Two People for a Successful Vote Kick? Seriously?

[Khaleijo]

A fair group would try to talk about whats wrong before the initiate a kickvote, there the one in question could defend himself. If they can't solve their problems then why should the "victim" get a vote? That is like a tribunal where the one charged is able to vote whether he did wrong or not.

 

In the groupfinder it isn't even a question of right or wrong most of the time. While you have players not filling their role there are also many votes because of different playstyles and attitudes towards the group. A player running and running not waiting for the others deserves a kickvote, if the group doesn't want this fast pace, same if it is the other extreme like sleep walking. Someone yelling SKIP while the others want to watch the videos is in the wrong group too. It doesn't mean they hate that person or that he did something wrong, only that they didn't match.

 

 

In the end everyone wants to have fun while playing, but the source of that is different for everyone. If there is a group who can't find a compromise, the one not matching should leave and not try to force his style onto the others. But most players only see their style as the right one and only and wouldn't leave by themselves, respecting that the group doesn't want that, they try to force their style on the group.

 

They would never vote against themselves, so what for should they get a vote?

To get a 2 vs 2 not solving anything and leaving 4 players hanging as they weren't able to find a compromise in the first place before initiating a vote? What should happen if this occurs? The party voting faster wins? Both stay?

Or a 3vs1 that will result in a kick in the same manner as the 2vs1 would?

 

What is the difference? Only that you get an empty vote, that will have no effect to solve any conflict that may arise?

[Kymerous]

I find the current vote kick system to be just fine...however if we are tossing around ideas to improve it why not make it like this, The person who initiates the vote kick doesn't get a vote (he would just be the one to bring the kick to the attention of the group) the person being kicked gets no vote (of course) and the other 2 people involved would be the only 2 to vote.

 

Again, I feel the current system is fine, but if I were to tweak it, thats how I would do it.

[Halinalle]

In the groupfinder it isn't even a question of right or wrong most of the time. While you have players not filling their role there are also many votes because of different playstyles and attitudes towards the group. A player running and running not waiting for the others deserves a kickvote, if the group doesn't want this fast pace, same if it is the other extreme like sleep walking. Someone yelling SKIP while the others want to watch the videos is in the wrong group too. It doesn't mean they hate that person or that he did something wrong, only that they didn't match.

 

And then there's lowest of the lowest, people who kick you just because you tried to explain the fight mechanics.

 

I haven't really seen system used wrong apart from that one time I got kicked. In groups I've been it has been used mostly to kick people who go afk for several minutes without telling the reason or act weirdly (trying to solo everything, not being a team player).

[iphobia]

blablabla in 25 different colors and with caps abuse

I see no reason as why this simple thing would be so hard to compute. Please tell me you're trolling.

Wow, such colors, very beauty, much emphasis. Let's try it too.

 

There are FOUR people in the group.

THREE of them do their job.

ONE doesn't fit in. He decides to do his own thing, trolls or just behaves badly. He pulls the whole group down.

So the other THREE have to decide wether or not they want to keep going with this person holding them back.

TWO out of those THREE decide they don't want to endure this person.

That's a majority and should result in a kick.

 

It's just like when you're in a team in real life.

If ONE person is holding the whole team back and not able to cooperate, THE REST OF THE TEAM decides what to do with this person.

Maybe he/she gets one last chance to change, but if not, they start the voting.

Since the ONE person had the chance to cooperate with the team before this process, he/she is no longer allowed to participate on this voting.

If the MAJORITY OF THE OTHERS agree with a kick, it should happen.

 

If you introduce a veto for the person getting kicked, you could also just remove the whole votekick system alltogether, since it would be always the ONE person's decision whether or not he/she would be gonna be kicked out, and not the one of THE REST OF THE GROUP which maches no sense at all.

 

Yes, this system can be abused, like any system, in real life aswell as ingame, but it doesn't change the fact that it is working as intended in general. Abuse can happen, well, get over it and move on. There is absolutely no need to change this.

 

I see no reason as why this simple thing would be so hard to compute. Please tell me you're trolling.

Edited March 20, 2014 by iphobia

[slafko]

Just because you were kicked by an idiot one too many times, doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the vote kick system.

I never mentioned the number of times I got kicked. You implying that I'm arguing because I got kicked many times is a typical argument of someone who has no substantial arguments. Not only that, it's pretty insulting too.

