Unfriendly behaviour? Kicked from my own party. What can I do better?

[Tails.9372]

9 hours ago, TheQuickFox.3826 said:

I fully understand stringent build requirements in high-end content like raids and t4 fractals as without them, the entire group fails

The clear requirements aren't nearly as hard, raids can be cleared with 10 core P/P thieves / a full group of minionmancers. The actual reason people ask for meta builds is to make the run as smooth as possible however that only works in organized groups. Bringing a "group build for group content" can be a detrement if the goup is not able to "take the support" or deliver at least a decent amount of performance at which point a more selfish build would yield better results.

[Sinmir.6504]

What I think could help is if they mixed group leader and majority votes. Maybe if somebody wanted to start a PUG they could check a box deciding whether they were going to be group leader or if there would be none. Maybe there could be an asterix in the list so that players will know there is a party owner.

How would this sound:

1.The group leader cannot be kicked.

2: To kick any member 3/5 votes are needed

3: To kick any member the group leaders vote is needed.

 

My thoughts behind this, you were the starter. If three don't want to run with you they can open their own instance. Still needing 3/5 would prevent the leader from kicking out other players without the team's approval. So preventing the leader from abusing it. Then finally, the leader could be running with a guildie, or a friend. They wouldn't want this person removed.

[Zohane.7208]

5 hours ago, Sinmir.6504 said:

What I think could help is if they mixed group leader and majority votes. Maybe if somebody wanted to start a PUG they could check a box deciding whether they were going to be group leader or if there would be none. Maybe there could be an asterix in the list so that players will know there is a party owner.

How would this sound:

1.The group leader cannot be kicked.

2: To kick any member 3/5 votes are needed

3: To kick any member the group leaders vote is needed.

 

My thoughts behind this, you were the starter. If three don't want to run with you they can open their own instance. Still needing 3/5 would prevent the leader from kicking out other players without the team's approval. So preventing the leader from abusing it. Then finally, the leader could be running with a guildie, or a friend. They wouldn't want this person removed.

We used to have a similar system in the early days of GW2, and it was abused in many many ways, some of which would still be possible with the suggested system.

The main problem would be group leaders who demanded that the rest of the team take care of the later half of the dungeon while they afk'ed. (And before you say "surely that wouldn't happen" - it most definitely did.)

 

I have to say I find the current system, with a democratic vote for everything, works really well for the most part. Outliers such as this casse will surely happen but it seems they're very rare and so far all other systems suggested seem to have a higher risk of abuse.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[anduriell.6280]

17 hours ago, Schimmi.6872 said:

Sadly people will always find ways to abuse the grouping systems, group leaders are nothing new and the current majority vote system was implemented because group leaders abused their power even more back when they existed.

I can't agree with that Tags never hold that power in this game,  to need the majority of the party to kick somebody does not allow despotism. Players are always complaining about being kicked by the party (organized)  and not the commander. 

In any case the kicking mechanic makes no sense in my eyes. If the party does not like to play with one player they can leave and open a new instance for themselves and the Block mechanism should provide enough coverage to avoid that other person to re-join their party.

Blocked players should not be able to join  LFGs where the person who has opened the LFG has blocked them or other way around. A Simple check if the LFG opener and the person joining has either blocked to each other when joining.  A simple message like "You cannot join this party" should be enough. 

When kicked a message could be shown in the chat box indicating the names of the players who voted yes, so the offended party can easily block them for the future. I think that would be enough to discourage the trolls and the toxic groups. 

If the dislike is legitimate that player will not join that party ever again and it will save bad taste or toxic situations in the future. I think this has been  requested previously in the forums. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by anduriell.6280

[Zohane.7208]

50 minutes ago, anduriell.6280 said:

I can't agree with that Tags never hold that power in this game,  to need the majority of the party to kick somebody does not allow despotism. Players are always complaining about being kicked by the party (organized)  and not the commander. 

In any case the kicking mechanic makes no sense in my eyes. If the party does not like to play with one player they can leave and open a new instance for themselves and the Block mechanism should provide enough coverage to avoid that other person to re-join their party.

Blocked players should not be able to join  LFGs where the person who has opened the LFG has blocked them or other way around. A Simple check if the LFG opener and the person joining has either blocked to each other when joining.  A simple message like "You cannot join this party" should be enough. 

