Party kicking mechanics.

[Koods.9815]

I'd really appreciate if this game got better kicking system. I never had the needs to kick anyone out of the party, but since I started running fractals and dungeons, and using LFG, it's just ridiclous.. If someone overly toxic and his friend joins the party, not only that they can kick YOU, but also you cannot kick them. I am a party leader, I should decide who I want in my party, or not. Or for example, if I set party for LFG with fast dungeon run, and I want levels 80 only, and someone joins with lvl 40.. I can't get rid of him, cause someone says "Allright I wont kick you, fine, you can play with us", and then they wonder why did we keep dying and losing soo much time.. I'm just saying, If I'm a party leader, I should be able to control my party, decide who I want in, and who I don't, If I start dungeon instance, get to final boss, and then get kicked so one of their guildies can join for loot instead, that's just hillarious, right?

[Taygus.4571]

They used to have it that party leader goes. But that was far more toxic.

[Linken.6345]

As soon as you put it in the lfg its not your party anymore its everyone who joins party no leader.As Taygus.4571 said we used to have what you said and bad leaders would go afk 60-75% into the path saying I opened finish without me or kick and lose all progress.Aint so bad now with most paths but the harder arah paths used to take a good chunk of time at the begining.

[Koods.9815]

But.. it's my party, and I want no toxic people or people who intentionally ruins it, or people who does not have enough agony. It's my party, so I should decide who'll be in it, and who not.

[Linken.6345]

@Koods.9815 said:But.. it's my party, and I want no toxic people or people who intentionally ruins it, or people who does not have enough agony. It's my party, so I should decide who'll be in it, and who not.

It is not your just 1 soul putting up a call for more people to do x, your not the leader.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@"Koods.9815" said:But.. it's my party,It's not.

---

When the game launched, the person who started the group was the leader; they had the power to kick anyone/everyone. Here's a few of the things that happened:

• Leader would take on 4 PUGs. Get to the final boss. Kick all four, invite friends.
• Group would get to final boss, dislike something that one of the people did, kick them before the fight.
• Leader would DC; group would get kicked from instance (since the two mechanics are intertwined).
• Leader would be the toxic one, Leeroying this way and that, messing up mechanics, etc. The other four could do nothing.
• Leader would go AFK. And not return. The other four could do nothing: leader would get rewards, even if the rest four-personed the instance.

People begged and screamed for something better. (And to be fair: calmer voices also offered suggestions.)

Over time, the system evolved to the current mechanic: majority rules. Two people can't kick anyone in a full party; it takes three votes.

---

tl;dr current system isn't perfect. It might not even be "good". It's just less worse than any of the alternatives.

[Rukario.1695]

If reporting for abuse / harassment ever did anything and toxic players felt they would even get a warning, then this would never happen. Even a "strike" system would help.

In my opinion, since people getting suspended will never happen, you shouldn't be able to kick anyone while in an active instance.

Another option is "vote to leave" and after a vote passes, a dialogue option comes up asking players why they left. If a person gets too many reports for bad behavior, they can be locked out of content on the LFG temporarily.

If you find that no one likes one or more people, you deal with it or leave and start again. This forces those people to either work together or leave. No one gets kicked, no one can cheat.

I doubt anyone would join a party if they didn't want to complete the content.

As for Fractals and AR, AR should be displayed next to the character in the party list so you can check it before entering an instance. There is little reason to do a higher fractal without the AR because you'll just die.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@"Rukario.1695" said:If reporting for abuse / harassment ever did anythingIt does. It just doesn't do what some players expect.

and toxic players felt they would even get a warning, then this would never happen. Even a "strike" system would help.There is a "strike" system. The person reporting won't see it.

Likely, it could be bolder. The problem is that it would put ANet into the position of having to judge right and wrong in a lot of ambiguous situations.

Tldr, you shouldn't be able to kick anyone while in an active instance.Of course we should be able to kick people. People go afk or DC. Sometimes, a person is toxic. Sometimes they are leeching. There's no reason that three people who worked hard should have to restart because one person isn't.

If you find that no one likes one or more people, you deal with it or leave and start again.Why should three (or four) people have to put up with one outlier? One shouldn't it be the toxic player that leaves?

This forces those people to either get better or finish it.It doesn't force anything. In fact, it empowers people to misbehave because there are fewer consequences.