 

There are 4 people in a group, 3 of them are deciding wether or not to endure the troublemaker any longer.

Current system: There are four people in a group and two of them decide to make trouble just because they can.

 

Guildmates can be a**es and kick someone because they want to get a 3./4. guildy in but that's a) very rare and b) will always be possible. (I often queue with 2 other guildies meaning there are 3 of us)

That it will always be possible is a blatant lie in a pathetic attempt to defend your point. No, it will not always be possible for two to kick another. It will for three, but not for two.

 

There will always be loopholes and every system can be abused but resticting this system any further doesn't solve anything.

The only thing it does is making legitimate kicks harder to get through, so the amount of people leaving fps will rise.

Basically, what you're saying here is "I'm defending the current broken system because of some irrational fears of change and highly improbable scenarios happening in a different, slightly less broken, system". Thank you for your input.

[slafko]

Wow, such colors, very beauty, much emphasis. Let's try it too.

 

There are FOUR people in the group.

THREE of them do their job.

ONE doesn't fit in. He decides to do his own thing, trolls or just behaves badly. He pulls the whole group down.

So the other THREE have to decide wether or not they want to keep going with this person holding them back.

TWO out of those THREE decide they don't want to endure this person.

That's a majority and should result in a kick.

Two out of four is not a majority, my dear Watson. /hugz

 

Four people in a group.

One decides he doesnt like the fourth.

Second sides with the first since they're friends.

Fourth gets the short end of the stick just because of a drama queen.

 

That's not a majority vote and should never result in a kick.

 

I see no reason as why this simple thing would be so hard to compute. Please tell me you're trolling.

Your attempts at trolling are even more pathetic than your arguments.

[Never_Hesitate]

slafko I'm done with you, the current system works very well, there will always be abuse/missuse in every system and we can't purge it 100% (just like there are some people queuing with the wrong spec) and not everything deserves to be "fixed" by the devs hands.

 

If they ever change the vote kick system to fit your description, they can just remove it alltogether.

[iphobia]

I cannot find any valid arguments so I will just tell the other person how pathetic his ones are!

 

Always nice to discuss with someone when he just ignores half of what you said and carries on with the same nonsense argument over and over and over again. Also, your assumption is that the system is always abused, which is in fact very rare (never seen anyone kicked for no reason in 55 HM's at all).

 

Since you don't seem to find any arguments to the second half of my last post and instead tell me how pathetic my arguments are, I see no sense in "discussing" with you any further. I will no longer answer you.

[Fazaani]

Okay... as such being kicked wrongfully suck's, but i agree that mostly you need to just shrug it off and que again.

 

...atleast now that's by far the easiest way, when highlvl fb:s are so runtrough based and fast. You need to know ~3 bossfigths and thats it. Before it was different when HM Lost Island was more of a challenge than ops

(omg do you know what cc means you ?=!!"="("(=!)( DONT HIT THE MEDICS!!! ) :D oh the days... <3

[Never_Hesitate]

(omg do you know what cc means you ?=!!"="("(=!)( DONT HIT THE MEDICS!!! ) :D oh the days... <3

 

It was even more fun with only 1 cc on the 2 medic group

[slafko]

slafko I'm done with you, ...

And not a moment too soon.

Always nice to discuss with someone when he just ignores half of what you said and carries on with the same nonsense argument over and over and over again. Also, your assumption is that the system is always abused, which is in fact very rare (never seen anyone kicked for no reason in 55 HM's at all).

 

Since you don't seem to find any arguments to the second half of my last post and instead tell me how pathetic my arguments are, I see no sense in "discussing" with you any further. I will no longer answer you.

Nowhere near as nice as discussing with someone who can't, for the life of them, stay on topic but instead has to spam superfluous nonsense and then cry and whine how that same nonsense is being ignored.

Edited March 20, 2014 by slafko

[Mounds]

WoW had this problem in 5 mans and when there was like3 guildies the vote wouldnt go through without the 4 non guildie or the norm of 3 -2 for vote kick..

 

they also made it the more you vote kicked the less you could be allowed to vote kick just incase your kick happy.

no one was allowed to vote untill 2 mons into the dungoen or first trash/ boss. while in combat no vote kicks allowed.