When kicked a message could be shown in the chat box indicating the names of the players who voted yes, so the offended party can easily block them for the future. I think that would be enough to discourage the trolls and the toxic groups. 

If the dislike is legitimate that player will not join that party ever again and it will save bad taste or toxic situations in the future. I think this has been  requested previously in the forums. 

Kicking mechanic is useful in a lot of circumstances, like for example if there's a really toxic person in the group, or when you find half way through a dungeon that one member is intentionally slacking so the rest have to carry. Better get rid of the problem than to have to leave and redo the content with a new group. (Can it be abused? Sure. Is it abused? I'm sure it is. Is it common? I doubt it is.)

As for getting a message when kicked from a party, this is already in place; there's a message that stay in the chat box even after you get kicked. It's only squads - where there's a defined leader - where you don't get a message.

[anduriell.6280]

2 hours ago, Zohane.7208 said:

Kicking mechanic is useful in a lot of circumstances, like for example if there's a really toxic person in the group, or when you find half way through a dungeon that one member is intentionally slacking so the rest have to carry. Better get rid of the problem than to have to leave and redo the content with a new group. (Can it be abused? Sure. Is it abused? I'm sure it is. Is it common? I doubt it is.)

In that case the party can leave the instance and start other without the toxic element.  Dungeons / fractals do not take that long so it is not a problem to do that. Ideally this no-kick feature could take place after a short grace period after joined a group so players joined by error can still be asked to leave. 

Thus no kicking - No way to abuse the mechanic. In most cases if explained properly there is not  need for the kick most players will understand and leave of their own volition unless a an egregious situation. WE don't know if it's common practice or not to kick without warnings yet  I am sure most don't bother to post anything about it.

That is deterrent in both side of the spectrum: Because the party can't kick and has to start a new instance they will think twice than just kick somebody because "they feel" the other player is not pulling it's weight, to only do this in real situations where the toxic element is really hindering the rest of the party otherwise try to work out with what they got. 

Of course there should be a way to make so that person can not join the group in the future. But if block works so blocked players can not join each other and the message allows to easily block the offended parties there is not need to have this mechanic that is being abused. 

Also implementing this blocking feature somehow tackles the issues with toxic elements or harassing as that player would be somehow shielded in against undesired company joining their parties in the LFG. It would need more work on that front but still it would be a first step towards that. 

I am talking only for PvE instances. PvP/WvW/Open World PvE  gamemodes are fine like they are now regarding squad management. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by anduriell.6280

[Fuchslein.8639]

1 hour ago, anduriell.6280 said:

In that case the party can leave the instance and start other without the toxic element.  Dungeons / fractals do not take that long so it is not a problem to do that. Ideally this no-kick feature could take place after a short grace period after joined a group so players joined by error can still be asked to leave. 

Thus no kicking - No way to abuse the mechanic. In most cases if explained properly there is not  need for the kick most players will understand and leave of their own volition unless a an egregious situation. WE don't know if it's common practice or not to kick without warnings yet  I am sure most don't bother to post anything about it.

That is deterrent in both side of the spectrum: Because the party can't kick and has to start a new instance they will think twice than just kick somebody because "they feel" the other player is not pulling it's weight, to only do this in real situations where the toxic element is really hindering the rest of the party otherwise try to work out with what they got. 

Of course there should be a way to make so that person can not join the group in the future. But if block works so blocked players can not join each other and the message allows to easily block the offended parties there is not need to have this mechanic that is being abused. 

Also implementing this blocking feature somehow tackles the issues with toxic elements or harassing as that player would be somehow shielded in against undesired company joining their parties in the LFG. It would need more work on that front but still it would be a first step towards that. 

I am talking only for PvE instances. PvP/WvW/Open World PvE  gamemodes are fine like they are now regarding squad management. 

Yeah, punishing the Member who don't troll or do their part is the way to decrease toxity ...

[Sinmir.6504]

9 hours ago, Zohane.7208 said:

We used to have a similar system in the early days of GW2, and it was abused in many many ways, some of which would still be possible with the suggested system.

The main problem would be group leaders who demanded that the rest of the team take care of the later half of the dungeon while they afk'ed. (And before you say "surely that wouldn't happen" - it most definitely did.)

