Guild Wars 2

With the multitude of clown-jerks in this game, could you please exempt ‘Party Initiators’ from being kicked at the discretion of these people and allow that ‘Party Initiator’ kick at their discretion non-unanimous or at members request?
A person that initiates a group deserves/needs this authority…especially for high level FotM PUGs.
It’s BS that these people have the ability to exploit those that can unlock higher level FotM zones by joining the group (which leads to ‘excessive message’ after repetitive leavings) with or without AR, with whatever class they want, run whatever they want, play however they want and kick whoever makes a stand against them…Is this intentional Anet?
__________________________________________________________________

The person that INITIATED the ‘party’ should be immune to being kicked, able to kick others non-unanimous and UNABLE to leave the ‘party’ until after a ‘right-click name/assign as party leader’ is executed to leave (disconnects will NOT result in everyone being booted and next name gets the responsibility of ‘Party Leader’ by default)…

Those that JOINED aforementioned party should be able to ‘right-click name/request to be kicked’ all members of said party (INCLUDING the ‘initiator’) and wait for how said ‘initiator’ will respond in which they may simply right-click the names of ‘those to be blocked/avoided forever and ever’ and leave at their discretion if the decision proves undesirable…

~the entitlement of playing the game does NOT entitle us to be in any party we so choose at any given moment…

~all in all the true victim on this issue are the new/future customers of Anet/NCSoft…

~PUGs are the prelude to meeting/making friends and guilds…

~Anet/NCSoft has delivered amazing products but it falls on us as a community to self mitigate/delegate we just need the proper tools to create that structure…

~my personal favorite fix for many issues are having 2 separate servers: One for age verified uncensored content and the other for well, what we have now but that’s neither here or there, complicated and probably too costly (but would be soo much more fun and profitable for the company imo, omg could you imagine?)…

~The issue is the freedom to violate a principle which is selfish, greedy, an exploit, calloused, uncivilized and blatantly unfair…the score is a grim 2-0:

People against ‘Party Leader’ want and currently have TWO things> Everyone kicks anyone at their discretion AND the freedom to join any party with whatever and do so…

People that support ‘Party Leader immunity with final kick decision with or without party requests’ just want ONE THING> For people to read, understand and adhere to the message they have posted on LFG system (which we all know WILL NOT BE RESPECTED) when they initiate a party OR for people to be unable to kick them from the party that they have initiated WHENEVER for WHATEVER reason…

It’s supposed to be: LFG or GLFM and not: “CHUMMING THE WATERS!”

~regardless, being idle on issues and problems is as if condoning them…

I also think there should be a party leader. Not instance owner, but party leader.

• Why do we need the party kick feature at all?
• Given that we have that feature, why should anyone be immune? Seriously, “deserves/needs this authority” is not an explanation.

They need it cause generally people want to have some level of control over party (and its not a bad thing at all if you think about that).

Previously “instance owner” was de facto a “party leader” cause he had de facto kick immunity due to dungeon being destroyed after instance owner left group.

I’m just wondering Why the OP had to post this in 2 different sections of the forum???

Anet is known for their half-baked fixes. They did solve some problems by removing instance owner, but also allowed some griefers to freely kick anyone, essentially stealing the party.

Something needs to be done. Perhaps open a poll where you need 3 or more votes to be able to kick someone from party.

Definitely some people have been abusing of the new system. Sadly I fell for their schemes a few times. People are taking over parties, kicking everyone and doing as they bid without a care about the others. It sure gives you the sensation of being powerless when you and your friend, which created the dungeon party, are kicked from your kitten party when the last boss have less than 10% of HP because the other players felt their own guild mates deserved the rewards more than you, when in truth they wouldn’t even had made to the boss without your help…

OK, I’ll rephrase the questions. If one person deserves immunity to kicking, why doesn’t everyone deserve the same immunity? What it sounds like is that people want to kick but they don’t want to be kicked.

Everyone does have that immunity. Its called make your own group.

DonQuack.9025:

Everyone does have that immunity. Its called make your own group.

I’m confused. Even if you make your own group, other members can still kick you.

Under the proposed party leader immunity system. not what is actually live.