No one gets kicked, no one can cheat.If there are no kicks, then a person can decide to go off into a corner and let the other four do all the work. Whether it's called "cheating" or leeching or whatever, it isn't pleasant.

---

There's no perfect solution. It's just a question of which system has the less-objectionable downsides and perhaps more or better upsides.

[notebene.3190]

@"Rukario.1695" said:If reporting for abuse / harassment ever did anything and toxic players felt they would even get a warning, then this would never happen. Even a "strike" system would help.

Sadly, everything in business these days is about 'revenue streams', where you get money and don't have to add anything to get it, particularly labor, which is costly. They aren't going to pay for that kind of labor. It's why we lost a lot of the longer term people we knew, once Mr. Whistlebritches drew the attention of NCSoft with his grand ideas of "Guild Wars: Samsung Smart Fridge + Doorbell" (?) , they were the first to go because they were expensive labor.

If they could staff it with labor like Uber or Lyft, 'gig-economy' type labor, where you don't even have to recognize them as employees (?), they might be able to staff an enforcement team like that.

[Rukario.1695]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@"Rukario.1695" said:If reporting for abuse / harassment ever did anythingIt does. It just doesn't do what some players expect.

It needs to be more visible. As it stands, not even botters get banned until months later after a report, this isn't much of a threat to people.

and toxic players felt they would even get a warning, then this would never happen. Even a "strike" system would help.There is a "strike" system. The person reporting won't see it.

Likely, it could be bolder. The problem is that it would put ANet into the position of having to judge right and wrong in a lot of ambiguous situations.

I feel it should be visible or at least there should be a notice sent to the player saying they are subject to being investigated after reports had surfaced of their activity.

Chat logs work wonders, otherwise look at PubG and the fact that they watch the last 10 minutes or so of a player's data as a report comes in for certain things. They're much more proactive about leading a fair and healthy community.

Tldr, you shouldn't be able to kick anyone while in an active instance.Of course we should be able to kick people. People go afk or DC. Sometimes, a person is toxic. Sometimes they are leeching. There's no reason that three people who worked hard should have to restart because one person isn't.

No one gets kicked, no one can cheat.If there are no kicks, then a person can decide to go off into a corner and let the other four do all the work. Whether it's called "cheating" or leeching or whatever, it isn't pleasant.

If the first point had any merit this would be less of a problem. There are better things they can do as well, such as keeping track of if the player has dealt sufficient damage recently and if they are too far away from the currently active players - if not, they are kicked by the server, not by the party.

If you find that no one likes one or more people, you deal with it or leave and start again.Why should three (or four) people have to put up with one outlier? One shouldn't it be the toxic player that leaves?

Again, if reports meant anything, toxicity would be more rare of a circumstance in the GW2 community. If that were true, then the chances of running into a toxic person would become rather low. As it stands, it's so common that people don't want to change the current system which can just as easily be abused by those toxic people.

This forces those people to either get better or finish it.It doesn't force anything. In fact, it empowers people to misbehave because there are fewer consequences.

You're essentially saying they can't get in trouble for reports, which was one of my main points.

There's no perfect solution. It's just a question of which system has the less-objectionable downsides and perhaps more or better upsides.

Indeed, unfortunately unless Anet changes their stance on how to handle toxic players, we will be met with nothing but toxic players who know they have immunity.

[PervMonk.4891]

don't party with pugs, problem solved.

[Rukario.1695]

@"PervMonk.4891" said:don't party with pugs, problem solved.

To be honest that's just taking the first M out of MMO. "Play online, but with friends only." If that's what GW2 has come to, it's fallen far since when it first started.

[Westenev.5289]

It's important to note that there is no leader in partys, and that a more... moderate, less noob-hating approach may be more popular with pugs.

[Ashen.2907]

Current system isnt great. Previous system was much worse IMO.

[gateless gate.8406]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@"Koods.9815" said:But.. it's my party,It's not.

---

When the game launched, the person who started the group was the leader; they had the power to kick anyone/everyone. Here's a few of the things that happened:

• Leader would take on 4 PUGs. Get to the final boss. Kick all four, invite friends.
• Group would get to final boss, dislike something that one of the people did, kick them before the fight.
• Leader would DC; group would get kicked from instance (since the two mechanics are intertwined).
• Leader would be the toxic one, Leeroying this way and that, messing up mechanics, etc. The other four could do nothing.
• Leader would go AFK. And not return. The other four could do nothing: leader would get rewards, even if the rest four-personed the instance.

