Guild Wars 2

Now with the upcoming changes to instance ownership it’s going to be more important that people do not get kicked for the wrong reasons.
Having ownership transfer if the instance owner leaves is awesome… but the side effect is that it could also open the floodgates to the cesspool of nastiness through the votekick system.
It will be too much of a no-mans land when you go and use the LFG function. Nobody has any authority and it’s creating a very volatile party system.
It’s also very troubling that you can now kick people at the end of a dungeon, with a high barrier for repercussions for doing so.

Therefor there needs to be some restrictions.
I feel there needs to be some discussion had on how far these restrictions should go.
People should not be worried that they might get kicked for bad reasons.

Ideas of restriction

- You can’t kick the creator of an instance / ‘’party leader’‘.
- Party leader can assign who is or isn’t open for kicking.
- Kicking requires 3 votes
- Kicking someone in combat requires 3 votes
- Kicking someone who has left combat less than 3 minutes ago requires 3 votes
(kicking afk people should still be a valid reason, kicking people cause they have to use the bathroom quickly shouldn’t).
- New system where there’s a party leader who has tools to influence the kicking from the party (such as amount of votes / immunity for other players as well). Can vote for a new party leader if that person is afk for [x] minutes. (Going offline counts as going afk)

Now the biggest issue there is, what is a valid reason for kicking someone… and when is it “fair” to do so.
For me personally it’s mostly when people fail to communicate with the party.
Not doing what is expected of people can lead to frustrating situations but I personally feel that, unless it’s done to create that frustration, it’s not a valid reason to do so.
And a bad attitude.

I’ll expand the list with idea’s provided by others in the topic.

No further ideas beyond increasing votes to 3 and other stuff you mentioned, but I just wanted to approve this topic.

Asmodeus.5782:

No further ideas beyond increasing votes to 3 and other stuff you mentioned, but I just wanted to approve this topic.

I’m personally super in favor of adding a ‘’party leader’’ function, where he is the one who can decide on these things a lot more. This gives people a lot more protection to being kicked for no reason.

Party leader can determine number of votes to kick and who has kick immunity. That would solve everything.

I like the “party leader” function. Basically the issue can be prevented like this:

Whoever opens the instance is the party leader.
If he/she disconnects for a long period of time or volonteerly leaves the party: the instance remains open.
If, however, this person is kicked, the instance disbands as it does right now.

This way, people can still know that they are protected from intentional trolls.

Also, I think that if the party leader suggests a kick, it should be seconded only by one more person. If the kick is suggested by someone else, two more players should approve it.

I made this suggestion a few days ago:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Dishonorable-in-PvE/first#post4321284

TLDR: If you kick a lot of people in a short period of time, you are no longer able to be in a lfg party for a few days.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Party leader can determine number of votes to kick and who has kick immunity. That would solve everything.

Loving it.

I also feel that actively promoting a group as a ’’party’’ would be a good development. Not only to protect people from intentional trolls, but also the social aspects.
Maybe I’m clinging on to my GW1 party nostalgia <3

Mystic.5934:

I made this suggestion a few days ago:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Dishonorable-in-PvE/first#post4321284

TLDR: If you kick a lot of people in a short period of time, you are no longer able to be in a lfg party for a few days.

I don’t think this solves much, because: what is “a lot of people”? With such a restriction, you are still allowing trolls to mess up the game for a few people, before they get punished. That behaviour should not be minimized, but prevented.

I think kick votes should be completely unanimous. 4 votes to kick someone. If all 4 want you gone, then odds are you really need to leave.

First people wanted owner of the party instance to be removed.Anet listened to that and made the needed changed.Now people don’t like the change and feel that the group will get abused.Oxxx come on decide what you want finaly.Anet can’t do everything.
In my opinion removing the party owner is great thing.Finally the whole group won’t be booted out if the instance owner leaves.