IndigoSundown.5419:

OK, I’ll rephrase the questions. If one person deserves immunity to kicking, why doesn’t everyone deserve the same immunity? What it sounds like is that people want to kick but they don’t want to be kicked.

What? I don’t see the logic in that question. The problem I think some people have is that when they host a group, there is nothing stopping the players who join from completely ignoring the wishes of the dungeon leader and of course, they can kick the leader if they want without any consequence.

Unless you have a friend with you, players can easily troll your group or take complete control. At least when we did have a little power, you could threaten to end the dungeon if players kept trolling your group or not following the lfg. Now, you have to hope the players who join you are nice and respect the lfg (if you don’t have a friend or guild with you.

Gizmo.9178:

IndigoSundown.5419:

OK, I’ll rephrase the questions. If one person deserves immunity to kicking, why doesn’t everyone deserve the same immunity? What it sounds like is that people want to kick but they don’t want to be kicked.

What? I don’t see the logic in that question. The problem I think some people have is that when they host a group, there is nothing stopping the players who join from completely ignoring the wishes of the dungeon leader and of course, they can kick the leader if they want without any consequence.

Unless you have a friend with you, players can easily troll your group or take complete control. At least when we did have a little power, you could threaten to end the dungeon if players kept trolling your group or not following the lfg. Now, you have to hope the players who join you are nice and respect the lfg (if you don’t have a friend or guild with you.

So, the host is now dependent on the good will of the rest of the party, right? Other players in the group have always been dependent on that same good will. Why is the “host” special? Because he started the LFG?

Don’t get me wrong. It isn’t that I don’t see that kittenhats are kittenhats, it’s that I don’t see why the host should get special privileges that others don’t get. And it’s not that I want hosts to get kicked undeservedly, I want no one to get kicked undeservedly.

Well things will never be fair to where players will not get kicked undeservedly. Which is why party owners should be able to have some sort of leverage.

I don’t agree with any sort of immunity, everyone should have equal powers since there is no more host. However the kick system is broken.

There should be a rule for kick vote. One person to propose and another to second is not correct nor fair. It is democratic and fair if the notion is shared by the majority of players.

My suggestion is to change the kick vote depending on how many players compose a party:

Every single player in the party can see and vote for the kick, including the one that is being voted.

*Full or 4 members in the party: Once it is suggested for the kick, needs at least 3 positive votes (agreeing with the kick); if receives 3 negative votes, the player isn’t kicked from the party;

*Party with 3 players: Needs 2 positive votes for the kick or 2 negative to deny;

*Party with 2: No option to kick, only to leave the party.

IndigoSundown.5419:

So, the host is now dependent on the good will of the rest of the party, right? Other players in the group have always been dependent on that same good will. Why is the “host” special? Because he started the LFG?

Yes. Precisely. All the other players in the group made conscious decision to join his group, instead of creating their own. If they don’t want to group with the party leader, they could have joined a different group or made one themselves.
Remember, currently when setting up LFG, you have no control at all on who will join, not even an accept/deny prompt – while the people that join do have some control (because they can pick and choose from all lfg offers). This puts group creator at disadvantage compared to other party members.

Also, i think that people should not be trivially able to ignore reasons behind group creation, and kick the person that created it.

Astralporing.1957:

IndigoSundown.5419:

So, the host is now dependent on the good will of the rest of the party, right? Other players in the group have always been dependent on that same good will. Why is the “host” special? Because he started the LFG?

Yes. Precisely. All the other players in the group made conscious decision to join his group, instead of creating their own. If they don’t want to group with the party leader, they could have joined a different group or made one themselves.
Remember, currently when setting up LFG, you have no control at all on who will join, not even an accept/deny prompt – while the people that join do have some control (because they can pick and choose from all lfg offers). This puts group creator at disadvantage compared to other party members.

That’s an interesting point. However, is it really a disadvantage except in a small number of cases? If no one knows anyone else, it seems equally likely that Party Starter Joe and his buddy are going to kick Add-in Ray as it is that Add-in Ray and his buddy are going to kick Joe.

Also, i think that people should not be trivially able to ignore reasons behind group creation, and kick the person that created it.

