Dungeon Instance Owner change FTW
As I mentioned in my thread on the topic, it would be great to have the number of needed kick votes increased to 3, to minimize griefing resulting from this change. Personally I always started my own dungeon parties to avoid kick-happy couples. Now there’s nothing to kep me safe. 2 votes have always been a bad idea, anyway. Not even a majority.
I actually agree with you. I would have liked to increase the vote count a majority with this change, but unfortunately not all the pieces of code around party votes are set up in a way to make this a quick and easy change.
We were aware of the possible issues with the instance ownership change, but felt that holding back an improvement to the base experience on account of trolls was unfair to users that are playing nice.
Stealing instances using the LFG tool, or booting people for no reason (or to give your buddy the rewards for no work) at the end of a run are bannable offenses and should be reported.
You guys must be joking.
Let me check if i’ve understood it right:
You think that the kick system is not ready/optimal for the change you’re about to make but you do it anyway
You are aware of what kind of problems not just some but many players may have and you trust on players kindness to ensure that it will not happen that way
The only tool you give to the players who suffer this actions is a report? Do you know that when you’re kicked you lose any way of knowing who kicked you? Do players now have to take an screen of every dungeon they try to complete in case that they face this kind of behaviour and so they can report them?
Amazing Anet, I knew you didn’t know what were you doing but THIS is the king of the bad ideas.
As I mentioned in my thread on the topic, it would be great to have the number of needed kick votes increased to 3, to minimize griefing resulting from this change. Personally I always started my own dungeon parties to avoid kick-happy couples. Now there’s nothing to kep me safe. 2 votes have always been a bad idea, anyway. Not even a majority.
I actually agree with you. I would have liked to increase the vote count a majority with this change, but unfortunately not all the pieces of code around party votes are set up in a way to make this a quick and easy change.
We were aware of the possible issues with the instance ownership change, but felt that holding back an improvement to the base experience on account of trolls was unfair to users that are playing nice.
Stealing instances using the LFG tool, or booting people for no reason (or to give your buddy the rewards for no work) at the end of a run are bannable offenses and should be reported.
Does that mean that you will be fixing the party chat vanishing so that IF this happens you actually have the names to be able to report them ??
Hi Ryan,
I wonder if you could clarify something related to this change. I like to solo, but sometimes those solos take a while and I’m at risk of DC’ing during the run. With this change it sounds like the instance will close immediately if I DC. Will this be the case? Or will there still be a window to retrieve the instance?
guildless hobo who likes to solo – [x]
Does that mean that you will be fixing the party chat vanishing so that IF this happens you actually have the names to be able to report them ??
Has anyone had any luck getting people punished for griefing their run? There are regular griefers whose names are known and who have been reported innumerous times.
What use is fixing the party chat if no action is ever taken against those who are reported?
As I mentioned in my thread on the topic, it would be great to have the number of needed kick votes increased to 3, to minimize griefing resulting from this change. Personally I always started my own dungeon parties to avoid kick-happy couples. Now there’s nothing to kep me safe. 2 votes have always been a bad idea, anyway. Not even a majority.
I actually agree with you. I would have liked to increase the vote count a majority with this change, but unfortunately not all the pieces of code around party votes are set up in a way to make this a quick and easy change.
We were aware of the possible issues with the instance ownership change, but felt that holding back an improvement to the base experience on account of trolls was unfair to users that are playing nice.
Stealing instances using the LFG tool, or booting people for no reason (or to give your buddy the rewards for no work) at the end of a run are bannable offenses and should be reported.
This is a very very good change and I’m glad it is coming, even if it took two years.
Bristleback can’t hit anything? Let’s fix the HP bug instead.
You guys must be joking.
Let me check if i’ve understood it right:
You think that the kick system is not ready/optimal for the change you’re about to make but you do it anyway
You are aware of what kind of problems not just some but many players may have and you trust on players kindness to ensure that it will not happen that way
The only tool you give to the players who suffer this actions is a report? Do you know that when you’re kicked you lose any way of knowing who kicked you? Do players now have to take an screen of every dungeon they try to complete in case that they face this kind of behaviour and so they can report them?
Amazing Anet, I knew you didn’t know what were you doing but THIS is the king of the bad ideas.
They’re working on a way to make it so you DO know who kicked you, even after they’ve done so. This will make reporting easier, and should make it easier for them to see it was done in the wrong.
Meanwhile, they seem to feel they have the numbers to suggest that pushing the change forward solves more problems than it causes. They have the numbers on how many complaints they get about instances failing due to a DC or a party leader assuming they’re safe if the rest of the party wants to win, and how often they get reports of griefing by party kick.