 

Vote kick isnt 100% in any game even wow still had a bit of problems.

the usual answer for this was run with a guild a full run same with the guys that got upset about what 2 u. guilded people do. Do a run with just the guild or just your friends

[leehambly]

It really isn't difficult to understand, an awful lot of fuss about nothing going on here.

 

The kick vote is simply a vote between three players about whether or not they want to carry on playing with a fourth player. Therefore a majority vote is carried. Why some of you seem intent on counting the fourth player is bizarre... Like the accused's opinion is taken into account on a jury vote? Bizarre.

Edited March 20, 2014 by leehambly
Typo

[Khaleijo]

For the sake of the argument, let's think about what would happen with 4 players, having 4 votes in total, to kick you need a majority of 3 votes against one player.

 

Example

1 player doesn't behave or fills out his roll. Considering a fair and reasonable group tries to solve the conflict by talking before, an initiated kick means that that didn't help. A kick is initiated and goes through if 3 people agree.

 

Possible constellations:

A :

4 strangers, more or less reasonable, 3 agree that it doesn't work and who is to blame, vote 3 to 1, the one for staying in the group being an empty vote, as a reasonable person would have been able to avoid the vote by changing his behaviour and taking the help the group wanted to give via talking before. A 4 vs 0 vote would rarely happen as then the "victim" would leave on his own account without making a vote necessary. 2vs2 could happen but as they talked before it shouldn't, if it happens the whole voting system doesn't help at all.

 

B:

A reasonable 2 man team with 2 strangers, the culprit is one of the solo listed. 3 to 1 in most cases as reasonable players won't act differently against strangers than against their friends. Maybe 2 vs 2 if one doesn't see the fault of the one, but as the example stated talking first before voting, in that case most fair players could resolve the whole situation without a kickvote at all. If it happens not helping to solve anything.

 

C:

Same as B only that the culprit is one of the 2 man team, as reasonable players they should be able to solve the conflict or be as realistic to recognize that player skill and or equipment is not good enough yet, and draw the right consequences. I would expect that either the weak player of the 2 man team leaves before a vote or maybe even both, depends on the mindset of the other 2 man teams half, if he just want's to play with his buddy or play this FP.

If 2vs 2 the group is broken as two won't go on alone and the motivaton to play together won't be there anymore else they would have found a solution.

 

D: the constellation that is the problem with the current 2 vote system

An abusive 2 man team with 2 strangers. One of the 2 man team behaving bad (on pupose). Talking won't really help here and a vote doesn't work because the two won't vote against each other. The remaining two group members can't be kicked but their FP experience is ruined by the 2 man team nonetheless. The system fails its purpose as it doesn't help to end the conflict.

 

E:

3 friends with one stranger, the 3 can do what they want, if they are fair nothing happens what wouldn't happen in A or B too. If they are not, there is still nothing the one stranger can do about it. Nothing new to the current 2 vote system.

 

 

So situation D is still a problem even with 4 vote and a majority of 3. It doesn't change the power a premade 2 man team has. And in addition the two strangers lost their possibility to do anything against them too. Because while 2 friend/guild team only need two votes to kick someone, the other two strangers also need only two to kick one of the team.

With 3 needed votes a two man team can annoy their group as much as they want without having to fear a kick. The other two only can ignore and leave on their own with getting the lockout timer. Just like in E, so in fact the position of 2 man teams is more powerful than now if they want to annoy someone. (Remeber we are talking about people who can't be reasoned with leaving kickvote as last resort). Well the strangers can't be kicked but that doesn't help them much to have fun in that FP.

 

Having more than one person not behaving in the group who is maybe affiliated to other groupmates makes it even more difficult to do something against it.

 

In addition if we have groups who don't try to solve the prolems by talking before a vote 2 vs 2 vote can happen. That solves nothing but will decrease the motivation to work with the group to nothing most of the time, as many take a vote as a personal insult, resulting in a broken group which can't do anything until one or more players end this mess themselves by leaving and getting the lockout timer.

 

There are already many players who make a powerplay out of a FP run, by using the rarity of their role, their equipment, experience or something else to force the group to skip mobs or bosses, to do things in a particular way even if that means a disadvantage for the others. If the group agreed, do what you want, but one or two persons leaving the others no other choice than leaving or follow is not what i understand as fair play.

 

At the moment it is harmless most of the time and rarely worth bothering. To some extent because it is limited to what the group will barely accept before they take actions.

