if they do get kicked, they still kick the rest of the party out with them. The reasoning being that they “own” the party/instance. Correct?

First, none of us players own anything in the game. The instance isn’t your house. You, the player, are actually an invader or helper of the true owners.

Second, just because you think typing a LFG message is “more work” doesn’t make you more special. Want a real life example? Who does more work the grunt or the boss? Who does the firing? Sounds fair, right?

Third, a much better solution would be that when a player (any player) is kicked, they get prompted that they were kicked and and if they would like to stay in the instance. If they chose to stay, they are there at the point they were kicked (or some checkpoint system close to it) and can freely repopulate another group to finish said instance. Yes, this is entirely a huge undertaking to make possible, but IMO is the best solution to this kicking problem as a whole.

1, the debate of who LEGALLY owns the content is not the same as who owns the content in a practical sense so this is irrelivent

2. this is just an ignorant example the boss does do more work, he takes more risks to start up the company or makes the hard decisions, its not easy being at the top

3. this is a fine idea and i like it alot

It’s a bug fix. Nobody should have owned the instance and now this will be true.

So you are saying all of us should suffer because you cant or wont find a guild of likeminded individuals?

Behellagh.1468:

It’s a bug fix. Nobody should have owned the instance and now this will be true.

many many players are concerned with the amount of griefing and undeserved kicks that will result from this, it is a “bug” fix, but we can strive for ever more complex and fair solutions rather than just settle for what we have now, this is progress

Stand The Wall.6987:

So you are saying all of us should suffer because you cant or wont find a guild of likeminded individuals?

i should not be forced to follow your rules and you should not be forced to follow mine, nobody is forcing you to join my parties , but YOU are trying to force me to only play with guildies, i see a problem here

Duke Nukem.6783:

Stand The Wall.6987:

So you are saying all of us should suffer because you cant or wont find a guild of likeminded individuals?

i should not be forced to follow your rules and you should not be forced to follow mine, nobody is forcing you to join my parties , but YOU are trying to force me to only play with guildies, i see a problem here

No you’re being put on the same playing field as everyone else. See one of my earlier responses for my analogy which was a rebuttal to your analogy

Whenever I do a dungeon. I make sure I’m always the person who opens it. This I because I have learned from experience that when I allow other people to open it, they usually do one of the following stupid things:

1) After the dungeon has been completed, they leave the party instantly and other members of the party that had loot on the ground didn’t get to pick it up and got removed from the dungeon.

2) Become annoyed with the slow progress of the dungeon and leave party.

3) In FotM, choose the wrong difficulty.

When I played Fractals, I accidentally left the party, which in turn brought everyone else with me as I was leader of that run at the time. I honestly have to say that I prefer this change as it lifts, to an extent the frustration of other players. On the negative side, it does appear that anyone even the leader of said instance would be targetted for a kickout, which I think is a lesser of the two evils here. I’d rather have my fellow party members go on their instance without me (or wait for someone else to fill up the vacant slot) rather than let everyone go down with me.

Thinking about it now, I didn’t know about this mechanikittenil recently, which would explain why I left the instance immediately despite not me getting my loot from a particular dungeon. There was no warning involved at all.

The only reason people want this is so they can still sell access to parts of the instance.

The only other reason I can think a leader wants to retain “ownership” is so they can be complete jackholes to the people in “their” instance and be immune to being kicked.

Seems like both reasons are self centered.

I would probably hate the builds and playstyle that OP chooses, but I do agree that there needs be a good way to enforce “party rules”, so that it is possible to have semi-organized PUG groups with specific criteria.

If you’re against the ability to specify party requirements and enforce them, you’re probably a bad leech (i.e., you need others to carry you).

Maybe something like this could work:

• Have a clearly designated party leader role (i.e., someone opens party interface and ‘creates party’, they are now the leader of an 1-person party)
• Party leader can leave and dungeon instance will not disappear
• Party leader cannot be kicked at all
• Party leader can kick anyone, no other votes needed.
• Retain party chat logs after a player leaves party to make it easier to report obvious abuse (e.g., party leader kicks someone at end of dungeon before they can get reward, invites friend)
• Some way to use the blocklist to avoid playing with problem players in the future. (Maybe some warning when you are about to join/accept someone on your blocklist)

If you don’t like the rules someone made for their party, you are free to create your own; you will have the same authority, and you can make your party an “open” party.