Now, I can see that point. I don’t think it should be trivial to kick anyone. That’s why I am against selective immunity. The better answer is to modify the kick system to make it harder to kick. The best answer is to replace kicking on whim with a 5 minute AFK or Disconnect kick.

Yeah, I know that stance will be unpopular. However, people are insisting on having access to convenience features without being willing to accept the consequences. If it should be easy to kick someone else, it should be easy to kick “you.”

IndigoSundown.5419:

• Why do we need the party kick feature at all?
• Given that we have that feature, why should anyone be immune? Seriously, “deserves/needs this authority” is not an explanation.

I second that..instead of kicking a “not-so-doing-well player” you should be able to choose to leave for yourself..after all, it is your own decision not to go on with current members..
Despite the fact that this would a waste of spent efforts and time; people will notice soon enough if one or a few members are not in possession of the experience needed as soon as they are in the first fractal/dungeon phase

Yes we need party leader option , I am helping to level my friend who bought gw2 maybe 2 weeks ago and party system just suck . We create lfg "AC p1/p2/p3 all welcome " and people who join, kick my friend becasue he wasnt 80,exped or whatever they think. I can understand it in lfg like"only meta zerkers". But what the hell is that we create our own lfg , with our own rules and then just 2 pugs (who suck anyway) just click kick cause they dont like party which we created . Something must be done.

Maybe true kicking option where one player call vote to kick write why and every party member can click yes or no . If 3 players click yes , person is kicked . If no you cant call vote to kick same person for 10 minutes .
Or maybe just party leader option who uses lfg,kicking,inviting etc. If party leader is offline for 10 minutes , next person takes the lead .

The only players that I have heard that hate this new method are those that PUG and Dungeon path runners.

Not saying that they don’t have a valid complaint, but Anet needs to evaluate the size of the “unhappy” segment of the playerbase against those that are ok with the changes.

Pls Sirs my back cant take much more.
Upping the amount of people required to kick has one major flaw.
You just made it impossible to kick a troll/person who ignores lfg.

Currently 2 people are needed to destroy a party. New system 2 people are still all that are needed to destroy a party.

What would truly fix this problem? People reading and adhering to requested info in LFG. Oh and make you own kitten groups

I swear i think the only people scared of being kicked are those that are incapable of making it and terrorists.

Wife and I ran a fractal last night. We started the party. Had 2/5 pugs. WE GOT KICKED FROM OUR OWN PARTY.

W

T

F

ANET?

DonQuack.9025:

Pls Sirs my back cant take much more.
Upping the amount of people required to kick has one major flaw.
You just made it impossible to kick a troll/person who ignores lfg.

Currently 2 people are needed to destroy a party. New system 2 people are still all that are needed to destroy a party.

It would also mean that the party starter only needs one person he trusts to ensure he doesn’t get kicked. Under the current system, that is not possible.

DonQuack.9025:

What would truly fix this problem? People reading and adhering to requested info in LFG. Oh and make you own kitten groups

Yeah, but its a given that people are going to not read and will be kittenhats. If immunity is given to the party starter, and the party starter is a kittenhat, people would have the option to leave and restart without him, or start their own groups. But wait, people can leave/restart now, without immunity being a feature.

DonQuack.9025:

I swear i think the only people scared of being kicked are those that are incapable of making it and terrorists.

So, the OP and the others who want immunity for the party starter, which of those two options are they? Being kicked is either a legitimate issue, or it isn’t. If it is, then it’s a legitimate issue for everyone, not just the party starter.

LFG is a convenience feature. It comes with certain drawbacks. The convenience comes without the assurance that you know what you’re getting – whether you’re starting the group or joining in. Under the current system, that’s the price you pay for the convenience. Immunity would be another convenience feature, but one which only applies to 20% of the users. I agree there’s a problem, but I don’t think preferential treatment is the answer.

IndigoSundown.5419:

DonQuack.9025:

Pls Sirs my back cant take much more.
Upping the amount of people required to kick has one major flaw.
You just made it impossible to kick a troll/person who ignores lfg.