Agreed times 1 million!

moiraine.2753:

First people wanted owner of the party instance to be removed.Anet listened to that and made the needed changed.Now people don’t like the change and feel that the group will get abused.Oxxx come on decide what you want finaly.Anet can’t do everything.
In my opinion removing the party owner is great thing.Finally the whole group won’t be booted out if the instance owner leaves.

No, the biggest issue was that one player can screw everyone else up by leaving.
And like I pointed out that this won’t be the case anymore in the new situation. However, the new system will create concerns that should be addressed.

The new way instances work is saying that all 5 party members are ‘outlaws’ and you can freely kick whoever. That is an unhealthy situation, especially for groups formed in the LFG tool where everyone’s a stranger to eachother.

First people wanted owner of the party instance to be removed.Anet listened to that and made the needed changed.Now people don’t like the change and feel that the group will get abused.Oxxx come on decide what you want finaly.Anet can’t do everything.

In my opinion removing the party owner is great thing.Finally the whole group won’t be booted out if the instance owner leaves.Also if they increase the party kicks from 2 to 3 that will be great,because it will fix the greafing/selling problem that people are so afraid of.You just need to have with you 2 more people that you know.So the random pugs that are invite to not be able to kick you.Now i’m not certain will Anet increase the party kicks from two to three.That has to be seen.

Kicking someone should require 50% or more people. In a group of 5, 3 votes would be required. In a group of 4, 2 votes would be required. In a group of 3, 2 votes would be required, in a party of 2, you can just leave the party.

moiraine.2753:

First people wanted owner of the party instance to be removed.Anet listened to that and made the needed changed.Now people don’t like the change and feel that the group will get abused.Oxxx come on decide what you want finaly.Anet can’t do everything.

In my opinion removing the party owner is great thing.Finally the whole group won’t be booted out if the instance owner leaves.Also if they increase the party kicks from 2 to 3 that will be great,because it will fix the greafing/selling problem that people are so afraid of.You just need to have with you 2 more people that you know.So the random pugs that are invite to not be able to kick you.Now i’m not certain will Anet increase the party kicks from two to three.That has to be seen.

This won’t solve the issue, it will make it slightly harder…

It should not be the case that in every party you ’’must’’ have people with you to prevent yourself from being kicked.

Biohazard.7523:

I am so glad that they implemented this. Now me and my friends can join in someons party kick him and do the dungeon for free because he was on the last boss….
Thank you I cant wait for this patch, Free dungeons free gold

Doing Arah has never been this easy!

sigh

Here’s the real solution:

Get rid of party kicks.

Sounds radical but solves the problem. I’m positive that someone could come up with a solution to solve the handful of new problems that crop up from this (idling, disconnecting, etc).

eekzi@

The most important thing the party owner had to go.It was such bad concept to begin with.Now Anet just have to find a way to remove the griefing somehow that will replace it.

“Dungeon owner” had to go because it is ridiculous to give one individual more power in a group than the rest. Renaming it “party leader” and adding a few quirks does not solve the problem, and not everybody can start their own dungeons if you expect people to actually join you.

I just want to see the number of votes required to approve a kick increased to 3 or 4.

Kerithlan.1659:

Get rid of party kicks.

Sounds radical but solves the problem. I’m positive that someone could come up with a solution to solve the handful of new problems that crop up from this (idling, disconnecting, etc).

That does not solve any problems. You would basically be making dungeons a troll paradise. People will act like jerks, spout rude comments/harassment, refuse to cooperate, stand at the entrance forever or go AFK, and there will be nothing you can do about it.
Kicks need to be more strictly controlled, but they are necessary. Disabling kicks would be a very, very bad idea.

Since there is no longer dungeon ownership I don’t see why we need to be overprotected on dungeon creator.

Obviously, I understand it have something to do with dungeon selling.

Fyrebrand.4859:

“Dungeon owner” had to go because it is ridiculous to give one individual more power in a group than the rest. Renaming it “party leader” and adding a few quirks does not solve the problem, and not everybody can start their own dungeons if you expect people to actually join you.