Pennry.9215:

Third, a much better solution would be that when a player (any player) is kicked, they get prompted that they were kicked and and if they would like to stay in the instance. If they chose to stay, they are there at the point they were kicked (or some checkpoint system close to it) and can freely repopulate another group to finish said instance. Yes, this is entirely a huge undertaking to make possible, but IMO is the best solution to this kicking problem as a whole.

Not inherently bad, but very exploitable as presented:

1. Make 5 person party, get to end of dungeon
2. Kick 4 people out, remaining player sells 4 dungeon slots
3. Three of the people who were kicked sell slots for their instance as well
4. Fourth “kicked” instance is used to repeat the cycle

voidwater.2064:

I would probably hate the builds and playstyle that OP chooses, but I do agree that there needs be a good way to enforce “party rules”, so that it is possible to have semi-organized PUG groups with specific criteria.

If you’re against the ability to specify party requirements, you’re probably a bad leech (i.e., you need others to carry you).

Maybe something like this could work:

• Have a clearly designated party leader role (i.e., someone opens party interface and ‘creates party’, they are now the leader of an 1-person party)
• Party leader can leave and dungeon instance will not disappear
• Party leader cannot be kicked at all
• Party leader can kick anyone, no other votes needed.
• Retain party chat logs after a player leaves party to make it easier to report obvious abuse (e.g., party leader kicks someone at end of dungeon before they can get reward, invites friend)

If you don’t like the rules someone made for their party, you are free to create you own; you will have the same authority, and you can make your party an “open” party.

So if I’m in a party of leader who has decided he wants to exploit the final boss of the fractal, I’m just supposed to leave and waste an hour of work to redo the fractal but the exploiter is allowed to keep his progress?

The guy who is literally violating the TOS gets the better end of the deal?

The guy who decides because he’s got immunity from kicking that he’s going to be a right jerk and hope that most stick with the group too long to want to leave on their own before they get fed up with his rudeness?

People who aren’t jerks and don’t exploit and don’t have stupid rules don’t need immunity from kicking. And by stupid rules I mean the immature kids who would be party leader to force people to dance or be kicked (The smart immature kid would wait until they were well into the dungeon to announce that under your system. He can’t be kicked and doesn’t need anyone else to confirm his kick), not the person sick and tired of hour long runs who has decided he wants to have a party of all meta experienced players.

ANet, while it doesn’t have an issue with dungeon selling doesn’t fully support it. All transactions there are considered at your own risk.

All ANet needs to do is to raise the number of votes to be kicked up to 3. Should reduce trolling a fair amount.

Seera.5916:

All ANet needs to do is to raise the number of votes to be kicked up to 3. Should reduce trolling a fair amount.

In one of the other threads, one of the gameplay engineers said they want to do that. Problem seems to be that the script for kicking is wired wrong for that, so it’s a bigger fix than just changing a number (I presume that means they have support for ‘seconding’ but not a ‘party vote’ system in, it seems like it would be non-trivial and intrusive and trollable to copy the path-changing code)

Altair.6109:

Me and my friend gonna troll the hell out of all those dungeon sellers.
Rob their dungeons and re-sell them. Dream come true.

Not the smartest post, your forum account is linked to your game account ><

Windsagio.1340:

Altair.6109:

Me and my friend gonna troll the hell out of all those dungeon sellers.
Rob their dungeons and re-sell them. Dream come true.

Not the smartest post, your forum account is linked to your game account ><

Simply showing what will happen to dungeon sellers if they actually change the dungeon owner thing.
Now people can actually benefit from kicking the dungeon owner.

Blade Syphon.4325:

Sarrs.4831:

I think that at worst, it will be a neutral change.

For every malevolent player out there, there are half a dozen who do not understand, do not care, or don’t pay attention to dungeon ownership.

So basically, you don’t want to be held accountable for your sub-par skill in a group that may or may not be the cause of it wiping, but you’re perfectly okay kicking people who are “Meany heads” to you when they call you on your inability to play your roll properly to the group’s composition.

Sounds to me that if people like you are in the majority, this change to the dungeons is a very needed one on that level alone, to say nothing about the sheer number of technical hiccups this is finally going to fix.

Just because you started the party doesn’t mean you’re suddenly not required to live up to the standards people expect when running a dungeon, or are some how immune to being kicked because you want to play sub-optimally in a pick up group setting.

If this change bothers you that much, than just run it with your Guild.

People like you make me dislike this change. And dislike MMOs in general.