People begged and screamed for something better. (And to be fair: calmer voices also offered suggestions.)

Over time, the system evolved to the current mechanic: majority rules. Two people can't kick anyone

in a full party

; it takes three votes.

---

tl;dr current system isn't perfect. It might not even be "good". It's just less worse than any of the alternatives.

Hm let's see if we can solve all of those problems in 5 seconds here:

1. Restrict party joining once the first boss of a dungeon/fractal has been killed
2. This one isn't actually a problem; if you act like a turd, you should be able to be kicked, no matter how far into the dungeon
3. Fix the netcode
4. Leave the party and start your own
5. Leave the party and start your own

Beyond all of these being niche problems whose occurrence was likely in the single percentage digits, none of them are unique to GW2. Virtually every single online game with party functionality has the potential for one or more of these problems (or additional problems unique to those games). Inevitably, they are all solved by the golden rule: Don't like the group? Leave party and start your own.

The current Communist nightmare that is GW2's five-person grouping mechanics is unbelievably frustrating, and one of the weakest points of the game. One of my first experiences with this game was starting an LFG for Ascalonian Catacombs story mode, which was subsequently hijacked by lvl 80s who wanted to do explorable mode. I had zero recourse, zero ability to actually run the content that I had advertised in LFG. I've also had instances where I've been kicked, from my own party, by a couple or group of friends who want to open up a slot for their friends. The tyranny of the herd, truly.

[Ashen.2907]

@gateless gate.8406 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@"Koods.9815" said:But.. it's my party,It's not.

---

When the game launched, the person who started the group was the leader; they had the power to kick anyone/everyone. Here's a few of the things that happened:

• Leader would take on 4 PUGs. Get to the final boss. Kick all four, invite friends.
• Group would get to final boss, dislike something that one of the people did, kick them before the fight.
• Leader would DC; group would get kicked from instance (since the two mechanics are intertwined).
• Leader would be the toxic one, Leeroying this way and that, messing up mechanics, etc. The other four could do nothing.
• Leader would go AFK. And not return. The other four could do nothing: leader would get rewards, even if the rest four-personed the instance.

People begged and screamed for something better. (And to be fair: calmer voices also offered suggestions.)

Over time, the system evolved to the current mechanic: majority rules. Two people can't kick anyone

in a full party

; it takes three votes.

---

tl;dr current system isn't perfect. It might not even be "good". It's just less worse than any of the alternatives.

Hm let's see if we can solve all of those problems in 5 seconds here:

1. Restrict party joining once the first boss of a dungeon/fractal has been killed

This would be awful. Having someone have to leave, perhaps more than one someone, due to emergency, internet failure, etc halfway through and have the remainder be unable to fill those spots, causing progress to be lost, would be very discouraging.

[gateless gate.8406]

@Ashen.2907 said:

@gateless gate.8406 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@"Koods.9815" said:But.. it's my party,It's not.

---

When the game launched, the person who started the group was the leader; they had the power to kick anyone/everyone. Here's a few of the things that happened:

• Leader would take on 4 PUGs. Get to the final boss. Kick all four, invite friends.
• Group would get to final boss, dislike something that one of the people did, kick them before the fight.
• Leader would DC; group would get kicked from instance (since the two mechanics are intertwined).
• Leader would be the toxic one, Leeroying this way and that, messing up mechanics, etc. The other four could do nothing.
• Leader would go AFK. And not return. The other four could do nothing: leader would get rewards, even if the rest four-personed the instance.

People begged and screamed for something better. (And to be fair: calmer voices also offered suggestions.)

Over time, the system evolved to the current mechanic: majority rules. Two people can't kick anyone

in a full party

; it takes three votes.

---

tl;dr current system isn't perfect. It might not even be "good". It's just less worse than any of the alternatives.

Hm let's see if we can solve all of those problems in 5 seconds here:

1. Restrict party joining once the first boss of a dungeon/fractal has been killed

This would be awful. Having someone have to leave, perhaps more than one someone, due to emergency, internet failure, etc halfway through and have the remainder be unable to fill those spots, causing progress to be lost, would be very discouraging.

I agree it's not ideal; it's simply an idea. I emphasize again that we have no true numbers on the occurrence of these "problems." Feel free to respond to the rest of the comment as well.