I just want to see the number of votes required to approve a kick increased to 3 or 4.

Kerithlan.1659:

Get rid of party kicks.

Sounds radical but solves the problem. I’m positive that someone could come up with a solution to solve the handful of new problems that crop up from this (idling, disconnecting, etc).

That does not solve any problems. You would basically be making dungeons a troll paradise. People will act like jerks, spout rude comments/harassment, refuse to cooperate, stand at the entrance forever or go AFK, and there will be nothing you can do about it.
Kicks need to be more strictly controlled, but they are necessary. Disabling kicks would be a very, very bad idea.

The biggest problem with the dungeon owner was that the instance would dissolve when he was no longer in the party (whether due to leaving or disconnecting or getting kicked).

I feel there is definitely a need for an individual with more power in the group. How is this a rediculous idea? Adding an option to prevent people from getting kicked does solve the problem and is not just a ’’quirk’’. As you can read, I wanted it to include the option to mark people to prevent them from being kicked.

If you want to do a dungeon, you start the LFG, you get the people… why should you not be the one who decides what to do? It’s not healthy that other people can pretty much hold you hostage in your own LFG.

Simply increasing the votes to 3 is more than enough….
If 3/5 of the party wants you gone, what is going to stop them from sabotaging the Dungeon or instance to force you to leave?

Could add a couple of predefined kick reasons that would show up for a request to kick.

“AFK”
“Vulgarity”
etc.

.

+1 for party leader who invites,kicks etc
or vote system for 3 kicks , right now i just click kick somebody confirm it and its done

laokoko.7403:

Since there is no longer dungeon ownership I don’t see why we need to be overprotected on dungeon creator.

Obviously, I understand it have something to do with dungeon selling.

Not necessarily selling dungeons in the sense that I think you’re describing it.
Now me and a friend can wait till the last boss and kick you, invite friends… or sell it. And I’m afraid this will happen to a lot of people as it will be so easy to do.
Doesn’t matter if you opened the dungeon, doesn’t matter if you made the LFG,… there’s pretty much nothing in game preventing me from doing this.

Like I originally said, the update opens the gates to a lot of bad behaviour being possible.

Wolfey.3407:

Simply increasing the votes to 3 is more than enough….
If 3/5 of the party wants you gone, what is going to stop them from sabotaging the Dungeon or instance to force you to leave?

Could add a couple of predefined kick reasons that would show up for a request to kick.

“AFK”
“Vulgarity”
etc.

.

Upping the votes to 3 would prevent some of the problems, but it doesn’t solve it. Even putting it at 4 would not solve the issue that arrises when you have an LFG.

I would like there to be a healthy party environment where you, as someone joining an LFG as well as the person who made it, should not be afraid of getting kicked.

The new system throws the current balance regarding that aspect completely off.

The way in which party is designed has already shown us what anet wanted from a party system. The party system, from the start, has no party leader because anet concluded that the community can’t be trusted in handling full ownership of the party. This is to prevent scenario where party leaders abuse their authority and kick people at the final boss and giving the slots to his/her friends or to sell them. It is unfortunate but a few black sheeps are enough to ruin the entire gameplay. Furthermore, in a carebear game like Guild Wars 2, players aren’t given the opportunity to settle such conflict themselves due to the lack of open-world PvP.

The power balance of the party is largely dependent on the instance starter since the beginning. Everybody knows kicking dungeon starter is a bad idea and that create a balance against people who want to steal the party.

With the new update, while it is welcoming to know that we can change characters and not getting kicked out. It is also welcoming to know that we won’t get kicked out if dungeon starter left or disconnected. However, people are also worried of people joining the party and hi-jack the party during the final boss.

Of course, guild group won’t have this problem, it is mainly the pug group.