Seera.5916:

So if I’m in a party of leader who has decided he wants to exploit the final boss of the fractal, I’m just supposed to leave and waste an hour of work to redo the fractal but the exploiter is allowed to keep his progress?

The guy who is literally violating the TOS gets the better end of the deal?

Pretty much, that would be the correct thing to do. Report him and leave if you feel so strongly, let Anet deal with it. What good is his reward if he gets punished later? Many people are okay with such exploits, e.g. I often see people try to do some funny water thing with Mossman (and always fail) Which is why you should’ve created your own “No Exploits” party.

If you were the party leader under the system I proposed, you could simply kick him if he demands that the party uses the exploit. regardless of how many friends he has with him. You’re the boss. Block him and never play with him again, otherwise.

Seera.5916:

The guy who decides because he’s got immunity from kicking that he’s going to be a right jerk and hope that most stick with the group too long to want to leave on their own before they get fed up with his rudeness?

The correct thing to do here, again, is to leave as soon as you see the guy is being a jerk. I’m sorry if you don’t value your own dignity and decide to stay, thanks for encouraging bad behavior by staying.

If you had created your own party under my proposed system, you can simply kick the jerk and get another player. You’re the boss. Block him and never play with him again, otherwise.

Take on a bit of party management responsibility and you can have peace of mind. Isn’t that nice?

Seera.5916:

People who aren’t jerks and don’t exploit and don’t have stupid rules don’t need immunity from kicking. And by stupid rules I mean the immature kids who would be party leader to force people to dance or be kicked (The smart immature kid would wait until they were well into the dungeon to announce that under your system. He can’t be kicked and doesn’t need anyone else to confirm his kick), not the person sick and tired of hour long runs who has decided he wants to have a party of all meta experienced players.

The party system cannot distinguish between “stupid” rules and “good” rules., that is entirely up to players.

Some people consider “zerk meta” a stupid rule, and they will join such parties and cause conflict. I’ve seen it before.

Different segments of the player base have entirely different ideas about how dungeons should be run. It is folly to force them to play together, let them cleanly separate.

I still don’t see why an exploiter should be immune from losing all progress but the honest players should not.

I’d be fine if dungeon leader kicked, instance closes but if dungeon leader leaves or disconnects, instance remains open.

Then while I would have to repeat the dungeon if I kicked the exploiter, the exploiter does too. Same with the jerk. Same with the person with the stupid rule.

But they don’t need immunity from being kicked. They shouldn’t get to keep their progress.

Seera.5916:

I still don’t see why an exploiter should be immune from losing all progress but the honest players should not.

I’d be fine if dungeon leader kicked, instance closes but if dungeon leader leaves or disconnects, instance remains open.

Then while I would have to repeat the dungeon if I kicked the exploiter, the exploiter does too. Same with the jerk. Same with the person with the stupid rule.

But they don’t need immunity from being kicked. They shouldn’t get to keep their progress.

This is what I’d like to see, tbh.

Seera.5916:

I still don’t see why an exploiter should be immune from losing all progress but the honest players should not.

My basic premise is that there needs to be someone with absolute control over the party. I think it is the most effective way to allow PUGs to have some decent level of party organization/composition.

The system does not preclude “no rules, all welcome” parties, because as a party leader you are free to enforce such a “rule set”.

If you made a “no rules, be nice to all” party with a friend, and 3 jerks who want “zerk meta speedrun” showed up and kicked you, that would be very annoying. And vice versa.

Or let’s say you rolled swamp for fractals alone, put up a post for “Fractal LFM, <insert requirements here>”. Some people don’t meet those requirements but join anyway, when you complain, two or three guys kick you out of spite.

So I think party leader immunity is a must.

Assuming that, if the system allows “exploiters” to be kicked, then anyone can be kicked maliciously.

If the system were intelligent enough to automatically detect “exploits” and only allow party leader kicks in that situation, then it could simply autoflag the offending player and let Anet deal with it.

If you don’t have such a check, then it is up to the players, and you now allow problematic kicking again (with self-sacrifice, sure, but that’s not an absolute obstacle).

Seera.5916:

Then while I would have to repeat the dungeon if I kicked the exploiter, the exploiter does too. Same with the jerk. Same with the person with the stupid rule.

So:

You make a party.

An exploiter, jerk, and guy with stupid rules joins.

These three people vote to kick you, and they haven’t invested any time in the run, having just joined, so they may not care if the instance shuts down. They just don’t like you.