I’d trust them on this one.
Sarcasm, delivered with a
delicate, brick-like subtlety.
delicate, brick-like subtlety.
You guys must be joking.
Let me check if i’ve understood it right:
You think that the kick system is not ready/optimal for the change you’re about to make but you do it anyway
You are aware of what kind of problems not just some but many players may have and you trust on players kindness to ensure that it will not happen that way
The only tool you give to the players who suffer this actions is a report? Do you know that when you’re kicked you lose any way of knowing who kicked you? Do players now have to take an screen of every dungeon they try to complete in case that they face this kind of behaviour and so they can report them?
Amazing Anet, I knew you didn’t know what were you doing but THIS is the king of the bad ideas.
They’re working on a way to make it so you DO know who kicked you, even after they’ve done so. This will make reporting easier, and should make it easier for them to see it was done in the wrong.
Meanwhile, they seem to feel they have the numbers to suggest that pushing the change forward solves more problems than it causes. They have the numbers on how many complaints they get about instances failing due to a DC or a party leader assuming they’re safe if the rest of the party wants to win, and how often they get reports of griefing by party kick.
I’d trust them on this one.
And then we take a look at your forum signature.
I just got an Idea how you could solve this. (I don’t know if it’s possible to code this though :/ )
When a party starts a dungeon the new system I suggest will save this party. If the whole group is replaced by new players the instance will close.
Example:
- Players A, B, C, D and E open a dungeon.
The game saves the instance openers.
Players A-D leave.
Player E invites new players (A²-D²) // still fine because we have at least player E who was in the party when the dungeon was opened
Dungeon finished -> everyone is happy.- Players A, B, C, D and E open a dungeon.
The game saves the instance openers.
Players A-D leave.
Player E invites new players (A²-D²)
Players A² and B² kick player E. // last member of the original group is kicked
Instance will be closed.That means that you cannot replace the whole party.
Advantages:
- players won’t be able to completly steal dungeons
- solo dungeons will still be possible to sell because the system only saved a single name that keeps the instance open.
Just to make sure it’s here too.
Mindblossom – Sylvari – Mesmer – Jumpingpuzzler
Equinox [EqnX]
Riverside[DE]
Equinox [EqnX]
Riverside[DE]
And then we take a look at your forum signature.
Look away. Doesn’t say they’re idiots or anything.
I don’t agree with how they view some things. I think they’re honestly messing up. I’ve tried to get through to them, and failed. Done with smashing my face against a brick wall. This issue? It’s not part of that wall.
Besides, if even I am saying they’re getting this one right, doesn’t that say something?
Sarcasm, delivered with a
delicate, brick-like subtlety.
delicate, brick-like subtlety.
A supposedly easy band-aid fix:
- Dungeon owner cannot be kicked. I.e. has an “instance owner” buff icon or has no “Kick from party” option or that option shows an error alert. “Instance owner” will exist in the database anyway because you need someone to show in the cutscenes.
- If the dungeon owner leaves, instance is preserved as the patch suggests. Whether the new “person for cutscenes” is kickable or not is another matter and can be addressed later on.
Meanwhile I will be cautious of doing any dungeons with PUGs after this change goes live, even though this is a good change per se.
20 level 80s and counting.
A supposedly easy band-aid fix:
- Dungeon owner cannot be kicked. I.e. has an “instance owner” buff icon or has no “Kick from party” option or that option shows an error alert. “Instance owner” will exist in the database anyway because you need someone to show in the cutscenes.
- If the dungeon owner leaves, instance is preserved as the patch suggests. Whether the new “person for cutscenes” is kickable or not is another matter and can be addressed later on.
Meanwhile I will be cautious of doing any dungeons with PUGs after this change goes live, even though this is a good change per se.
good suggestions
Wouldn’t it be better from a non-skipping, non-kicking standpoint to put a behind-the-scenes field on a character when you enter the dungeon and kill bosses – it would take a little bit of work, but shouldn’t be too terrible to code:
Field: “BossesKilled”
– on dungeon entrance and/or exit, field is set to 0
– Belka dies, code fires [BossesKilled +1] (total = 1)
– Abom dies, code fires [BossesKilled +1] (total =2)
– Lupi dies, code fires [BossesKilled +1] (total =3)
– etc.