Currently 2 people are needed to destroy a party. New system 2 people are still all that are needed to destroy a party.

It would also mean that the party starter only needs one person he trusts to ensure he doesn’t get kicked. Under the current system, that is not possible.

DonQuack.9025:

What would truly fix this problem? People reading and adhering to requested info in LFG. Oh and make you own kitten groups

Yeah, but its a given that people are going to not read and will be kittenhats. If immunity is given to the party starter, and the party starter is a kittenhat, people would have the option to leave and restart without him, or start their own groups. But wait, people can leave/restart now, without immunity being a feature.

DonQuack.9025:

I swear i think the only people scared of being kicked are those that are incapable of making it and terrorists.

So, the OP and the others who want immunity for the party starter, which of those two options are they? Being kicked is either a legitimate issue, or it isn’t. If it is, then it’s a legitimate issue for everyone, not just the party starter.

LFG is a convenience feature. It comes with certain drawbacks. The convenience comes without the assurance that you know what you’re getting – whether you’re starting the group or joining in. Under the current system, that’s the price you pay for the convenience. Immunity would be another convenience feature, but one which only applies to 20% of the users. I agree there’s a problem, but I don’t think preferential treatment is the answer.

Pretty much agree with Indigo here.

Brother Grimm.5176:

The only players that I have heard that hate this new method are those that PUG and Dungeon path runners.

Not saying that they don’t have a valid complaint, but Anet needs to evaluate the size of the “unhappy” segment of the playerbase against those that are ok with the changes.

You are mixing here two things. Not being forced to abandon dungeon if the “dungeon owner” leaves or disconnects is a good thing. This is not what we’re talking about, however.

IndigoSundown.5419:

• Given that we have that feature, why should anyone be immune?

To prevent pugs from kicking you at the last boss in a dungeon to let guild mates run with you.

To clarify- I swear i think the only people scared of being kicked as party members are those that are incapable of making it and terrorists.

So, the only people who have a righteous complaint about being kicked are party-starters? Providing immunity to 1 in 5 players in a group would remove all chance that undeserved kicks would happen? Yeah, not buying what you’re selling.

DonQuack.9025:

To clarify- I swear i think the only people scared of being kicked as party members are those that are incapable of making it and terrorists.

You are wrong. Besides since when “terrorists” are afraid of anything? Your own statement makes no sense at all.

If it is too hard for you to understand, let me explain clearly: We, as players, want to put a stop on the abuse of certain players. Said players are causing griefing by kicking everyone minus themselves and their buddy, of course, to give the spot of players, who played the whole dungeon even got the last boss to 10% and deserve their reward, to their own guild mates or for path selling scam.

What Indigo wants if for nobody to be able to play a dungeon the way they want.

Want to run a zerk speed run dungeon and that clerics necro joins your group? Too bad.
Want to run a fashion role play dungeon and that zerker elitist joins your group? Too bad.

The instance creator wants to find like-minded individuals to play with. THAT is why HE should have control of the party composition. So that ANYONE can “play how I want.”

Now, what azyume is talking about is also important… although I’ve never experienced it and believe it to be rarer than PHIWs joining someone’s party on LFG without reading the description and completely ruining everything.

Can anyone come up with a solution to address BOTH issues?

In theory both “halves” of the party could be put in new instances, at the point where they left off. Players could chose which “half” they wanted to be in. Both halves would then have to to recruit new players (or not if they decide to finish it by themselves).

There would be no practical difference between kicking/being kicked or just quitting. People would vote with their feet. You’re not forced to compete the instance with anyone you don’t like, and you’re not prevented from completing it either.

Some people could still be greifers and leave a party high and dry or kick a player at the last minute, but that wouldn’t be as bad as being kicked right out of the instance. You’d at least have the chance of recruiting more members.

Dungeon sellers wouldn’t like this idea obviously.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

What Indigo wants if for nobody to be able to play a dungeon the way they want.

Want to run a zerk speed run dungeon and that clerics necro joins your group? Too bad. Want to run a fashion role play dungeon and that zerker elitist joins your group? Too bad.