[Ashen.2907]

@gateless gate.8406 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

@gateless gate.8406 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@"Koods.9815" said:But.. it's my party,It's not.

---

When the game launched, the person who started the group was the leader; they had the power to kick anyone/everyone. Here's a few of the things that happened:

• Leader would take on 4 PUGs. Get to the final boss. Kick all four, invite friends.
• Group would get to final boss, dislike something that one of the people did, kick them before the fight.
• Leader would DC; group would get kicked from instance (since the two mechanics are intertwined).
• Leader would be the toxic one, Leeroying this way and that, messing up mechanics, etc. The other four could do nothing.
• Leader would go AFK. And not return. The other four could do nothing: leader would get rewards, even if the rest four-personed the instance.

People begged and screamed for something better. (And to be fair: calmer voices also offered suggestions.)

Over time, the system evolved to the current mechanic: majority rules. Two people can't kick anyone

in a full party

; it takes three votes.

---

tl;dr current system isn't perfect. It might not even be "good". It's just less worse than any of the alternatives.

Hm let's see if we can solve all of those problems in 5 seconds here:

1. Restrict party joining once the first boss of a dungeon/fractal has been killed

This would be awful. Having someone have to leave, perhaps more than one someone, due to emergency, internet failure, etc halfway through and have the remainder be unable to fill those spots, causing progress to be lost, would be very discouraging.

I agree it's not ideal; it's simply an idea. I emphasize again that we have no true numbers on the occurrence of these "problems." Feel free to respond to the rest of the comment as well.

2. This one isn't actually a problem; if you act like a kitten, you should be able to be kicked, no matter how far into the dungeon
3. Fix the netcode
4. Leave the party and start your own
5. Leave the party and start your own

2) You don't have to act like a kitten for someone to decide they don't like you, your character, the colors of your armor, etc.3) Of course. If something is broken, fix it (assuming that the ROI is worth it)4) Having each of the remaining four leave and reform is not an improvement over eliminating the problem. After all, " if you act like a kitten, you should be able to be kicked."5) Having each of the remaining four leave and reform is not an improvement over eliminating the problem. After all, " if you act like a kitten, you should be able to be kicked."

[gateless gate.8406]

@Ashen.2907 said:

@gateless gate.8406 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

@gateless gate.8406 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@"Koods.9815" said:But.. it's my party,It's not.

---

When the game launched, the person who started the group was the leader; they had the power to kick anyone/everyone. Here's a few of the things that happened:

• Leader would take on 4 PUGs. Get to the final boss. Kick all four, invite friends.
• Group would get to final boss, dislike something that one of the people did, kick them before the fight.
• Leader would DC; group would get kicked from instance (since the two mechanics are intertwined).
• Leader would be the toxic one, Leeroying this way and that, messing up mechanics, etc. The other four could do nothing.
• Leader would go AFK. And not return. The other four could do nothing: leader would get rewards, even if the rest four-personed the instance.

People begged and screamed for something better. (And to be fair: calmer voices also offered suggestions.)

Over time, the system evolved to the current mechanic: majority rules. Two people can't kick anyone

in a full party

; it takes three votes.

---

tl;dr current system isn't perfect. It might not even be "good". It's just less worse than any of the alternatives.

Hm let's see if we can solve all of those problems in 5 seconds here:

1. Restrict party joining once the first boss of a dungeon/fractal has been killed

This would be awful. Having someone have to leave, perhaps more than one someone, due to emergency, internet failure, etc halfway through and have the remainder be unable to fill those spots, causing progress to be lost, would be very discouraging.

I agree it's not ideal; it's simply an idea. I emphasize again that we have no true numbers on the occurrence of these "problems." Feel free to respond to the rest of the comment as well.

2. This one isn't actually a problem; if you act like a kitten, you should be able to be kicked, no matter how far into the dungeon
3. Fix the netcode
4. Leave the party and start your own
5. Leave the party and start your own

2) You don't have to act like a kitten for someone to decide they don't like you, your character, the colors of your armor, etc.3) Of course. If something is broken, fix it (assuming that the ROI is worth it)4) Having each of the remaining four leave and reform is not an improvement over eliminating the problem. After all, " if you act like a kitten, you should be able to be kicked."5) Having each of the remaining four leave and reform is not an improvement over eliminating the problem. After all, " if you act like a kitten, you should be able to be kicked."