Then, on the final boss of the dungeon, have a quick code check for BossesKilled > 0 for any party member. This way, if the soloer is kicked, the end boss cannot be triggered or killed, or have the instance start over at the beginning. I could foresee some crazy testing needing for this, but it could solve the problem of kicking a soloer, at least. There would be no incentive to steal an instance because it wouldn’t be possible any more.
A supposedly easy band-aid fix:
- Dungeon owner cannot be kicked. I.e. has an “instance owner” buff icon or has no “Kick from party” option or that option shows an error alert. “Instance owner” will exist in the database anyway because you need someone to show in the cutscenes.
- If the dungeon owner leaves, instance is preserved as the patch suggests. Whether the new “person for cutscenes” is kickable or not is another matter and can be addressed later on.
Meanwhile I will be cautious of doing any dungeons with PUGs after this change goes live, even though this is a good change per se.
The easiest way is to present the ‘cutscene owner’ regardless of whether the cutscene owner is in the instance or not. All the game needs to retain is the character model and the name of the player after all.
So while the instance owner cannot be kicked, if he leaves on his own accord his face persists in the instance until the dungeon is completed. Frankly, it’s not like anyone cares whose face is in the cutscene for most of these runs, and it’s a hell lot easier than dynamically changing it based on who is still in the party.
Aside from this issue with kicks, this particular feature has been something we’ve wanted for (literally) years, and it’s great to see it addressed at last.
A supposedly easy band-aid fix:
- Dungeon owner cannot be kicked. I.e. has an “instance owner” buff icon or has no “Kick from party” option or that option shows an error alert. “Instance owner” will exist in the database anyway because you need someone to show in the cutscenes.
- If the dungeon owner leaves, instance is preserved as the patch suggests. Whether the new “person for cutscenes” is kickable or not is another matter and can be addressed later on.
Meanwhile I will be cautious of doing any dungeons with PUGs after this change goes live, even though this is a good change per se.
I agree with this one.
The idea of a temporary buff for instance owners is better than a total immunity however, as total immunity means some people will start an instance and afk halfway safe in the knowledge they can’t ever be kicked.
The buff can be renewed to 5 minutes every time they enter combat.
The idea of a temporary buff for instance owners is better than a total immunity however, as total immunity means some people will start an instance and afk halfway safe in the knowledge they can’t ever be kicked.
The buff can be renewed to 5 minutes every time they enter combat.
Why does this sound familar?
Oh yeah, WoW Kick protection, where trolls run into combat all the time to avoid being kicked …. Works so well for them too………… everyone hates it, ……… would it work in GW2 ??? or be a huge troll issue here too ?
Although I think there should be an inability to kick anyone at / just before / just after a Boss kill, to prevent people being kicked and replaced for someone else to get loot
I’d like to see dungeon progress being linked and scaled to personal participation in the dungeon.
It’ll be way less likely to get kicked so the boss is sold or some guildie gets the rewards when those that join late and have done nothing until the boss get way less than those that were in the dungeon from the start.
That’ll also allow bonus rewards for doing bonus events, and even giving those kicked a copy of the instance with the same progress done instead making them lose all progress, as there would be no splitting to sell bosses with scaled rewards.
So heres what I read as the new troll option:
Join party of Arah Seller with friend. Kick Arah Seller. Sell instance yourself, or complete for free arah reward.
Congratulations, I believe you just ended anyone running Arah to sell it now.
So heres what I read as the new troll option:
Join party of Arah Seller with friend. Kick Arah Seller. Sell instance yourself, or complete for free arah reward.
Congratulations, I believe you just ended anyone running Arah to sell it now.
I don’t believe that was actually ArenaNet’s intention. While I don’t believe that they are against the idea of selling dungeons, they also aren’t going to go out of their way to protect people who sell dungeons. Things are always changing too. Back then if you wanted to send mail to someone it took days if not weeks for it to arrive at the destination. Now you can just click the send button and the receiver gets your email almost instantly. It put a lot of postmen/women out of work.
I am curious: will this feature apply to Fractals as well?
FOR SKYRIM!!!!!
Hello Ryan,
thanks for this information.Any tips on how to get name of those trolls that kick you from your own instance quickly?
There usually isn’t time to write anything down or to make any screenshots.Thanks in advance!
There appears to be some nice debug messages for party join/leave that I’m going to see if I can turn into “LFG Messages” in the chat log which should make this easier…
Or perhaps implementing a “Past Party Members” tab in the Y Panel that let’s us see the names/account id? We had this in gw1, it should be doable for this game as well.
The only solution I see here is if the kicked person(s) were placed into their own instance in the exact same position/state they were from the first instance.
ie: Don’t kick them back to the world map. Kick them to their own copy of the dungeon/fractal.
