Should blocked players be allowed to join your party / squad ?

Let me explain at this moment i mostly block people who either leave full fractal run early, are bad in general or rude i make it a point to always kick these players in 99% of cases from my parties whenever i see one, why is there not an option so that players who are blocked cant join in the first place.

I think they shouldn't but I am pretty sure there are too many technical limitations for anet to implement this :)

This is really a good topic.I am currently not sure about what could be my answer.

However, the ignore list is something which comes in hand in every game ( gold seller, toxic players, spammers and so on ), but also it's something which tends to feed the toxic players too ( those who aoe block ppl or whine about other everytime ).

To be honest, if one of the people i have on my ignore list would join in my party i really doubt i would be able to recognize him, even if he were using the same character he used when i decided to block him.

Btw, i only have 3 goldseller in my blocklist, and one player i don't remember why i did put it on blocklist ( probably a harasser ).

i voted wrong xd my vote is no. reflex action .

There's no realistic way to implement a system that stops blocked players from entering a party, and this is mostly because parties in GW2 don't operate the same way they do in a lot of other games. For one thing, there is no party leader. So how then would you fairly determine when a player should be excluded from a party in a case where, for example, one other member in that party might have blocked said player? Would it be fair for me to not be able to play with someone else who might be trying to join the same party I am in, just because someone else in my party might have blocked them for what could be silly or archaic reasons?

Luckily, the game is designed in such a way that people need to vote to kick, which prevents abuse. If three people vote to kick someone, then I'm more inclined to believe there was a real issue and that removing the player might be justified. With that being said, if things don't go your way, you are more than welcome to leave a party yourself, if you don't want to play with someone in it.

If you really don't want them in your party then vote to kick them, and explain why if other people ask why you want to kick them. I don't see it as a problem honestly. Especially because some people will block others for very petty reasons, and if you get partied with this person you might be unable to have another awesome player join you because the first person blocked them.

In the end I don't see this improving the game in any significant way, since we already have ways to deal with bad/toxic party members

I voted maybe...The main issue is with squads and how different people treat the blocked list. I have a long long list of gold sellers. Often these are hacked accounts and at some point the owner comes back and retrieves his or hers account back. This would mean they will have serious issues joining squads at all.

On the other hand, I saw someone very much dis-behaving the other day in a HP run. He was flamatory and insulting to the group. He was kicked time after time, but rejoined constantly.

Maybe allow a blocked player to join a party or squad. But when someone is kicked (blocked or not) he is not able to join himself. Off course, when he gets invited, it is a different story.

Allowed? Sure, why not? The game can't tell if you blocked someone for being bad or rude versus they were spamming guild recruitment messages or you accidentally blocked them. Should it affect squad invites? merging?

More reasonable to me is if the game reminded you that someone was on your /block list. I was in a group that invited a PUG to finish and I thought they were uncommunicative because they never responded to "r?". Turned out they were blocked for "boring RP" (which ties up the /chat window). They turned out to be a decent fractaller, so I'm glad the game didn't prevent them from joining.

It’s an interesting question, but it might cause trouble in squads. Someone might be blocked by one person in a group of up to 50 for whatever reason. Should they be stopped from joining because of some old, possibly trivial block? At best, only party blocks imo

I put in "maybe". Because of who's list has primary of player block selection? What if you don't have player A on block, but player A has player B on block.

Are they both allowed to join your group because you don't have them blocked at, or if player A gets into the group first, player B no longer has a chance at getting in because of an amended block list?

And what happens if you block someone while partied? Are they now auto removed from party?

I really can't give a yes or no opinion until I see more of the idea fleshed out.

Yes, because there are some people who block half of the playerbase (everyone they don't like a tiny bit) and then those people come to whine on forums how the game is dead, yadda yadda. If there is really a legit reason like harrasment or stalking for why you blocked the person, then YES.I understand you do not want to deal with newbs, those who don't know english, random bricks... etcetera. But I would hate to be left out only because one guy has me blocked, because what I meant was likely a joke, and nothing serious. It may have been sarcasm or satire as well.Giving other people no chances at all... that is not fair.It's different for those select few who repeadetly act offensively towards you.I hope you understand my point.

No. I only block people in very rare cases because I highly value communication and the possibility thereof. So if I block someone that is equivalent to me never wanting to meet, let alone play with this person ever again, to "delete" them from my game, to make the megaserver always appoint that person and me to different IPs, etc.

• For Groups: The person shouldn't be able to join a group if one person has them on their block list. Also you shouldn't be able to join groups that contain people on your block list. This is important for consistency and saves you the hassle of leaving the group immediately after joining.
• For Squads: The person shouldn't be able to join a squad if the squad leader has them on their block list. When switching commanders everyone on the new commander's blocklist should be kicked (again for consistency).

No, but only if your the party creator, of said PT.

@Tenrai Senshi.2017 said:There's no realistic way to implement a system that stops blocked players from entering a party, and this is mostly because parties in GW2 don't operate the same way they do in a lot of other games. For one thing, there is no party leader. So how then would you fairly determine when a player should be excluded from a party in a case where, for example, one other member in that party might have blocked said player? Would it be fair for me to not be able to play with someone else who might be trying to join the same party I am in, just because someone else in my party might have blocked them for what could be silly or archaic reasons?

Luckily, the game is designed in such a way that people need to vote to kick, which prevents abuse. If three people vote to kick someone, then I'm more inclined to believe there was a real issue and that removing the player might be justified. With that being said, if things don't go your way, you are more than welcome to leave a party yourself, if you don't want to play with someone in it.

This post convinced me to change my mind before I voted (I was going to vote maybe). I am all in favor of players being able to choose who they do and don't care to play alongside. I also believe that the existing systems for doing so are adequate.