You don't have to? Are we talking philosophically here? I responded to one theoretical problem put forth: Party leader dislikes what someone does, and kicks them. Again, that is a "problem" in any online game with party or co-op functionality. And, lo and behold, no other game has resorted to the tyranny of the masses, and life went on for those games. If something can be solved by opening up LFG and clicking "create party," then one must be careful of treating it as a problem because the "solution" (of removing the ability to run parties) is so heavy-handed and detrimental.

Simply leaving the party is an improvement because GW2's "eliminating the problem" has done nothing but spawn additional problems that rear their head quite commonly. It eliminated A problem, and created more. So therefore it had a cost that should be rationally weighed. Having the constantly available solution of simply creating a party and running it how you wish is an elegant and empowering approach. There is a reason that 99% of games opt for it.

[Linken.6345]

@gateless gate.8406 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@"Koods.9815" said:But.. it's my party,It's not.

---

When the game launched, the person who started the group was the leader; they had the power to kick anyone/everyone. Here's a few of the things that happened:

• Leader would take on 4 PUGs. Get to the final boss. Kick all four, invite friends.
• Group would get to final boss, dislike something that one of the people did, kick them before the fight.
• Leader would DC; group would get kicked from instance (since the two mechanics are intertwined).
• Leader would be the toxic one, Leeroying this way and that, messing up mechanics, etc. The other four could do nothing.
• Leader would go AFK. And not return. The other four could do nothing: leader would get rewards, even if the rest four-personed the instance.

People begged and screamed for something better. (And to be fair: calmer voices also offered suggestions.)

Over time, the system evolved to the current mechanic: majority rules. Two people can't kick anyone

in a full party

; it takes three votes.

---

tl;dr current system isn't perfect. It might not even be "good". It's just less worse than any of the alternatives.

Hm let's see if we can solve all of those problems in 5 seconds here:

1. Restrict party joining once the first boss of a dungeon/fractal has been killed
2. This one isn't actually a problem; if you act like a kitten, you should be able to be kicked, no matter how far into the dungeon
3. Fix the netcode
4. Leave the party and start your own
5. Leave the party and start your own

Beyond all of these being niche problems whose occurrence was likely in the single percentage digits, none of them are unique to GW2. Virtually every single online game with party functionality has the potential for one or more of these problems (or additional problems unique to those games). Inevitably, they are all solved by the golden rule: Don't like the group? Leave party and start your own.

The current Communist nightmare that is GW2's five-person grouping mechanics is unbelievably frustrating, and one of the weakest points of the game. One of my first experiences with this game was starting an LFG for Ascalonian Catacombs story mode, which was subsequently hijacked by lvl 80s who wanted to do explorable mode. I had zero recourse, zero ability to actually run the content that I had advertised in LFG. I've also had instances where I've been kicked, from my own party, by a couple or group of friends who want to open up a slot for their friends. The tyranny of the herd, truly.

Nr1 works wonders with your nr2 mate, if noone new can join why would you kick since the result is the same 1-4 manning said content, or starting over since thats what you advocate on nr 4 and 5.nr3 is already fixed now when there is no party owner of said instance.nr4 lose progress starting over not better then what we have now, possibly having to repete the same thing again and againnr5 lose progress starting over not better then what we have now, possibly having to repete the same thing again and againIm shocked mate you dident actualy solve any of the problems.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@"gateless gate.8406" said:Hm let's see if we can solve all of those problems in 5 seconds here:None of your ideas address any of the fundamental issues.

• "Leaving the party" isn't any sort of solution; it's putting the burden of the issue on a different person.
• "If you act like a kitten" — who decides that? What if it's the first person? What if it's the third to join?
• "You should be able to be kicked no matter how far into the dungeon" — that's currently already the case.
• "Restrict joining" — you really think that when someone DCs, the other four party should have to go it without refilling the missing slot?
• "Fix the netcode" — it's a fundamental part of "instance creation:" if there's an "owner," the owner leaving ends the instance. To code something else isn't a "fix;" it's a new system. It's a very expensive way of addressing something that doesn't come up that often.

Beyond all of these being niche problems whose occurrence was likely in the single percentage digits, none of them are unique to GW2.Indeed. So the question is: does the current system actually need to change?