Technical difficulties will, no doubt, intervene.
“There’s no lag but what we make.” – biofrog
The only solution I see here is if the kicked person(s) were placed into their own instance in the exact same position/state they were from the first instance.
ie: Don’t kick them back to the world map. Kick them to their own copy of the dungeon/fractal.
Technical difficulties will, no doubt, intervene.
Run Arah to boss. Kick players, invite guildies, kick players, invite guildies, kick players, invite guildies.
???
Profit.
The only solution I see here is if the kicked person(s) were placed into their own instance in the exact same position/state they were from the first instance.
ie: Don’t kick them back to the world map. Kick them to their own copy of the dungeon/fractal.
Technical difficulties will, no doubt, intervene.
Run Arah to boss. Kick players, invite guildies, kick players, invite guildies, kick players, invite guildies.
???
Profit.
Fix the reward system.
It is not a short term solution, but the rewards should not dictate how the game must be played. Playing the game should grant rewards.
Also, you misuse the ? profit meme.
The ? Is meant to be some unexplainable, impossible to comprehend for the common mind, step of extraordinary mental gymnastics that lead to profit.
In your case, the ??? is clear and mundane.
(edited by PseudoNewb.5468)
At the end of the next month can we have the ’’numbers’’ of the ppl that most abused the ‘’vote to kick’’ in a short period of 5-7 days and how many days ban they got ? :P
If the debug feature show which person kicked you , it might also store in the ’’memory’’ the ppl that made it to the ‘’top vote to kick charts’’ (or the reports sent to them) :P
(edited by Killthehealersffs.8940)
I actually agree with you. I would have liked to increase the vote count a majority with this change, but unfortunately not all the pieces of code around party votes are set up in a way to make this a quick and easy change.
We were aware of the possible issues with the instance ownership change, but felt that holding back an improvement to the base experience on account of trolls was unfair to users that are playing nice.
Stealing instances using the LFG tool, or booting people for no reason (or to give your buddy the rewards for no work) at the end of a run are bannable offenses and should be reported.
I just wanted to say that this is exactly the sort of post that a lot of us have been asking for.
1) Quick response.
2) Acknowledged an issue players care about.
3) Expressed an opinion on what the ideal solution should be.
4) Explained why the ideal solution hasn’t been implemented.
5) Gave some extra information to be helpful.
I too think that the kicking system needs serious attention, but this is absolutely fantastic to see. I’m really glad to see that positive steps are being taken in regards to last week, thank you!
(edited by CrashTestAuto.9108)
I actually agree with you. I would have liked to increase the vote count a majority with this change, but unfortunately not all the pieces of code around party votes are set up in a way to make this a quick and easy change.
We were aware of the possible issues with the instance ownership change, but felt that holding back an improvement to the base experience on account of trolls was unfair to users that are playing nice.
Stealing instances using the LFG tool, or booting people for no reason (or to give your buddy the rewards for no work) at the end of a run are bannable offenses and should be reported.
Now can we please get a definition of no reason….
1) Does “no skill before final fractal boss count?”
But let us look at the actual kick mechanic:
Right now it seems like the only check for kicking someone out of the party is : is the number of votes equal to 2.
How hard is it to change that to is the number of votes have to reflect a minimum 50% in favor of kicking another member from the party?
I am assuming that this is “not easy” because the code is working with integers, how ever this is exactly what makes it easy to come up with a quick solution.
A possible solution to require a minimum of 50% in favor of kicking any party member could be based on a simple calculation such as :
members / 2 + members % 2 (modulus which is the left over after division by 2)
examples on integers, with 5, 4, and 3 party members:
(5 / 2) + (5 % 2) = 2 + 1 == 3
(4 / 2) + (4 % 2) = 2 + 0 == 2
(3 / 2) + (3 % 2) = 1 + 1 == 2
This would ensure the system always needs at least 50% in favor.
As a programmer I can not see how this is difficult to program, as you have:
Party members, which are countable
Number of votes, countable
Even if the current check is based on members / 2, which I doubt it is as it also requires 2 people to kick one from a party with 3 members, 5 / 2 = 2 when working on integers.
Essentially as it looks now could be, if my assumptions are correct (pseudo code) :
if (num_votes == 2) {
kick_member
}
Solution would look very much the same, except it has to do a quick calculation:
if (num_votes == ((num_members/2) + (num_members%2))) {
kick_member
}
It is essentially ONE check that has to be changed to check against a simple equation rather than against a static number.