What now?
————————
I would think of it like making an ad-hoc temporary “guild” for the purposes of doing a dungeon. The guild leader sets whatever requirements, people are free to join and leave.
————————
Separately, I am not so opposed to boss AI/terrain exploiters.

It’s not an exact analogy, but I wouldn’t slash someone’s tires just because I saw them speeding.

The exploits are not “morally” wrong, TOS be kittened, and I applaud the cleverness/luck/experimentation of the first people to discover the exploits.

If someone insists on exploits when the rest of the party doesn’t want to, they’re a jerk, but I don’t really see a dire, pressing need to kick them out of their instance. If I were the absolute party leader, I’d kick them for that, but otherwise:

“Let the cops deal with it.”

This whole debate rests upon players wanting power over others. Anyone who does not want the party leader system dissolved does not wish to relinquish the power they have over the other four members of their party. No matter how many examples you cite and straw-man you levy against others, it comes down to this simple fact: You liked having this power over everyone else in your group, and now that it’s being taken away you’re upset.

That being said, I believe vote kicking should be revised so that if a party consists of five players, it should take three votes to kick them instead of two. For other party sizes, two votes is fine.

A problem I could see with your system (voidwater’s, that is) is that there would be a huge incentive to be the party leader. I could see that leading to far more parties being created but never filled, as everyone would demand to be the party leader (under the current system I’ve never felt a need to, under your proposition I might well never join a party I didn’t create). Apart from that I would, in almost any situation, prefer to require 2 jerks for stuff to go wrong to requiring just 1. There is plenty wrong with the kick system but I cannot see your proposal fix anything (minority to kick, party leader kicked/leaves ends the instance with no way to see who it is).

I think the soon to be current system is quite decent (especially in comparison to the current one as it fixes 1 of my two main problems with it) and if they ever really change things there are far better things to do (require >50% of the players not about to get kicked (3/5, 2/4, 2/3, 1/2) or allow people to vote against/cancel the kick).

The only way I could see your system implemented in a way that would be acceptable to me is alongside another system (as in choose between egalitarian (system after the next patch) and autoritarian (yours)) but I would never join a party under your system unless I knew the party leader.

Etienne.3049:

A problem I could see with your system (voidwater’s, that is) is that there would be a huge incentive to be the party leader. I could see that leading to far more parties being created but never filled, as everyone would demand to be the party leader (under the current system I’ve never felt a need to, under your proposition I might well never join a party I didn’t create).

I considered that point, and my thoughts are:

There will still be many players who will join parties, simply because they don’t care to create/manage the party themselves, or because some existing group has already been put together and it’d be faster than waiting, or a group has already made some progress in the dungeon.

For party joiners, similar risk of unjustified kicking exists already. Right now, it’s probably not uncommon to join a party with two or three friends or guild mates who could kick someone arbitrarily. And many PUG runs still form and go without problems, so I’m not sure having an absolute party leader would cause an epidemic of kicking.

Soo many posts and hardly anyone talking about dungeon selling.

Too me, this kind of stuff have bad effects and good effects. Dungeon selling was and still is something that I could never agree with. having a bunch of players selling dungeons INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY teaching other players how to do them its a disgrace in my eyes. I have actually blacklisted 3 people after knowing they were doing it, 2 of them good in game friends.

People actually buying this dungeons too get achievements or whatever they want without doing any effort are also at fault here, of course: they make this kind of merchant alive and kicking.

Soo yeah, in the end of the day, personally, if they can end up with dungeon selling with this move, then I am all game for it.

Add rules:

1. Players can’t be kicked if 20 minutes into a dungeon unless 2. applies
2. Players can be vote-kicked if afk/offline over 5 minutes

This should protect the majority of earnest players

Nokaru.7831:

That being said, I believe vote kicking should be revised so that if a party consists of five players, it should take three votes to kick them instead of two. For other party sizes, two votes is fine.

Sometimes, the majority is the problem.

voidwater.2064:

Sometimes, the majority is the problem.

That’s why I said “I believe” because it’s just an opinion. This debate is about who should have power over a party. I personally think it’s ridiculous that two players can purge the other three, and that there is no cooldown or any restriction on this vote kick.

Nokaru.7831:

This debate is about who should have power over a party.

I think most dungeon runs go reasonably smoothly, that is the common case.

But when disputes arise, I think the cleanest and most effective option is to give power to a party leader with absolute control, who can clearly set rules and expectations for the party, and reliably enforce those rules, instead of distributing the power amongst a possibly arbitrary mishmash of players with conflicting goals.