 

I have to say I find the current system, with a democratic vote for everything, works really well for the most part. Outliers such as this casse will surely happen but it seems they're very rare and so far all other systems suggested seem to have a higher risk of abuse.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Was that back when if the one who opened it left the instance closed?  For the record I wouldn't want that.

What if there was a short inactivity timer? Like 5 mins. Just to lose ownership of the party. I could half understand a party owner saying, "Ok, we're X% through the dungeon. I'm gonna AFK now, you can't kick me. Finish the dungeon for me or restart in a new instance." Annoying but yeah I can imagine it happening. I'd probably leave and try to take the other three players with me to discourage the owner doing that. Then could start a run and I've already got a team of 4. But if after 5 mins of inactivity the owner loses ownership and can be kicked. Woud he say, "Ok, we're X% through the dungeon. I'm gonna AFK now, you can't kick me. Finish the dungeon for me or restart in a new instance. Oh, by the way, I'll be back every 4.5 mins to do something to prevent myself losing ownership, so don't think you are gonna kick me after 5 mins."  Might as well just stay and complete it.

Maybe it's Catch 22. An owner that abuses the fact that they can't be kicked one way, and a party that can kick the one who started it or their guildie the other way.  That was why I was thinking there should be an option  to own the group when you start it. If you start a party, are new to the instance or have a guildie with you that is, but intend to do your best. You might check the box saying you own it. Meanwhile I look at the dungeon LFG, Okay Honour of the Waves P1. Asterisk. The starter has chosen to own this party. Could be they are new to this dungeon or are training a guildie in it and don't want his first mistake to get them kicked, that's fair. Maybe experienced and it's just a precaution against their group getting hijacked, another fair reason to check the box. Or maybe they want to be lazy while the other players do the dungeon. That's the risk if there is an asterisk.

I don't know, just kind of feel that being the starter of a group should give something of a privilege in the group. Just like I wouldn't want to be kicked from my own group, I'd rather find or start a group more suited to me than participate in the hijacking of one.

For the story in the original post. Id does sound like a coordinated hijack of the instance. Not the person's fault. The fact that they chose P1 in a group listed as P2. 4 randoms just happen to join a P2 group then al 4  vote P1. Maybe none had done the story so needed somebody to get them into explorable. Like, one time during a full run of AC we did P1, then in the second time I thought maybe we can skip the Ghost Eater, I voted P3. Nobbody else did.  Was fine, I stayed for P2 then did P3. But yeah, all four voting the wrong path, sounds like they were together.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Sinmir.6504

[anduriell.6280]

2 hours ago, Fuchslein.8639 said:

Yeah, punishing the Member who don't troll or do their part is the way to decrease toxity ...

So I guess you think  is better to ask in LFG to fill an couple of spots until you are just about kill the final boss in an fractal, and then kick those 2 new joiners so  you can fill it with your secondary accounts instead to double the rewards. No need for botting when you can get others to do the hard work,  pretty twisted eh?  

[Fuchslein.8639]

4 hours ago, anduriell.6280 said:

So I guess you think  is better to ask in LFG to fill an couple of spots until you are just about kill the final boss in an fractal, and then kick those 2 new joiners so  you can fill it with your secondary accounts instead to double the rewards. No need for botting when you can get others to do the hard work,  pretty twisted eh?  

On my first account I ran T4 almost every day for years, partly with CM. This behavior what everyone talks here about here, has never happened to me.
Since I've been playing with this account mainly, I've never experienced this behavior either. Although I usually run with friends since last year, because of Time-managment.

From there, yes. I gladly accept these exceptions, if I have a simpler and fairer game experience.

If something like this happens all the time, you should possibly think about whether this is really the reason that you are kicked, or look for a static.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Fuchslein.8639

[Vilin.8056]

On 1/4/2022 at 3:41 PM, anduriell.6280 said:

That should not be a "mistake". How on heavens will we get new groups in LFG for newbies. 

That is an issue Anet needs to fix: The group leader can not kicked from their own squad / party at least. Otherwise this hijacking of LFG groups is very toxic. 

It is happening a bit too often in fractals too, just kicking  before killing the the boss so they can bring in their second account in the instance. 

Because you never knew that dungeons of this game began exactly with a leader system as you described, it failed miserably with LFGs end up with dungeon leader exploiting group effort by AFKing in the midst of progress. That system is thankfully patched.

