I DEMAND to be able to see who joins the party

[Ashen.2907]

6 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

What you're proposing doesn't fix anything, what's needed here is a proper party "ownership" system. Except I think it was already discussed and that's also abusable.

The game started with party ownership and went away from it due to abuse. There will be issues no matter what system is in play.

and, to the thread title,  "Demand?" Right.

Edited May 7 by Ashen.2907

[Mistwraithe.3106]

Yeah, thread title saying "I DEMAND" is a great way of getting Anet to completely ignore the request.

On the surface I can see a point in the person who created the party having special rights. Perhaps you shouldn't be able to vote to boot them so long as they are online? I guess even that has problems if it's a Fractals party and they leave the Fractal instances and the other 4 want to continue but can't because the original creator is still online but not there. Tricky.

[Astralporing.1957]

10 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Oh, now I get it. Is that how it works though? Never saw that happening and in that case I think it's that interaction (if it really is what's being described here) what should be fixed.

Does this work in other content than SAB?

Unfortunately, yes. Anyone in the party can initiate/accept squad merge to merge the whole party, and, since squads cannot enter Fractals, dungeons, story instances etc it ends up in everyone from theoriginal party getting kicked out from their instance right away. People were asking about fixes to how it works for years now, with no reaction from devs so far.

[Fueki.4753]

12 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

What I also don't understand is that your only theory in this thread is that a group of players keep going out of their way to not even profit from taking your instance but instead to intentionally... just kick you out of it? And that's what they're camping lfg for? It is possible, sure, but it's not exactly... probable. I'd say it's even less probable that an action would be taken on it, considering multiple scenarios that could cause players to join/merge and subsequently leave the group without an intention to troll you or anyone else.
In other words: I'd rather focus on problematic/buggy mechanics, like lack of party ownership and ability to merge groups without any confirmation.

While it doesn't happen all that often, there are people who enjoy abusing game mechanics and bugs to troll and/or grieve other players. I've had it happen multiple times to me as well.

People camping the LFG to intentionally and repeatedly de-list parties and Thieves stealthing their own team members in sPvP to prevent point capture are just two examples of things I encountered.

Edited May 8 by Fueki.4753

[Sobx.1758]

15 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Unfortunately, yes. Anyone in the party can initiate/accept squad merge to merge the whole party, and, since squads cannot enter Fractals, dungeons, story instances etc it ends up in everyone from theoriginal party getting kicked out from their instance right away. People were asking about fixes to how it works for years now, with no reaction from devs so far.

So it's about parties being merged that make the resulting group larger than allowed for the content, that's another bit of info I was missing. In that case, they could(?) make it impossible to merge with groups in instanced content altogether. People can join one by one.

Edited May 8 by Sobx.1758

[Epsilon Indi.2031]

On 5/7/2024 at 9:45 AM, Sobx.1758 said:

What you're proposing doesn't fix anything, what's needed here is a proper party "ownership" system. Except I think it was already discussed and that's also abusable.

It's abusable either way, but at least one way doesn't have the party dissolve due to random garbage from other players outside the party/squad.

[Vayne.8563]

On 5/8/2024 at 5:06 AM, andreiblue.8231 said:

I just want to see who joins the party, what's so hard about adding that in chat?

Maybe nothing's hard about it, but if you start making DEMANDS (in all caps yet), you come off very badly. There are a lot of changes I'd see before I saw this, so yeah, if there's a list of stuff to implement, this would be pretty low down my list. And you don't really have the power to demand anything. Some of us make requests, and it has the same amount of weight. Maybe even more weight, because if anyone demanded something of me, they better be paying me directly and even then I'd rebel.

Edited May 9 by Vayne.8563

[Lucy.3728]

3 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

There are a lot of changes I'd see before I saw this, so yeah, if there's a list of stuff to implement, this would be pretty low down my list.

I wonder what rank on your list the choice of a background from any expansion on the character loading screen was. And yet it happened.

A better squad/group system benefits a large amount of players. Such things can be annoying in other situations as well but the one the OP takes as example.

And when Anet touches the system, there's hope other things may be improved too. E. g. As support, I would like to see my group in a squad.

[Vayne.8563]

9 minutes ago, Lucy.3728 said:

I wonder what rank on your list the choice of a background from any expansion on the character loading screen was. And yet it happened.

A better squad/group system benefits a large amount of players. Such things can be annoying in other situations as well but the one the OP takes as example.

And when Anet touches the system, there's hope other things may be improved too. E. g. As support, I would like to see my group in a squad.