SkyShroud.2865:

The way in which party is designed has already shown us what anet wanted from a party system. The party system, from the start, has no party leader because anet concluded that the community can’t be trusted in handling full ownership of the party. This is to prevent scenario where party leaders abuse their authority and kick people at the final boss and giving the slots to his/her friends or to sell them. It is unfortunate but a few black sheeps are enough to ruin the entire gameplay. Furthermore, in a carebear game like Guild Wars 2, players aren’t given the opportunity to settle such conflict themselves due to the lack of open-world PvP.

The power balance of the party is largely dependent on the instance starter since the beginning. Everybody knows kicking dungeon starter is a bad idea and that create a balance against people who want to steal the party.

With the new update, while it is welcoming to know that we can change characters and not getting kicked out. It is also welcoming to know that we won’t get kicked out if dungeon starter left or disconnected. However, people are also worried of people joining the party and hi-jack the party during the final boss.

Of course, guild group won’t have this problem, it is mainly the pug group.

I play mostly with friends, but every now and then I do fractals using the LFG tool. During those runs, I always make sure that either me or a friend open the instance and thus the risk of troll kicking is minimized.

Now, while this new feature has many positive sides, I will personally have to restrict myself to playing with friends or my guild. In the end, the ones that will suffer the most, are the people that do not have enough contacts to rely on.

SkyShroud.2865:

The way in which party is designed has already shown us what anet wanted from a party system. The party system, from the start, has no party leader because anet concluded that the community can’t be trusted in handling full ownership of the party. This is to prevent scenario where party leaders abuse their authority and kick people at the final boss and giving the slots to his/her friends or to sell them. (snip)

Now 2 people can abuse the system the way you described it. More than before the update. I think this is worse than the current situation to be honest.

Cant you just transfer kicked people into their own privat instance, wich is a copy of the one you where in?

That way, even if you are kicked, you dont lose your progress and can find a new party..

i guess this can be abused by path sellers, but thats a shifty business to begin with..

GreenAlien.5623:

Cant you just transfer kicked people into their own privat instance, wich is a copy of the one you where in?

That way, even if you are kicked, you dont use your progress and can find a new party..

i guess this can be abused by path sellers, but thats a shifty business to begin with..

I know where you’re going but I don’t think it’s a viable solution.
You don’t solve a problem with another problem

What if kicking costed the voters 10 000 karma? That way people would think before they kick.

I am not suggesting 1 gold, because that would kitten people off…

GreenAlien.5623:

Cant you just transfer kicked people into their own privat instance, wich is a copy of the one you where in?

That way, even if you are kicked, you dont lose your progress and can find a new party..

i guess this can be abused by path sellers, but thats a shifty business to begin with..

So 5 people do a run, kick all of them, 5 times the dungeons for the same time, sell the paths.

Profit? ? ? ? ?

yeah sounds like a good idea but …no, not in practice.

IceVyper.6810:

What if kicking costed the voters 10 000 karma? That way people would think before they kick.

That could work…. maybe.

Taygus.4571:

IceVyper.6810:

What if kicking costed the voters 10 000 karma? That way people would think before they kick.

That could work…. maybe.

oh yes now when i create speedrun party i will have to spend 50k karma on kicking people who cant read , great idea

I think that we just need party leader and if party leader goes offline , lead is taken over after 5 min , becasue I dont get it when i create MY lfg with MY description I open MY dungeon why i have to suffer becasue people cant read/dont ping gear or they are just iditos . I mostly speedrun dungs I am losing control why I have almost full party then suddenly 800ap ranger enters I want to kick it and what ?! Why kick ? We need exped ele got idiot ranger and cant kick him becasue rest of party tells me "easy it is only a game "

moiraine.2753:

First people wanted owner of the party instance to be removed.Anet listened to that and made the needed changed.Now people don’t like the change and feel that the group will get abused.Oxxx come on decide what you want finaly.Anet can’t do everything.

Surely there are not this many people just now realizing that you can’t please everyone. Why does everyone act so surprised when some in the community disagree with a change? It’s going to happen every time, there is no need to say this.

Besides, this is a legitimate concern that has arisen from the fix. They may have solved one problem, but without the proper checks in place, there is now another problem. It’s not just black/white like/dislike.