This system has the added benefit of needing at least 3 players to kick the first member, meaning people would have to actually consider if the plan is to reduce the party to only two before casting that fatal vote.
Of course more refinement can always be done, but in the name of fairness, just checking for majority would be quantum leap in the right direction.
A suggestion for future improvements could be that if someone wants to vote for a kick they have to specify a reason, which means in case of reports on this, it can be looked into.
Make it as simple as a drop down box, with issues such as:
Harassment
AFK
Low Agony Resist (Could be valid for fractals)
And a couple of other reasons which can be considered valid and actually can be checked, so that in case of abuse such as the above mentioned “reason” can be dealt with.
Another good thing about that, would be all eligible voters get to see the reason, and can decide their vote based on whether or not they agree.. .
Timed votes, is another option, voting closes on combat etc.
(edited by Jeskelech.4152)
You guys must be joking.
Let me check if i’ve understood it right:
You think that the kick system is not ready/optimal for the change you’re about to make but you do it anyway
You are aware of what kind of problems not just some but many players may have and you trust on players kindness to ensure that it will not happen that way
The only tool you give to the players who suffer this actions is a report? Do you know that when you’re kicked you lose any way of knowing who kicked you? Do players now have to take an screen of every dungeon they try to complete in case that they face this kind of behaviour and so they can report them?
Amazing Anet, I knew you didn’t know what were you doing but THIS is the king of the bad ideas.
They’re working on a way to make it so you DO know who kicked you, even after they’ve done so. This will make reporting easier, and should make it easier for them to see it was done in the wrong.
Meanwhile, they seem to feel they have the numbers to suggest that pushing the change forward solves more problems than it causes. They have the numbers on how many complaints they get about instances failing due to a DC or a party leader assuming they’re safe if the rest of the party wants to win, and how often they get reports of griefing by party kick.
I’d trust them on this one.
Yeah they say that the’re working on something BUT its not ready yet so why on earth should they change the way it works now and not wait till the system works as it should.
Perhaps is just that i don’t trust Anet anymore but I don’t see how making things difficult will help them to improve their own game. In the best case scenario they will have to use their resources to help players with problems that actually they don’t have so, my question is simple…why?
Why on earth would they implement something unfinished?
Why on earth would they want to increase the amount of reports and investigation procedures?
In mi opinion the answer is much easier than all what i’ve said before:
They don’t have a clue on what they’re doing OR they they haven’t thought about it.
Actually, as said earlier in the thread, is it possible to flag a difference between kick and leave?
So if the Dungeon Instance owner is kicked the dungeon ends, the kick flags the dungeon to end completely.
But if the instance owner leaves for some other reason then it passes to the next player as the flag was not triggered.
I really want to know if this is possible!
_______
Anet, please please don’t implement this dungeon instance change, until you have something sorted about kick abuse.
(which happens more frequently then I think you believe/want to admit.)
A supposedly easy band-aid fix:
- Dungeon owner cannot be kicked. I.e. has an “instance owner” buff icon or has no “Kick from party” option or that option shows an error alert. “Instance owner” will exist in the database anyway because you need someone to show in the cutscenes.
- If the dungeon owner leaves, instance is preserved as the patch suggests. Whether the new “person for cutscenes” is kickable or not is another matter and can be addressed later on.
Meanwhile I will be cautious of doing any dungeons with PUGs after this change goes live, even though this is a good change per se.
The easiest way is to present the ‘cutscene owner’ regardless of whether the cutscene owner is in the instance or not. All the game needs to retain is the character model and the name of the player after all.
So while the instance owner cannot be kicked, if he leaves on his own accord his face persists in the instance until the dungeon is completed. Frankly, it’s not like anyone cares whose face is in the cutscene for most of these runs, and it’s a hell lot easier than dynamically changing it based on who is still in the party.
This is not the “easiest” fix – it would require caching the character in some place on ANet’s servers. A “link” can’t be used because anything can happen to that character meanwhile – like switching armour, using restyle kit, or even deleting the character; and even with a link, extra information has to be stored online for no particular reason. All this requires extra coding instead of loading a model which already exists in the instance.
Plus, it makes zero sense from the logical point of view.
On the other hand, the “vote kick” function already exists in the game; stitching in an “if-else” statement which would check a variable and either execute the code or throw an error looks far more plausible.
20 level 80s and counting.
…
Right now it seems like the only check for kicking someone out of the party is : is the number of votes equal to 2.
How hard is it to change that to is the number of votes have to reflect a minimum 50% in favor of kicking another member from the party?