Completely and utterly wrong. I want a solution that’s fair for everyone, not just party-starters. Would I prefer it if people formed parties without depending on random strangers so they know what they’re getting? Of course, but people don’t want to give up convenience.

The instance creator wants to find like-minded individuals to play with. THAT is why HE should have control of the party composition. So that ANYONE can “play how I want.”

Even with immunity, the instance creator would not have “control of the party composition.” He would need at least one other like-minded individual. If it took three to kick (or a majority in the case of a party of 3), he’d need two more — but grief-kickers would need three also.

Now, what azyume is talking about is also important… although I’ve never experienced it and believe it to be rarer than PHIWs joining someone’s party on LFG without reading the description and completely ruining everything.

Can anyone come up with a solution to address BOTH issues?

Seems to me like you could either have easy kicking or greater insurance versus kicking. I don’t believe you can have both.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

What Indigo wants if for nobody to be able to play a dungeon the way they want.

Want to run a zerk speed run dungeon and that clerics necro joins your group? Too bad. Want to run a fashion role play dungeon and that zerker elitist joins your group? Too bad.

Completely and utterly wrong. I want a solution that’s fair for everyone, not just party-starters. Would I prefer it if people formed parties without depending on random strangers so they know what they’re getting? Of course, but people don’t want to give up convenience.

The instance creator wants to find like-minded individuals to play with. THAT is why HE should have control of the party composition. So that ANYONE can “play how I want.”

Even with immunity, the instance creator would not have “control of the party composition.” He would need at least one other like-minded individual. If it took three to kick (or a majority in the case of a party of 3), he’d need two more — but grief-kickers would need three also.

Now, what azyume is talking about is also important… although I’ve never experienced it and believe it to be rarer than PHIWs joining someone’s party on LFG without reading the description and completely ruining everything.

Can anyone come up with a solution to address BOTH issues?

Seems to me like you could either have easy kicking or greater insurance versus kicking. I don’t believe you can have both.

There’s a reason the LFG has a text box. It’s NOT for grouping with RANDOM strangers. Strangers, yes, but not RANDOM ones.

I suggest the instance owner have full kicking rights and immunity to kick. Abuse as described above is already against the TOS and should result in a ban.

But, if you insist on having insurance against kicking for the rest of the group, why not implement a checkpoint system wherein if a team gets beyond point X in a given instance, say at 50% or 75% of the dungeon, party members cannot be kicked?

That should keep griefing to a minimum while still allowing the instance creator to set the terms of the party.

Edit: Or even better, how about if a group member has been in the instance for a given time, say 5-15 minutes, they can’t be kicked?

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

IndigoSundown.5419:

- snip -

There’s a reason the LFG has a text box. It’s NOT for grouping with RANDOM strangers. Strangers, yes, but not RANDOM ones.

Not sure I believe that. The text box is certainly there for people to post the path they want to do. It can also be used to post requirements, but I believe that was either a secondary design consideration if not happenstance.

I suggest the instance owner have full kicking rights and immunity to kick. Abuse as described above is already against the TOS and should result in a ban.

But, if you insist on having insurance against kicking for the rest of the group, why not implement a checkpoint system wherein if a team gets beyond point X in a given instance, say at 50% or 75% of the dungeon, party members cannot be kicked?

That should keep griefing to a minimum while still allowing the instance creator to set the terms of the party.

Edit: Or even better, how about if a group member has been in the instance for a given time, say 5-15 minutes, they can’t be kicked?

Your suggestion would certainly cut down or out the instances of people being kicked at the final boss in favor of guild members. It would also provide insurance for path seller who would surely be in the instance long enough to qualify for that immunity. What it would not do is allow for the removal of a party member who bails but fails to leave the group before logging out. This does happen, and is certainly a legitimate use of kicking. In fact this is the only circumstance under which I’ve kicked anyone.

Would this serve those who feel their group was invaded by someone who didn’t want the composition they posted? Can they ID such people quickly enough? My guess is, “Yes.” I can certainly ID someone who’s using a meta build or not in small group content.

I’d have no objection to timed immunity. Even if people get kicked, it would be early on, meaning less wasted time.

Yenn.9185:

I also think there should be a party leader. Not instance owner, but party leader.