It wasn't high, that's for sure. I don't mind that they did it, but I think the load screen is a bit different than playing with LFG. LFG is a major part of the game for me. If it gets screwed up for days, it affects my game. Obviously the load screen would affect it too if I couldn't get into the game, but one could assume that would be fixed quite quickly.

I wouldn't mind if they redid the entire LFG tool to make it better. The difference is, I wouldn't mind, while the OP is making DEMANDS. It's hard to take seriously.

[Astralporing.1957]

8 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

So it's about parties being merged that make the resulting group larger than allowed for the content, that's another bit of info I was missing. In that case, they could(?) make it impossible to merge with groups in instanced content altogether. People can join one by one.

Notice, btw, that it's not about size, but about the type of group that matters. You can enter fractal/dungeon/story instances only as parties. Squads (neither the 10-man nor the 50-man type ones) are not allowed no matter how many actual players are in them. Although i haven't actually tested it, i believe the same would happen in raids if you were to merge a raid-type squad into the OW-type one.

So, yes, the best solution would be to prevent merging of different types of groups - either completely, or by having each player moving from group to group on individual basis (and consequently, with each player moved being asked separately). It has been suggested more than once before, btw.

[andreiblue.8231]

On 5/8/2024 at 9:24 AM, Astralporing.1957 said:

Unfortunately, yes. Anyone in the party can initiate/accept squad merge to merge the whole party, and, since squads cannot enter Fractals, dungeons, story instances etc it ends up in everyone from theoriginal party getting kicked out from their instance right away. People were asking about fixes to how it works for years now, with no reaction from devs so far.

I have no idea why so many react with confused to this

[andreiblue.8231]

5 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

It wasn't high, that's for sure. I don't mind that they did it, but I think the load screen is a bit different than playing with LFG. LFG is a major part of the game for me. If it gets screwed up for days, it affects my game. Obviously the load screen would affect it too if I couldn't get into the game, but one could assume that would be fixed quite quickly.

I wouldn't mind if they redid the entire LFG tool to make it better. The difference is, I wouldn't mind, while the OP is making DEMANDS. It's hard to take seriously.

Because showing in chat who joined the party is the easiest thing to do unlike a complete change of the system and yet they wont do it. That's why I DEMAND it, this and the squad and party chat not being deleted.

[andreiblue.8231]

8 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

Maybe nothing's hard about it, but if you start making DEMANDS (in all caps yet), you come off very badly. There are a lot of changes I'd see before I saw this, so yeah, if there's a list of stuff to implement, this would be pretty low down my list. And you don't really have the power to demand anything. Some of us make requests, and it has the same amount of weight. Maybe even more weight, because if anyone demanded something of me, they better be paying me directly and even then I'd rebel.

I dont care how I come off, that would imply I care about the opinion of people here and after previous interactions I really don't.

[andreiblue.8231]

8 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

Maybe nothing's hard about it, but if you start making DEMANDS (in all caps yet), you come off very badly. There are a lot of changes I'd see before I saw this, so yeah, if there's a list of stuff to implement, this would be pretty low down my list. And you don't really have the power to demand anything. Some of us make requests, and it has the same amount of weight. Maybe even more weight, because if anyone demanded something of me, they better be paying me directly and even then I'd rebel.

And also I am allowed to make demands when their system allows abuse that can't even be reported. 

[andreiblue.8231]

On 5/8/2024 at 3:34 AM, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Yeah, thread title saying "I DEMAND" is a great way of getting Anet to completely ignore the request.

On the surface I can see a point in the person who created the party having special rights. Perhaps you shouldn't be able to vote to boot them so long as they are online? I guess even that has problems if it's a Fractals party and they leave the Fractal instances and the other 4 want to continue but can't because the original creator is still online but not there. Tricky.

People are allowed to demand investigations and fixes in regards to abuse. If I convinced some journalists to make some gaming news posts about this abuse then they wouldnt ignore it, would they?

[andreiblue.8231]

Just now, andreiblue.8231 said:

People are allowed to demand investigations and fixes in regards to abuse. If I convinced some journalists to make some gaming news posts about this abuse then they wouldnt ignore it, would they?

And the fact that this is true and similar situations did happen in the past gives Anet a really bad reputation.

[Sobx.1758]

8 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Notice, btw, that it's not about size, but about the type of group that matters. You can enter fractal/dungeon/story instances only as parties. Squads (neither the 10-man nor the 50-man type ones) are not allowed no matter how many actual players are in them. Although i haven't actually tested it, i believe the same would happen in raids if you were to merge a raid-type squad into the OW-type one.