I am assuming that this is “not easy” because the code is working with integers, how ever this is exactly what makes it easy to come up with a quick solution.
A possible solution to require a minimum of 50% in favor of kicking any party member could be based on a simple calculation such as :
members / 2 + members % 2 (modulus which is the left over after division by 2)
…
The problem is that the check for kicking someone is NOT “is the number of votes equal to 2”.
The current kicking-mechanics should be something like this:
Kick from party → Open votekick-panel and remember who initiated
Accept → Kick member from party
As you can see there is no counting being done. And that’s why changing it to 3 votes is no simple case of replacing a ‘2’ with a ‘3’ in code.
…
Right now it seems like the only check for kicking someone out of the party is : is the number of votes equal to 2.
How hard is it to change that to is the number of votes have to reflect a minimum 50% in favor of kicking another member from the party?
I am assuming that this is “not easy” because the code is working with integers, how ever this is exactly what makes it easy to come up with a quick solution.
A possible solution to require a minimum of 50% in favor of kicking any party member could be based on a simple calculation such as :
members / 2 + members % 2 (modulus which is the left over after division by 2)
…
The problem is that the check for kicking someone is NOT “is the number of votes equal to 2”.
The current kicking-mechanics should be something like this:
Kick from party -> Open votekick-panel and remember who initiated
Accept -> Kick member from partyAs you can see there is no counting being done. And that’s why changing it to 3 votes is no simple case of replacing a ‘2’ with a ‘3’ in code.
Actually it remains a simple case, rather than the accept initiating the kick and closing all voting objects it should report back to the initializing object that objectA voted yes, leaving the remaining objects intact waiting for action.
This means that when a vote for kick is initiated, vote_to_kick can be initiated at 1, and increased with each vote until at least 50% has voted in favor, or all votes are cast which ever comes first.
Meaning that in a group of 5, 3 objects to vote are instanciated, and as the votes are cast they can return the value as a boolean true for kick, and false for not kicking.
This brings us to return values of true will increase the vote_to_kick by one.
Let us look at pseudo…
How it works…
Player wants to kick, creates objects to accept kick
Number created are party members-2 as initiating member already voted, and the person in question doesn’t get to.
As you stated once somoeone accepts the following takes place:
Kill all vote objects
kick player
What should take place is:
if (vote == true) {
votes_to_kick++;
}if (assess_votes(votes_to_kick) == true) {
kick player();
finalize();
}if (votes_left == 0) {
finalize();
}void finalize()
if remaining objects close them.boolean assess_votes(int vote_to_kick)
return vote_to_kick>=(members/2 + members%2)?true:false;
To be honest I find it a dirty hack to just act to the result of one vote object and discard the rest, rather than storing the results for processing.
This way will end the voting before all votes are cast only in the event that enough votes to kick the player has been cast.
I left some of the “mundane tasks” out here, but focused solely on the principle of assessing the votes after each object has been handled, of course a minor change in the voting object will be required here, to allow for a vote of no.
(edited by Jeskelech.4152)
Wouldn’t it be better from a non-skipping, non-kicking standpoint to put a behind-the-scenes field on a character when you enter the dungeon and kill bosses – it would take a little bit of work, but shouldn’t be too terrible to code:
Field: “BossesKilled”
– on dungeon entrance and/or exit, field is set to 0
– Belka dies, code fires [BossesKilled +1] (total = 1)
– Abom dies, code fires [BossesKilled +1] (total =2)
– Lupi dies, code fires [BossesKilled +1] (total =3)
– etc.Then, on the final boss of the dungeon, have a quick code check for BossesKilled > 0 for any party member. This way, if the soloer is kicked, the end boss cannot be triggered or killed, or have the instance start over at the beginning. I could foresee some crazy testing needing for this, but it could solve the problem of kicking a soloer, at least. There would be no incentive to steal an instance because it wouldn’t be possible any more.
thats a big waist of time when all we really need for a perfect solution is non kickable party leaders
As I mentioned in my thread on the topic, it would be great to have the number of needed kick votes increased to 3, to minimize griefing resulting from this change. Personally I always started my own dungeon parties to avoid kick-happy couples. Now there’s nothing to kep me safe. 2 votes have always been a bad idea, anyway. Not even a majority.
I actually agree with you. I would have liked to increase the vote count a majority with this change, but unfortunately not all the pieces of code around party votes are set up in a way to make this a quick and easy change.
We were aware of the possible issues with the instance ownership change, but felt that holding back an improvement to the base experience on account of trolls was unfair to users that are playing nice.