It is fair to give this power to the initiator of a party, all subsequent members could see the party description, can read initial comments by the host, and joined voluntarily. They are free to leave anytime.

The “loser” is free to create his own “kingdom”.

It is most conducive to allowing like-minded people to play with each other and avoid people with conflicting goals/natures.

With a majority vote-kick rule, it is still possible for a LFG with 1 or 2 players to get hijacked.

Nokaru.7831:

I personally think it’s ridiculous that two players can purge the other three, and that there is no cooldown or any restriction on this vote kick.

Two friends start a dungeon run. They advertise “LFM all welcome”. Three guildies join the party and proceed to insult the two friends, threaten to kick them unless they change builds. Is it ridiculous for those two players to kick the three?

Currently, the dungeon “owner” in the party is the character who speaks to the NPC’s in the cutscenes (particularly in Story Mode).

When the change is implemented and there’s no more “owner”, which player character in the party will be the one speaking to the NPC’s in the cutscenes?

voidwater.2064:

Two friends start a dungeon run. They advertise “LFM all welcome”. Three guildies join the party and proceed to insult the two friends, threaten to kick them unless they change builds. Is it ridiculous for those two players to kick the three?

This exact same thing can happen with a two-player vote-kick. Just change it to “three friends start a dungeon” and “two guildies join.”

It’s really pointless trying to bring up examples of objective good and evil. “Two good guys versus three bad guys!” There is no perfect system where it ties up all loose ends.

I just think at the moment the two-player kick system gives them too much power over the group. Limiting it does not necessarily mean increasing it to three votes. For example: There is no limit to how many times you can prompt a vote-kick. There’s also no limit as to how many times it can be cancelled. There’s no cooldown on how frequently it can be initiated. This to me is an issue because it gives this power to the minority of a group.

This is a debate with regards to a leaderless dungeon. I think it would not be a bad idea to have an alternative party system with the traditional, visible leader role that can make decisions like this.

Nokaru.7831:

This exact same thing can happen with a two-player vote-kick. Just change it to “three friends start a dungeon” and “two guildies join.”

It’s really pointless trying to bring up examples of objective good and evil. “Two good guys versus three bad guys!” There is no perfect system where it ties up all loose ends.

Actually, a better system might be no vote kick at all. That way, if someone is disinclined to continue with that group, they leave and the group either fills their spot or not. We can’t do that, though — that would be inconvenient!

Nokaru, it ends up being the exact same problem. As long as some person has kick autority there are going to be more abuses.

Nokaru.7831:

This exact same thing can happen with a two-player vote-kick. Just change it to “three friends start a dungeon” and “two guildies join.”

Not a problem when the party leader has control, two guildies can’t kick the leader. Assuming that party members can still initiate a vote-kick on non-leader, even if they kick the leader’s friends, they will be kicked, and the friends will be invited back.

Hijacking problem solved.

Nokaru.7831:

It’s really pointless trying to bring up examples of objective good and evil. “Two good guys versus three bad guys!” There is no perfect system where it ties up all loose ends.

Strawman argument, I never claimed to have a perfect system that’s sunshine and rainbows for everyone. I showed you an example where the majority is the problem, because you believe this:

Nokaru.7831:

This to me is an issue because it gives this power to the minority of a group.

Nokaru.7831:

This is a debate with regards to…

Are you trying to dismiss my points by implying that they lie outside of the “proper debate”? You tried to do that earlier with empty words like:

Nokaru.7831:

That’s why I said “I believe” because it’s just an opinion. This debate is about who should have power over a party.

Don’t do that.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Actually, a better system might be no vote kick at all. That way, if someone is disinclined to continue with that group, they leave and the group either fills their spot or not. We can’t do that, though — that would be inconvenient!

How would you organize groups with requirements then? Anyone can blatantly ignore LFG requirements (or implicit requirements like “Don’t be a kitten”), and the worst that could happen is the existing members have to leave.

voidwater.2064:

So:

You make a party.

An exploiter, jerk, and guy with stupid rules joins.

These three people vote to kick you, and they haven’t invested any time in the run, having just joined, so they may not care if the instance shuts down. They just don’t like you.

What now?

Then it’s likely at the beginning of the run and I have no time invested either. I really don’t think there are a high percentage of exploiters, jerks, and stupid rules people compared to those who aren’t. The chances of three of them landing in one group is probably not too terribly high. And I don’t sell dungeon runs so I’m not in the category that would likely have spots open up at the end all too often.