I think my "So it's about parties being merged that make the resulting group larger than allowed for the content" covers what it is about, but maybe I should have said "groups" instead of "parties" to avoid confusion.

8 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

So, yes, the best solution would be to prevent merging of different types of groups - either completely, or by having each player moving from group to group on individual basis (and consequently, with each player moved being asked separately). It has been suggested more than once before, btw.

Not sure it's about merging different types of groups. Notice that 2 parties of 3-5 people (which are the same type of groups) merged together still create a group that isn't allowed in a 5-player content, apparently (according to what is said in this thread) still resulting in a group getting kicked out of the instance. So probably leave merging for open world maps regardless of the group type.

 

5 hours ago, andreiblue.8231 said:

Because showing in chat who joined the party is the easiest thing to do unlike a complete change of the system and yet they wont do it.

Except that doesn't solve anything here other than gently stroking your ego in hopes of "someone being punished for something you blindly assumed they did out of malice".

Edited May 9 by Sobx.1758

[Epsilon Indi.2031]

1 hour ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Except that doesn't solve anything here other than gently stroking your ego in hopes of "someone being punished for something you blindly assumed they did out of malice".

Except it does solve things.
ANet will know people who've done it on accident vs people who've made it their goal to just ruin fun for everyone and take actioosn based on a pattern of behavior.

[Sobx.1758]

1 hour ago, Epsilon Indi.2031 said:

Except it does solve things.
ANet will know people who've done it on accident vs people who've made it their goal to just ruin fun for everyone and take actioosn based on a pattern of behavior.

Except it doesn't solve anything, OP makes bad assumptions based on nothing more than his momentary frustration and after getting a few more people to test it with 2+4 player groups, merging 4 player party into 2 player party inside a fractal was not possible for us -the merge buton is grayed out. So, how does that work exactly?

Edited May 9 by Sobx.1758

[Ashen.2907]

3 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Notice that 2 parties of 3-5 people (which are the same type of groups) merged together still create a group that isn't allowed in a 5-player content

Can two parties of 3-5 merge? Parties cannot exist with more than 5 total players?

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

ArenaNet doesn't know when players disconnect on purpose vs. disconnecting through no fault of their own in PvP, so I'm not sure they can tell what motivation a player has when joining/merging a group.  🤷‍♀️

[Sobx.1758]

31 minutes ago, Ashen.2907 said:

Can two parties of 3-5 merge? Parties cannot exist with more than 5 total players?

I don't know, usually I don't merge groups a whole lot. What I know is that I'm doing what OP vaguely complains about (with some added clarification/guesses? from others on the way) and for now it didn't work as described.

[andreiblue.8231]

2 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

I don't know, usually I don't merge groups a whole lot. What I know is that I'm doing what OP vaguely complains about (with some added clarification/guesses? from others on the way) and for now it didn't work as described.

Because you tried it with fractals although it wasnt aboit fractals. Do people still consider fractals dungeons and you misunderstood when I said it happened with dungeons too?

[Zebulous.2934]

12 hours ago, andreiblue.8231 said:

But I never claimed it happened im fractals and dunno what you were trying to prove by testing it with fractals.

I would guess that trying it in fractals was because fractals are instanced content.  Part of the problem is that a party became too large for the instance that it was in.  If there is already a system in the game that prevents party merging when a group is in a fractal or a dungeon then it actually could be an easy fix to extend it to Super Adventure box instances. 
Besides it is going to be difficult to run tests now that SAB is over for the year.  There is nothing wrong with gathering data.  If the exact conditions can't be met, people can try testing in similar conditions.
I know it can be fun to be angry, but if everyone runs away from you because you lash out at them, who will be left to help you?

[Astralporing.1957]

21 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

I think my "So it's about parties being merged that make the resulting group larger than allowed for the content" covers what it is about, but maybe I should have said "groups" instead of "parties" to avoid confusion.

It's specifically about the type, not size. A party of two merging into a squad of two (resulting in a squad of four) will still get kicked out of instance, even though they aren't bigger than the instance player limit.

21 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Not sure it's about merging different types of groups. Notice that 2 parties of 3-5 people (which are the same type of groups) merged together still create a group that isn't allowed in a 5-player content, apparently (according to what is said in this thread) still resulting in a group getting kicked out of the instance. So probably leave merging for open world maps regardless of the group type.

You can merge parties only if the resulting party would be less or equal than 5. Same with other types of groups (and cross-type merging): merging is allowed only if the resulting group would not exceed the player cap for the type of the group you are meging into.