[Sinmir.6504]

On 1/6/2022 at 1:50 PM, Vilin.8056 said:

Because you never knew that dungeons of this game began exactly with a leader system as you described, it failed miserably with LFGs end up with dungeon leader exploiting group effort by AFKing in the midst of progress. That system is thankfully patched.

I'd say if there was an option to own a party when you start it. And players know before joining if the person who started the party has chosen to own it. 

So I go into LFG, I see a party, see it is owned. Maybe it's simply a precaution against being hijacked. Maybe the owner is new, they want to do their best but make sure they don't get kicked for making a mistake. Or maybe they want to AFK while the rest of the party does the work.

I'd say if they were wanting to AFK I could leave, say to the other three players, "Hey, let's form a new group, I won't take ownership" Start again with four players, advertise for a fifth.

 

 

[Zohane.7208]

6 hours ago, Sinmir.6504 said:

I'd say if there was an option to own a party when you start it. And players know before joining if the person who started the party has chosen to own it. 

So I go into LFG, I see a party, see it is owned. Maybe it's simply a precaution against being hijacked. Maybe the owner is new, they want to do their best but make sure they don't get kicked for making a mistake. Or maybe they want to AFK while the rest of the party does the work.

I'd say if they were wanting to AFK I could leave, say to the other three players, "Hey, let's form a new group, I won't take ownership" Start again with four players, advertise for a fifth.

 

 

The problem with this approach is that you and the 3 others - the good, well-behaved ones - are the ones forced to take on the extra time and effort while the 5th - the "bad" guy - gets to benefit from the work already done. I'm very much against punishing the good guys and rewarding the bad guys; I'd much rather have it the other way around.

 

If such a system were to be impletemented (which I hope it never will) I would definitely never join owned instances but rather start unowned ones. I think a lot of people would feel the same way, thus causing more issues for everyone running instanced content.

[Sinmir.6504]

5 hours ago, Zohane.7208 said:

If such a system were to be impletemented (which I hope it never will) I would definitely never join owned instances but rather start unowned ones. I think a lot of people would feel the same way, thus causing more issues for everyone running instanced content.

I could agree that I'd rather choose an unowned party. There would be the assurance that the one who started it at least doesn't expect the group will want to kick them. Would it cause that much issue if you would never join it. LFG for dungeons used to be a lot more picky, I could say if one was asking for a specific class and I did not want to change characters then I wouldn't join. The group being there doesn't effect me.

 

I'd say I'd only choose to own a party I started for dungeons that could be contested. I think that was the problem in the original post. The person helped get it uncontested, then the people that joined their party kicked them, when they were expelled from the dungeon they found themself in a map where it was contested again. On the other hand, I've never seen AC contested. Say I start a group, five people in a group who have not done the story see my LFG, four join to get into explorable mode, kick me their fifth member joins. That would be annoying but I'd not have lost anything.

[Borked.6824]

On 1/3/2022 at 1:10 PM, mindcircus.1506 said:

This forum is replete with posts like yours that blame an unfriendly community for poor experiences in group content. The vast majority of these posts are chock full of clues as to why the problem actually occurred rather than a whitewashed narrative. 

Witnessing this community from a non-progression perspective is like watching a giant circle of people flagellating each other.  Half the people that ask for support and middle ground around here are met with "well here's why, it's just cause you're bad!"  Listen to yourselves and try and say you're not part of the problem in why instanced content is going the way of the dinosaurs.  Nobody actually gives a kitten about your arcdps numbers.  They're just regurgitating what the angrier person next to them was screaming into the void.

[mindcircus.1506]

On 1/14/2022 at 1:32 PM, Borked.6824 said:

Witnessing this community from a non-progression perspective is like watching a giant circle of people flagellating each other.  Half the people that ask for support and middle ground around here are met with "well here's why, it's just cause you're bad!"  Listen to yourselves and try and say you're not part of the problem in why instanced content is going the way of the dinosaurs.  Nobody actually gives a kitten about your arcdps numbers.  They're just regurgitating what the angrier person next to them was screaming into the void.

Throw all the shade you want.

The fact that I am being villified for suggesting someone playing group content should run a group build is all you need to know about this thread.