If you are party leader or raid leader then NO they should not be able to join your party or raid.

If this goes down in any way, shape or form, it should work both ways.

If you are the leader of the squad and I have you blocked, you or anyone in your squad should not be able to send me an invite.

This holds especially true in WvW where I will decline invites when on a map and nowhere near the squad. After the 3rd attempt I block. Sometimes it works and after a few days I start getting invites again from that blocked players squad.

If Anet can't block them from joining, then I as a group owner should be able to kick them out without seconding

@Tenrai Senshi.2017 said:There's no realistic way to implement a system that stops blocked players from entering a party, and this is mostly because parties in GW2 don't operate the same way they do in a lot of other games. For one thing, there is no party leader. So how then would you fairly determine when a player should be excluded from a party in a case where, for example, one other member in that party might have blocked said player? Would it be fair for me to not be able to play with someone else who might be trying to join the same party I am in, just because someone else in my party might have blocked them for what could be silly or archaic reasons?

Luckily, the game is designed in such a way that people need to vote to kick, which prevents abuse. If three people vote to kick someone, then I'm more inclined to believe there was a real issue and that removing the player might be justified. With that being said, if things don't go your way, you are more than welcome to leave a party yourself, if you don't want to play with someone in it.

Also just gonna say i disagree with the vote kicking system, i make a party so i can do what i wanted to do, people who disagree with me the said creator of party that you (not really you but work with me here) are joining because you were too lazy to make your own. Raiding and parties should be treated the same leader/creator calls the shots period you wanna have a voice make your own pt, don't crap out mines because you were to lazy to make your own.

@Genesis.5169 said:

@Tenrai Senshi.2017 said:There's no realistic way to implement a system that stops blocked players from entering a party, and this is mostly because parties in GW2 don't operate the same way they do in a lot of other games. For one thing, there is no party leader. So how then would you fairly determine when a player should be excluded from a party in a case where, for example, one other member in that party might have blocked said player? Would it be fair for me to not be able to play with someone else who might be trying to join the same party I am in, just because someone else in my party might have blocked them for what could be silly or archaic reasons?

Luckily, the game is designed in such a way that people need to vote to kick, which prevents abuse. If three people vote to kick someone, then I'm more inclined to believe there was a real issue and that removing the player might be justified. With that being said, if things don't go your way, you are more than welcome to leave a party yourself, if you don't want to play with someone in it.

Agree. The Creator of the party should be off limits to a kick.

They shouldn't be able to join your party, you shouldn't be able to join theirs. Period. If you try, you receive a message like "player in the party is not compatible" or something. First one to get into a party can stay, the other should search for a different one.

It should obviously be symmetric. Neither side should see each other's listing and if they are manually doing it then only the side initiating the join or invite should be given a message.

If it is a squad it should only do it based on the commander since anything else seems very impractical.

Just as a note to future people, if you're going to do a survey please try to move bias."For Sure" instead of "Yes" when "No" is involved has a lot more effect then simply, "Yes".

It would make sense that people who you've blocked are ignored when you're searching for groups and vice versa.

I block players if I am removed from group for no reason. I also dont play the best classes most of the time. I dont want to be removed from group for errors made by rest of team cause of say mastery level/class choice or some nonsense so I rather not join the squad in the first place.

I vote maybe because I would say if the commander have them blocked, then yeah they shouldn't be allowed in.If a random person in the squad have them blocked, it shouldn't be an issue.If it's small groups I can understand as maybe if 1 or 2 of the people in a 5 or 10 person group... there will be reasons on why someone might be blocked.When you put 50 in the mix, I say the only one that should count is the commander.

@Genesis.5169 said:

@Tenrai Senshi.2017 said:There's no realistic way to implement a system that stops blocked players from entering a party, and this is mostly because parties in GW2 don't operate the same way they do in a lot of other games. For one thing, there is no party leader. So how then would you fairly determine when a player should be excluded from a party in a case where, for example, one other member in that party might have blocked said player? Would it be fair for me to not be able to play with someone else who might be trying to join the same party I am in, just because someone else in my party might have blocked them for what could be silly or archaic reasons?

Luckily, the game is designed in such a way that people need to vote to kick, which prevents abuse. If three people vote to kick someone, then I'm more inclined to believe there was a real issue and that removing the player might be justified. With that being said, if things don't go your way, you are more than welcome to leave a party yourself, if you don't want to play with someone in it.

It's fine if you disagree with the system, you are entitled to your opinion in that regard. However, I'm of the opinion that having a party leader system is more open to abuse.

I'll give an example, let's say a player makes a party. As the party leader he/she has the power to kick players at will. He creates a party for a hard dungeon like Arah, and then they complete it. Just because they get to the end, said player then kicks all other party members, and then sells the open spots for dungeon completion. This is a situation that the voting kick system would usually protect players against to a degree, but now that you give all the power to one person, you are at the mercy of their whims, whether their decisions to kick you are justified or not.

I've also had situations in group content where people have voted to kick for silly reasons. Like if a person makes one honest mistake, and one party member overreacts and votes to kick. No-one else in the party believes the mistake was severe enough to warrant a kick and so the vote doesn't go through, but if that one person was the party leader, said player would have been removed and the rest of the party might have become disgruntled.

Also, I'm not sure why you label people who join parties as being lazy. It's common sense to join a party before making a new one, because if no-one joined and everyone created, parties would never be filled. If we went by that logic, that if people want their way they should create their own parties, and every player followed that logic and treated the idea of joining a made party as a stigma, then nothing would ever get done.

In the end, there is already a solution for people like you, who want a party that adheres to specific parameters that suit your needs. Play in organized groups.