The current Communist nightmareDemocratic decision making is "communist"? This is a majority-rule situation (democratic), not a "central group deciding what's best for the group."

five-person grouping mechanics is unbelievably frustrating,As you note, five-person grouping mechanic frustrations are common to all games.

One of my first experiences with this game was starting an LFG for Ascalonian Catacombs story mode, which was subsequently hijacked by lvl 80s who wanted to do explorable mode.I'm sorry to hear that.

The tyranny of the herd, truly.Apparently you would prefer the tyranny of the minority, because that's exactly what we had when the party-initiator had kicking power.

from my own party,It's not your party. The "party" belongs to everyone in the group, not just the first person.

---

As you have explained, the reason that the situation is fraught in any and all games is due to human nature. Some people are jerks & some are just insensitive.

Accordingly, no system is going to work well for everyone all of the time. There is no set of mechanics, with or without a strong reporting system, that is going to insulate us all from every group drama.

[Rukario.1695]

The solution to not having drama in the earlier days way just to create your own party. You could remove whoever was causing a problem.

This caused..

1) People who were kicked for disrespecting others complained.

2) People who kicked others for no reason at all or because being "elitist" and therefore upset many people.

The thing here is, you could still create your own party and you had the ability to manage it.

As it is now, 3 assholes can join and vote you out of your own instance to invite someone they know. Even if you didn't say or do anything.

Creating your own party is no longer an option unless you pre-plan with at least one person or more beforehand.

How exactly is the current system better than the last one?

[Linken.6345]

@"Rukario.1695" said:The solution to not having drama in the earlier days way just to create your own party. You could remove whoever was causing a problem.

This caused..

1) People who were kicked for disrespecting others complained.

2) People who kicked others for no reason at all or because being "elitist" and therefore upset many people.

The thing here is, you could still create your own party and you had the ability to manage it.

As it is now, 3 kitten can join and vote you out of your own instance to invite someone they know. Even if you didn't say or do anything.

Creating your own party is no longer an option unless you pre-plan with at least one person or more beforehand.

How exactly is the current system better than the last one?

All here is right but you need 3 person total to hold majority in the group so preplan with 2 others.With the old system the instance owner could be a kitten and sour it for 4 others.Here up to 3 people have to decide to sour it for 1 person. ( it can be 1 who is toxic or just unlucky to encounter 3 kittens.)Majority rule over minorty rule always better.Do you want a democracy (what we have now) or a dictatorship? ( what you want to implement )

[Koods.9815]

So your solutions are to don't play with random people.. Really. If I had people to play with, I'd surely not complain about LFG and party mechanics. I have to pray to all possible gods just to get a decent group to do some content, yes, of course, they want to finish this content too, but for what price.. Consider nice playtrough of Arah with friendly teammates, and then group toxic people who joins YOUR LFG and votes you off because you dare to die in Arah, since it's very hard dungeon, and some mobs actualy instakills even high mastery players. The whole point is, I always like to start the party, because if I join some, I often just jump into unknown group, but if I make one, I can meet them one by one, and find out if they are cool or not. But it should still be MINE party, not that someone can take it over. That's how it works in any other mmos, and nobody is complaining. If I had guild to run dungeons and fractals with, I'd not need to relly on LFG and random players, but.. either there are far too big guilds that does not care about newbies or people at all (grindfest guilds) or smaller inactive guilds, shame >.<

[Linken.6345]

@Koods.9815 said:So your solutions are to don't play with random people.. Really. If I had people to play with, I'd surely not complain about LFG and party mechanics. I have to pray to all possible gods just to get a decent group to do some content, yes, of course, they want to finish this content too, but for what price.. Consider nice playtrough of Arah with friendly teammates, and then group toxic people who joins YOUR LFG and votes you off because you dare to die in Arah, since it's very hard dungeon, and some mobs actualy instakills even high mastery players. The whole point is, I always like to start the party, because if I join some, I often just jump into unknown group, but if I make one, I can meet them one by one, and find out if they are cool or not. But it should still be MINE party, not that someone can take it over. That's how it works in any other mmos, and nobody is complaining. If I had guild to run dungeons and fractals with, I'd not need to relly on LFG and random players, but.. either there are far too big guilds that does not care about newbies or people at all (grindfest guilds) or smaller inactive guilds, shame >.<

If this happens so often maybe the problem aint the people joining?