And if I did, then it’s one bad run. And they happen. Time to start a new group if I want or go off and do something else. After reporting.

voidwater.2064:

Don’t do that.

Don’t do what? Point out the fact that this whole debate is about opinions about where people feel power should reside in a leaderless party? You’re the one who brought up the strawman argument of “two saints are being out-numbered by three villains,” and yet when I turn it on you to point out its absurdity you cry, “STRAW-MAN!” It’s quite amusing indeed.

Why is it do you think the majority of the group should not hold the power of it? Try to explain why the system] should support it without bringing in absurd examples of good versus evil. My argument is simple: The group has no leader, and therefore democracy is the fairest way of levying out decisions. Democracy is based on a majority vote.

The leaderless dungeon change highlights the fact that Guild Wars 2 has the crudest version of vote-kicking compared to any other popular MMOs on the market. Other games put restrictions upon it so that players will be less trigger happy about hitting that button. Finding a fair balance between protecting the group and empowering the group is difficult, and the current system currently is not quite there yet.

Duke Nukem.6783:

Stand The Wall.6987:

So you are saying all of us should suffer because you cant or wont find a guild of likeminded individuals?

i should not be forced to follow your rules and you should not be forced to follow mine, nobody is forcing you to join my parties , but YOU are trying to force me to only play with guildies, i see a problem here

Dude, I dont know what your trip is, but you should really sit back and look at the big picture. This isnt about rules or force. This isnt a power struggle. Its a kittening bug fix. I am not trying to force you into anything, I dont have control of what the game devs do, and I gave up caring a long time ago. Joining a laidback guild for dungeon runs that doesnt follow the meta is the best choice regardless of this update. If you dont see the wisdom in that then I suggest sitting back some more and contemplate over a cup of tea or something.

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.

No. You started the party, but it is not your party. The party is an agreement between five players, and those five players are the party. Your vote counts no more than any of theirs, and if the majority of them want you gone, you have no right to stay. This is not elitism, although elitists may use this fact to their advantage.

Now if you want to be part of a dungeon run start to finish, the best way to do that is to share goals with the rest of the party. If you join, or even start a dungeon party advertising a speed run or something, then expect disappointment if you can’t keep up. If you want to run a non-meta build, that’s totally fine, but advertize something like “CoF P1, casual” or “CoF P1, friendly.” Make it clear to each member at the start that you have a non-meta build and are there to have fun, not to speed-run the content. So long as you’re honest in your advertizing, you may still get 1-2 people who want to kick you if you’re really bad, but chances are the rest of the group would have your back, because the people who wanted a speed run would have signed up for a speed run.

voidwater.2064:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Actually, a better system might be no vote kick at all. That way, if someone is disinclined to continue with that group, they leave and the group either fills their spot or not. We can’t do that, though — that would be inconvenient!

How would you organize groups with requirements then? Anyone can blatantly ignore LFG requirements (or implicit requirements like “Don’t be a kitten”), and the worst that could happen is the existing members have to leave.

So, you leave the group and start over. If it becomes difficult to group with LFG, then you form a social network and game with them. The amount of possible inconvenience goes up, but the potential for a more social experience is opened up.

Once upon a time, when grouping took effort and you could only group with those on your own server, it was possible to identify those who were kittens, and blacklist their sorry kittens. Assuming people cared about being able to do content sometimes, they would not act like kitten-heads. There were consequences for bad behavior.

Now, we have LFG and mega-server, which sacrifice social interaction in a social game setting, and promote anonymity and convenience over developing community. Games are poorer as a result, imo. Suggest a return to those times and people throw out the trump card of, “I’d be inconvenienced, and would not be able to do X.” Well, I believe it’s worth the sacrifice of some convenience to have more deterrence of kitten-hattery. Don’t worry, though, I know that convenience is now king, and this will never happen. Doesn’t make me stop wanting to see people stop kittening about the consequences of the current trends while wanting the trends to continue.

I think voidwater’s suggestion of a party leader is better than a democratic vote system. Why?

Because with the vote system, everyone’s at risk of being maliciously or unduly kicked for petty or arbitrary reasons.

With an absolute party leader, at this lowers the risk of having one person make and enforce the rules.

Since risks of besmirching a perfectly fine and capable dungeon runner are going to come with the current system (primarily that system being you can invite people to the group while you’re inside the dungeon), the goal should be to lower that risk.

I think his suggestion does just that – lowers the risk.

A party leader won’t lead to a sudden rise in inordinate kicks.