Stealing instances using the LFG tool, or booting people for no reason (or to give your buddy the rewards for no work) at the end of a run are bannable offenses and should be reported.
How about we settle for the middle ground?
Player A is the dungeon instance starter:
If Player A leaves the party the instance he started will still be alive.
If Player A disconnects and is automatically booted from the game by the server the instance he started will be alive.
If Player A gets kicked from the party the instance he started will be terminated or you can alternatively make Player A immune to kicks. Do whatever is easier to implement.
As I mentioned in my thread on the topic, it would be great to have the number of needed kick votes increased to 3, to minimize griefing resulting from this change. Personally I always started my own dungeon parties to avoid kick-happy couples. Now there’s nothing to kep me safe. 2 votes have always been a bad idea, anyway. Not even a majority.
I actually agree with you. I would have liked to increase the vote count a majority with this change, but unfortunately not all the pieces of code around party votes are set up in a way to make this a quick and easy change.
We were aware of the possible issues with the instance ownership change, but felt that holding back an improvement to the base experience on account of trolls was unfair to users that are playing nice.
Stealing instances using the LFG tool, or booting people for no reason (or to give your buddy the rewards for no work) at the end of a run are bannable offenses and should be reported.
How about we settle for the middle ground?
Player A is the dungeon instance starter:
If Player A leaves the party the instance he started will still be alive.
If Player A disconnects and is automatically booted from the game by the server the instance he started will be alive.
If Player A gets kicked from the party the instance he started will be terminated or you can alternatively make Player A immune to kicks. Do whatever is easier to implement.
perfect, this would make every1 happy
Wouldn’t it be better from a non-skipping, non-kicking standpoint to put a behind-the-scenes field on a character when you enter the dungeon and kill bosses – it would take a little bit of work, but shouldn’t be too terrible to code:
Field: “BossesKilled”
– on dungeon entrance and/or exit, field is set to 0
– Belka dies, code fires [BossesKilled +1] (total = 1)
– Abom dies, code fires [BossesKilled +1] (total =2)
– Lupi dies, code fires [BossesKilled +1] (total =3)
– etc.Then, on the final boss of the dungeon, have a quick code check for BossesKilled > 0 for any party member. This way, if the soloer is kicked, the end boss cannot be triggered or killed, or have the instance start over at the beginning. I could foresee some crazy testing needing for this, but it could solve the problem of kicking a soloer, at least. There would be no incentive to steal an instance because it wouldn’t be possible any more.
thats a big waist of time when all we really need for a perfect solution is non kickable party leaders
yes that sounds great. because now I can be the leader go AFK call every player names AND keep trying to kill people with un needed pulls and they can’t stop me MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! or maybe this is not such a good idea hm?
Wouldn’t it be better from a non-skipping, non-kicking standpoint to put a behind-the-scenes field on a character when you enter the dungeon and kill bosses – it would take a little bit of work, but shouldn’t be too terrible to code:
Field: “BossesKilled”
– on dungeon entrance and/or exit, field is set to 0
– Belka dies, code fires [BossesKilled +1] (total = 1)
– Abom dies, code fires [BossesKilled +1] (total =2)
– Lupi dies, code fires [BossesKilled +1] (total =3)
– etc.Then, on the final boss of the dungeon, have a quick code check for BossesKilled > 0 for any party member. This way, if the soloer is kicked, the end boss cannot be triggered or killed, or have the instance start over at the beginning. I could foresee some crazy testing needing for this, but it could solve the problem of kicking a soloer, at least. There would be no incentive to steal an instance because it wouldn’t be possible any more.
thats a big waist of time when all we really need for a perfect solution is non kickable party leaders
yes that sounds great. because now I can be the leader go AFK call every player names AND keep trying to kill people with un needed pulls and they can’t stop me MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! or maybe this is not such a good idea hm?
This doesn’t happen as often as unfair kicks.
I’ve joined many dungeons, and open many. I’ve never seen the party leader purposely be an idiot, except in one fractal run on the final boss. The leader laughs at us and leaves the party.
I have seen party leaders end up afk, but if there was an idle timer in parties.
eg. idle for 5min, and the game logs you out and “leaves” the party thats fine.
If the opener leaves, the dungeon should stay open. I’m happy with the change for this.
But they need to look into the kick system before they implement this.
Explain to me why anyone would want to join your LFG, rather than make their own. I don’t know you. You could be a troll/griefer for all I know. Maybe you’re going to spit rude comments and harassment in chat, play like crud or be uncooperative, go AFK halfway through the dungeon, or just plain boot me at the very end so your guildies can get credit.