Doesn’t make sense to me that if I opened the instance (“Instance Owner”), I can get kicked but “party leader” cannot get kicked.

If need be, party leader needs to be the instance owner as well but that brings us back to square one…

I don’t like the idea of a party leader. I don’t like the idea of someone else controlling the decision of who gets to stay and who gets to go. I like having each five members in the party on equal playing grounds.

And if I don’t like someone for whatever reason, I want to be able to kick them. I’m very tolerant to other’s skill level, and I can be patient to teach people. But But there’s a limit of my patience for someone who isn’t listening. it’s going to get a lot more messy (and more feelings hurt) if someone has immunity in the party.

Arikyali.5804:

>>And if I don’t like someone for whatever reason, I want to be able to kick them. I’m very tolerant to other’s skill level, and I can be patient to teach people. But But there’s a limit of my patience for someone who isn’t listening.<<

~and there it is folks, thank you for that…

azyume.6321:

DonQuack.9025:

To clarify- I swear i think the only people scared of being kicked as party members are those that are incapable of making it and terrorists.

You are wrong. Besides since when “terrorists” are afraid of anything? Your own statement makes no sense at all.

~he is exactly right, think about what he’s saying…

The person that initiated the ‘party’ should be immune to being kicked, able to kick others non-unanimous and UNABLE to leave the ‘party’ until after a ‘right-click name/assign as party leader’ is executed (disconnects will not result in everyone being booted and next name gets the responsibility by default)…

Those that joined aforementioned party should be able to ‘right-click name/request to be kicked’ all members of said party (including the ‘initiator’) and wait for how said ‘initiator’ will respond and/or simply take the names of ‘those to be blocked/avoided’ and leave at their discretion…

I dont’ know. So you are complaining about clown jerks. What if the party leader is a clown jerks.

Would that kind of change really solve the issue? Giving one person the power to kick others without any approval from other players is basically opening a big door for trolls to torment others. They might even create groups just to kick everyone once they’ve joined to annoy people. They might also kick others when it is unreasonable and uncalled for and no-one will have a say in the matter. You’ll be at the mercy of a single player’s whims. At least as it is now, you need the approval of multiple players to kick someone, so if one person is a jerk, but the others aren’t, chances are nothing will happen.

So far, I have yet to be kicked once from a group while playing in a dungeon or fractal, unless I’ve disconnected from the game for a reasonable amount of time, in which case the kick is perfectly understandable. Also, the only time I’ve called for a vote to kick others is when they are being complete jerks, have disconnected and not returned after a reasonably long waiting period, or if they’re under-levelled for a fractal or dungeon (A level 28 player tried to join our group for a fractal level 22 run yesterday, so naturally I asked for a vote to kick. But I also explained why he was being kicked in a PM so he knew the basic requirements of doing a fractal and didn’t feel mistreated).

BillX.4987:

With the multitude of clown-jerks in this game, could you please exempt ‘Party Leaders’ from being kicked at the discretion of these people and allow that ‘Party Leader’ kick at their discretion non-unanimous?
A person that initiates a group deserves/needs this authority…especially for high level FotM PUGs.
It’s BS that these people have the ability to exploit those that can unlock higher level FotM zones by joining the group (which leads to ‘excessive message’ after repetitive leavings) with or without AR, with whatever class they want, run whatever they want, play however they want and kick whoever makes a stand against them…Is this intentional Anet?

Tips:

1) Party up with friends/guildies/people with similar interests.
2) Kick the playhowyouwants on sight. The more you keep them in your party the worse it’ll get.

Yup, I can understand OP. Happened to me before after helping bunch of noobs in CoE. Well that is nothing if were to compare to fractal. Its infuriating when you got kicked on the last fractal stage, isnt it?

Well here’s what I’m proposing, what if Arena set a rule whereby at the end of a dungeon/fractal, the kick player function will not be available ?

yLoon.5289:

Yup, I can understand OP. Happened to me before after helping bunch of noobs in CoE. Well that is nothing if were to compare to fractal. Its infuriating when you got kicked on the last fractal stage, isnt it?