Thought I would paste this here for visibility.

Ryan Diederich.8179:

Harny.6012:

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…

eekzie.5640:

laokoko.7403:

Since there is no longer dungeon ownership I don’t see why we need to be overprotected on dungeon creator.

Obviously, I understand it have something to do with dungeon selling.

Not necessarily selling dungeons in the sense that I think you’re describing it.
Now me and a friend can wait till the last boss and kick you, invite friends… or sell it. And I’m afraid this will happen to a lot of people as it will be so easy to do.
Doesn’t matter if you opened the dungeon, doesn’t matter if you made the LFG,… there’s pretty much nothing in game preventing me from doing this.

Like I originally said, the update opens the gates to a lot of bad behaviour being possible.

Right, so regardless if you are party leader or not, you and your friends can kick other people too. I understand changing system to say “3 kicks instead of 2”. But I dont’ understand using a system that protect “only” the party leader.

VOLTCIEAGE.3029:

oh yes now when i create speedrun party i will have to spend 50k karma on kicking people who cant read , great idea

I think that we just need party leader and if party leader goes offline , lead is taken over after 5 min , becasue I dont get it when i create MY lfg with MY description I open MY dungeon why i have to suffer becasue people cant read/dont ping gear or they are just iditos . I mostly speedrun dungs I am losing control why I have almost full party then suddenly 800ap ranger enters I want to kick it and what ?! Why kick ? We need exped ele got idiot ranger and cant kick him becasue rest of party tells me "easy it is only a game "

I just think that the person who created the LFG and the party and started the instance, should be protected. Up until now, the protection was: if he/she was kicked, the instance was gone.

Now, something has to be done, to make people safe about playing with strangers.

If the party composition is not to your liking, you can easily leave it and make a new one.

Don’t get me wrong, I want to be able to kick people. But I also want to be able to protect myself. It is a hard balance….

eekzie.5640:

Fyrebrand.4859:

“Dungeon owner” had to go because it is ridiculous to give one individual more power in a group than the rest. Renaming it “party leader” and adding a few quirks does not solve the problem, and not everybody can start their own dungeons if you expect people to actually join you.

I just want to see the number of votes required to approve a kick increased to 3 or 4.

Kerithlan.1659:

Get rid of party kicks.

Sounds radical but solves the problem. I’m positive that someone could come up with a solution to solve the handful of new problems that crop up from this (idling, disconnecting, etc).

That does not solve any problems. You would basically be making dungeons a troll paradise. People will act like jerks, spout rude comments/harassment, refuse to cooperate, stand at the entrance forever or go AFK, and there will be nothing you can do about it.
Kicks need to be more strictly controlled, but they are necessary. Disabling kicks would be a very, very bad idea.

The biggest problem with the dungeon owner was that the instance would dissolve when he was no longer in the party (whether due to leaving or disconnecting or getting kicked).

I feel there is definitely a need for an individual with more power in the group. How is this a rediculous idea? Adding an option to prevent people from getting kicked does solve the problem and is not just a ’’quirk’’. As you can read, I wanted it to include the option to mark people to prevent them from being kicked.

If you want to do a dungeon, you start the LFG, you get the people… why should you not be the one who decides what to do? It’s not healthy that other people can pretty much hold you hostage in your own LFG.

Because not everyone can start the dungeon. There are many times I have gone to a party and the party leader can not start the dungeon because he/she did not do the story so someone else who has it unlocked has to do it.

this update will be very bad for non elitist dungeon runners they should make it so the owner cant be kicked but can willingly surrender the party’s control to someone else

I mostly run with my friends anyway, so as long as we can run a dungeon without risking losing our time and effort to the instance owner leaving, I am all for further improvements.

tweeve.3782:

Because not everyone can start the dungeon. There are many times I have gone to a party and the party leader can not start the dungeon because he/she did not do the story so someone else who has it unlocked has to do it.