You say you want to be “party leader” so that you have protection against needless kicks. But for some reason you expect 4/5 players to happily give you the benefit of the doubt, and put themselves at risk?
In mi opinion the answer is much easier than all what i’ve said before:
They don’t have a clue on what they’re doing OR they they haven’t thought about it.
Let me start off by saying that I do not think that Anet is incapable of making mistakes. It is made up of human beings and so is subject to human failings.
That said,
They have access to more data than we do. This means that, at least potentially, their decision on this matter is an informed one.
So basicaly if I will run dungeon. Lets say Arah p2. At last boss I’ll stop around 5% and will try to sell it via LFG system. Anyone can enter and kick me out? That’s just a joke. There still should be dungeon owners. If I start dungeon, noone can kick me, but if I DC other ppl wont be kicked as long as there is anyone inside.
The only thing they need to sweeten the deal with is make it mandatory for 4 votes to kick.
Balance Team: Please Fix Mine Toolbelt Positioning!
It’s kind of sad that players even need these preventions in the first place. This is why the players are to blame. This is why other MMO companies have severe restrictions against gold sellers and exploiters. If you guys are angry, direct it to your fellow players. It sucks that we have to rely on devs to be our babysitters.
It’s kind of sad that players even need these preventions in the first place. This is why the players are to blame. This is why other MMO companies have severe restrictions against gold sellers and exploiters. If you guys are angry, direct it to your fellow players. It sucks that we have to rely on devs to be our babysitters.
I would like to suggest an edit to this statement:
If you guys are angry, direct it to abusive, griefers.
…not to fellow players in general.
thats a big waist of time when all we really need for a perfect solution is non kickable party leaders
yes that sounds great. because now I can be the leader go AFK call every player names AND keep trying to kill people with un needed pulls and they can’t stop me MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! or maybe this is not such a good idea hm?
This doesn’t happen as often as unfair kicks.
I’ve joined many dungeons, and open many. I’ve never seen the party leader purposely be an idiot, except in one fractal run on the final boss. The leader laughs at us and leaves the party.
I have seen party leaders end up afk, but if there was an idle timer in parties.
eg. idle for 5min, and the game logs you out and “leaves” the party thats fine.If the opener leaves, the dungeon should stay open. I’m happy with the change for this.
But they need to look into the kick system before they implement this.
I can almost 100% assure you with immunity from kicks this will happen A lot more. power corrupts and if you give all trolls unlimited power you don’t think they will use it more than ever?
I think the thing is, allowing only kicks to end dungeons still allows for instance owners to have control. At the moment, you enter an instance first to ensure you don’t get stuffed around. Right now, a party leader still has immunity from kicks because it kills the dungeon and they can still be trolls.
With the system I said earlier, where only a kick ends the dungeon, you can still enter first and be the instance owner. It still allows power to fall in the hands of the instance owner in that regard.
Kick = dungeon end. This is still how it is presently.
Disc/Leave = owner change.
Veni, Vidi, Victa.
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Videtur
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Videtur
I think the thing is, allowing only kicks to end dungeons still allows for instance owners to have control. At the moment, you enter an instance first to ensure you don’t get stuffed around. Right now, a party leader still has immunity from kicks because it kills the dungeon and they can still be trolls.
With the system I said earlier, where only a kick ends the dungeon, you can still enter first and be the instance owner. It still allows power to fall in the hands of the instance owner in that regard.
Kick = dungeon end. This is still how it is presently.
Disc/Leave = owner change.
perfect, and i cant understand ppl complaining about this bcuz its how it is now and its NOT a problem, the only reason ppl wanted a change was for leader leaving
Can I suggest we merge this thread, with this thread:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/DO-NOT-change-the-dungeon-owner-system/first
It seems that the other thread is somehow more popular, and all I really see there are various iterations over what has been said in this thread already, but it would have the benefit of the community actually realizing that there was a Dev response to these concerns.
Bump to prevent the creation of more threads with the same topic, and also i think this topic is more fitting to the dungeons subforum.
I use LFG for pugs a fair deal (up to mid-20s fractals, various EXP), and I’ve yet to have a problem with any of the griefing kicks people are talking about (although I avoid the cesspit that is Arah, so that might be why).
Is there some sort of megaserver style sort on the LFG tool? I’d think not but it’s weird that I’ve never seen the complaints people are talking about.
(I have seen some ‘leader bails, dungeon lost’ problems though)