Well here’s what I’m proposing, what if Arena set a rule whereby at the end of a dungeon/fractal, the kick player function will not be available ?

Then you’ll get the trolls who do decent throughout the dungeon, but purposely fail the last one just to spite people. And can’t be kicked.

If someone gets kicked, what happens? Kickers find a member more in their play style, kickee finds a party more in their play style. Anger/annoyance for a few minutes and people get over it. What if you can’t kick? You’re forced to stick with people you don’t want to be with and endure hours of frustration and boredom.

I also think that rewards should be after every boss .
So for example if dungeon gives 60 tokens+ 1 gold .
We should get divided reward after every boss/crucial part .
So if we have 5 bosses after every boss we get 12 tokens + 20 silver (with daily cool down/time gate).
Change like that will reduce amount of hate and negativity cause you you always get any reward, not like now that after 20 minutes we get nothing casue 1 idiot called kick and another just confirmed it.

And yes in gw people dont read lfg, dont read skill/hud description and they click everything what they can .Once I saw idiot who clicked “go back to desa lab” and others confirmed that cause why not ?! during 3rd fractal on level 50 ! and people still dont know how to use game interface and they were suprised that we are in desa lab

laokoko.7403:

I dont’ know. So you are complaining about clown jerks. What if the party leader is a clown jerks.

Then people will not join his parties, or leave shortly after joining, without losing anything.
Remember, people joining groups have a choice what lfg group they will choose. LFG group creator doesn’t have any choice about who will join their group. The situation is not even.

Astralporing.1957:

laokoko.7403:

I dont’ know. So you are complaining about clown jerks. What if the party leader is a clown jerks.

Then people will not join his parties, or leave shortly after joining, without losing anything.
Remember, people joining groups have a choice what lfg group they will choose. LFG group creator doesn’t have any choice about who will join their group. The situation is not even.

That’s the thing, if you are a party leader and you dont’ like your group too, leave and remake another party.

Someone was complaining about getting kicked out of his own group he created previously because he aint 80…. All I can say is really? just remake the group.

And it really just shows you can’t know everything about the party creator from the LFG description. If the party creator specifically says he(or his friend) isn’t level 80, that wont’ be a problem.

If you think those people wont’ loss anything because they have the choice to leave and create another group so can the party leader.

If you think it is a problem some clown kick people at end of the dungeon(or half way through the dungeon), that is a problem for all, not just the party leader.

One thing I admit though is I hope party kick can at least be majority rules. If there is 5 people, 3 people should agree to have a kick.

DonQuack.9025:

What would truly fix this problem? People reading and adhering to requested info in LFG. Oh and make you own kitten groups

I swear i think the only people scared of being kicked are those that are incapable of making it and terrorists.

Wow. That’s some interesting parallel universe in which you’re living there.
Did you forget to read the problem the original poster tries to solve with his suggestion?
Did you forget that you can’t fix stupid and force people to do things like read?
Did you forget that most people can’t make their own kittening group, which is WHY LFG WAS INVENTED IN THE FIRST PLACE?

So what was the issue that Anet wanted to fix by no longer making instances owned by a player? Everyone being kicked if the owner disconnects or leaves? Which is is something that could have been fixed without making dungeon instances ownerless. There could have been a fallback system where ownership of an instance falls to the second person who joined the party if the instance owner leaves the party or gets disconnected.
So was there something else they were trying to fix?

azyume.6321:

I don’t agree with any sort of immunity, everyone should have equal powers since there is no more host. However the kick system is broken.

There should be a rule for kick vote. One person to propose and another to second is not correct nor fair. It is democratic and fair if the notion is shared by the majority of players.

My suggestion is to change the kick vote depending on how many players compose a party:

Every single player in the party can see and vote for the kick, including the one that is being voted.

*Full or 4 members in the party: Once it is suggested for the kick, needs at least 3 positive votes (agreeing with the kick); if receives 3 negative votes, the player isn’t kicked from the party;

*Party with 3 players: Needs 2 positive votes for the kick or 2 negative to deny;

*Party with 2: No option to kick, only to leave the party.

Except if the player is disconnected. Then all it should require is 2 votes.