[ArchonWing.9480]

Not really sure why "lol OP prob bad" statements came up. Point is they started something asking for p2, and then people went p1 anyways. I mean yes, OP should bring a better build for instanced content but this isn't a debate that should last a month.

At that point, you should probably ask why they picked p2 instead of p1, and then leave if not given a satisfactory response. If people can't read, you shouldn't play with them.

Also kicking people from CoF lol (Did I take a time machine?) Come on now, I pretty much assume any non-farm path is probably new players.

Edited January 18, 2022 by ArchonWing.9480

[Fangoth.4503]

On 12/26/2021 at 2:12 AM, Cynder.2509 said:

Unless you were playing a bearbow ranger or a minion necro or have a low amount of AP this is quite uncommon. But if any of these things apply then it's pretty obvious why you were kicked and this happens, or rather, happened very often back when fractals were not released yet and only dungeons were endgame content back in the days. 
Looking up some mechanics and meta builds beforehand can minimize your chance of getting kicked. 
Another way is to specify your lfg decription in a way that is less attractive for the more experienced players who actually want to get it done fast (or what most people call "elitists") so instead like minded people join your group. 
Or maybe it's time to find a guild to do that stuff with. 

who even kick for bad dps in dungeon?
if 1 player know how to dps the boss gonna die
if no player know hot to dps they most likely won't have arcdps and so won't know who to kick

 

On 1/6/2022 at 1:50 PM, Vilin.8056 said:

Because you never knew that dungeons of this game began exactly with a leader system as you described, it failed miserably with LFGs end up with dungeon leader exploiting group effort by AFKing in the midst of progress. That system is thankfully patched.

Was it though? out of memory the leader could be kicked but you would loose the instance as soon as the squad leader was getting out. it was annoying due to loosing instance if the leader was disconected or decided to swap class. raid system would be fine as long as they lock to instance to the initial players (you still can kick but you can't replace the person, so its not used to sell by kicking players)

 

Edited February 5, 2022 by Fangoth.4503

[Mell.4873]

Don't listen to everyone here, I believe it's just unfortunate that didn't say anything before they kicked you. 

I imagine since the dungeon has such a horrible way to open it, they did kick you for a friend. They might have original merged with your lfg so this is why they thought they had a right to kick you but still they should have apologised. 

 

The best tip is to talk to them before you open the dungeon. Discuss what you build have and how you plan on contributing to the group. It has already been mentioned but never bring ranged specs to group content, since this is the most common way to get kicked. 

[Stone.6751]

99.9% of the time players are kicked from a dungeon party it's for one of these reasons.

1. They are toxic in chat.

2. Their actions are causing a mechanic to fail and are not listening to their party's directions in chat

3. They went AFK, which is a real issue if it prevents the NPC from advancing as can happen in COF

[Hesione.9412]

On 1/15/2022 at 10:32 AM, Borked.6824 said:

Witnessing this community from a non-progression perspective is like watching a giant circle of people flagellating each other.  Half the people that ask for support and middle ground around here are met with "well here's why, it's just cause you're bad!"  Listen to yourselves and try and say you're not part of the problem in why instanced content is going the way of the dinosaurs.  Nobody actually gives a kitten about your arcdps numbers.  They're just regurgitating what the angrier person next to them was screaming into the void.

And that this is a dungeon implemented for players who haven't reached level 80, who may not be in full exotics. Any group of level 80s should be fine with this dungeon.

[Vilin.8056]

16 hours ago, Hesione.9412 said:

And that this is a dungeon implemented for players who haven't reached level 80.

Wrong, CoF explore are three level 80 dungeon paths.

Edited March 8, 2022 by Vilin.8056

[Hesione.9412]

1 hour ago, Vilin.8056 said:

Wrong, CoF explore are three level 80 dungeon paths.

Story invite gets set to a character once they reach level 70. Story unlocks the three explorable, so they can be accessed by any character, who is at least level 70, who has unlocked the dungeon.

 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Level_rewards

[Vilin.8056]

13 minutes ago, Hesione.9412 said:

Story invite gets set to a character once they reach level 70. Story unlocks the three explorable, so they can be accessed by any character, who is at least level 70, who has unlocked the dungeon.

 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Level_rewards

You're right, it's a level 75 dungeon, my apologies.