Like I also pointed out that it would be nice if the party leader could tick a box where someone can’t get kicked.

eekzie.5640:

tweeve.3782:

Because not everyone can start the dungeon. There are many times I have gone to a party and the party leader can not start the dungeon because he/she did not do the story so someone else who has it unlocked has to do it.

Like I also pointed out that it would be nice if the party leader could tick a box where someone can’t get kicked.

That can also be abused. They’ll find a sweet spot. Honestly it’s as simple as just making 3 people required to kick. Do what other games do. Require 3 to kick and require a reason for the kick.

If 3 people vote for “kick for lulzzzz” then the person who was kicked gets notified that they were kicked by X person and for that reason and the griefers can be reported.

eekzie.5640:

tweeve.3782:

Because not everyone can start the dungeon. There are many times I have gone to a party and the party leader can not start the dungeon because he/she did not do the story so someone else who has it unlocked has to do it.

Like I also pointed out that it would be nice if the party leader could tick a box where someone can’t get kicked.

this is a step in the right direciton the party leader deserves autonomy

TehPwnerer.7215:

eekzie.5640:

tweeve.3782:

Because not everyone can start the dungeon. There are many times I have gone to a party and the party leader can not start the dungeon because he/she did not do the story so someone else who has it unlocked has to do it.

Like I also pointed out that it would be nice if the party leader could tick a box where someone can’t get kicked.

That can also be abused. They’ll find a sweet spot. Honestly it’s as simple as just making 3 people required to kick. Do what other games do. Require 3 to kick and require a reason for the kick.

If 3 people vote for “kick for lulzzzz” then the person who was kicked gets notified that they were kicked by X person and for that reason and the griefers can be reported.

This is to prevent griefing.
Right now they’re creating a situation where it’s easier to do so.

And when can you support someone for griefing you?
Where’s the line between a valid kick and one that’s ‘’not allowed’’…

eekzie.5640:

TehPwnerer.7215:

eekzie.5640:

tweeve.3782:

Because not everyone can start the dungeon. There are many times I have gone to a party and the party leader can not start the dungeon because he/she did not do the story so someone else who has it unlocked has to do it.

Like I also pointed out that it would be nice if the party leader could tick a box where someone can’t get kicked.

That can also be abused. They’ll find a sweet spot. Honestly it’s as simple as just making 3 people required to kick. Do what other games do. Require 3 to kick and require a reason for the kick.

If 3 people vote for “kick for lulzzzz” then the person who was kicked gets notified that they were kicked by X person and for that reason and the griefers can be reported.

This is to prevent griefing.
Right now they’re creating a situation where it’s easier to do so.

And when can you support someone for griefing you?
Where’s the line between a valid kick and one that’s ‘’not allowed’’…

anet’s solution of reporting is a total cop out for exactly this reason? we r expected to trust them to handle that volume of reports? yea right its not even clearly definable. the party leader needs kick immunity its THEIR party!

Players: “we really need to know that we won’t be kicked for kittens and giggles by bad people”

ANet: “I know, what if we just put in log messages so you can report people when it does happen, and maybe it’ll get looked into?”

Kudos to the developer who’s trying to do something about this. Anti-kudos for the solution being completely not what people are asking for.

Andred.1087:

Players: “we really need to know that we won’t be kicked for kittens and giggles by bad people”

ANet: “I know, what if we just put in log messages so you can report people when it does happen, and maybe it’ll get looked into?”

Kudos to the developer who’s trying to do something about this. Anti-kudos for the solution being completely not what people are asking for.

concisely put

I’m quite worried. My lfg descriptions are usually something like ‘absolutely no meta’ ‘no zerkers preferred’ ‘no stacking and rushing’ and such. Seems like a perfect metasheep troll bait.

The Party Leader needs to be in absolute control of the instance.
Whenever a Kick Vote is requested, it should fall onto the leader to decide whether it goes or not. It might be abusable, but it is better than getting kicked from your own groups at the end of the run by random ill-intentioned people.

There needs to be control.