But the general intention to force the others to play in a certain way to your own advantage is there. If the possible actions to counter this in an active manner are more limited and the potential power of a 2 man premade is increased further this kind of power play will increase too.

In the end it will be leaving solo listing players at the mercy of group listing players, even more than they are now.

 

Why should this be a better solution? Only because you can say, but the "victim" has a vote now too? The problems the current system has, aren't really solved and there are new ones in addition instead.

 

The system is a tool to decide a groups conflict if they can't solve it in another way, therefor it has to have a clear outcome, so 2 vs 2 is not somehing that should be possible. The power of players queued together isn't decreased, on the contrary it's even stronger than now, because the solo players lose some of their power to handle these things.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Khaleijo

[Never_Hesitate]

I've got the solution:

Change the amount of players in a fp group to an uneven number and this problem will disappear.

[Khevar]

I've got the solution:

Change the amount of players in a fp group to an uneven number and this problem will disappear.

It would make the dps queue pop faster, too. (Assuming you meant 3 dps + 1 heals + 1 tank)

Edited March 20, 2014 by Khevar

[Never_Hesitate]

It would make the dps queue pop faster, too. (Assuming you meant 3 dps + 1 heals + 1 tank)

 

I totally though of 2 Tanks + 2 DPS + 1 Heal

(Imagine that queuetimes XD)

[DawnAskham]

It would make the dps queue pop faster, too. (Assuming you meant 3 dps + 1 heals + 1 tank)

 

Chalk the 4 base group size up to a lack of foresight by the original development team, or more incompetence given some of the other stupidity that was built into this game long before it launched.

 

I can't think of one trinity MMO that doesn't have challenges with enough tanks and heals, especially for small group content, and yet the geniuses on the original design team decided to reduce the number of dps per group rather than increase the number.

[toha]

Last few posts not withstanding, this debate on the votekick system isn't very.... Good.

Agree to disagree, or drop the argument all togther for if you can't be bothered to be civil about it.

What's the point of bashing/flaming each other on an issue you clearly don't and won't agree about?

This IS a game, it's meant to be fun, let's get back to having some rather then antagonizing each other.

*catchs the nearest rainbow outta here*

[slafko]

Meh, I'm used to getting flak for suggesting and arguing for implementations of logical things. TBH, I'd be extremely worried if my views did not receive hate.

[RandomXChance]

It really isn't difficult to understand, an awful lot of fuss about nothing going on here.

 

The kick vote is simply a vote between three players about whether or not they want to carry on playing with a fourth player. Therefore a majority vote is carried. Why some of you seem intent on counting the fourth player is bizarre... Like the accused's opinion is taken into account on a jury vote? Bizarre.

 

Simple, clear logic. Please refrain from these types of posts in forums. It is very disrupting.

[SBR_QuorTek]

I am fine with it being only two having to vote someone out because it make up 66.6667% of the people wanting to get rid of the person, and no.... the person getting voted out should not be allowed to vote keeping on griefing the players who want to complete this or that.

 

Yes unfortuneately there will be some weird situations now and then, but this is a democracy sort of, would it be better if the healer and tank decided to quit on the FP because one of the DPS persons is so stupid or so undergeared it seriously causes a problem????

 

For self I don't want to spend time on people not even interested in playing their characters AT ALL, so they get the boot if not putting in an effort, refuse to listen to this and that about the actual mechanics..... keeping on bringing the group in danger with immature pulls.... refusing to listen... thinking they know everything... or simply am not group compatible at all.

 

Current system is fine, but if you want 3 people to vote the person out, that is ok as well as in those situations there will be no doubt in that person is not contributing at all for the given situation.

[Fidelicatessen]

The way it works now results in more finished FPs for more people.

 

Allowing the kickee a vote in the kicking means that many FPs will never get finished because there will be a 2-way tie and probably the GOOD players will leave.

 

It can be debated back and forth and, since this is the internet, no reason will ever penetrate into thick skulls. Thank goodness Bioware devs will likely never read this thread or implement any of the suggestions herein.

[RandomXChance]

Meh, I'm used to getting flak for suggesting and arguing for implementations of logical things. TBH, I'd be extremely worried if my views did not receive hate.

 

Logic can very much be in the eye of the beholder.

 

Beyond that, lets take a look at the usual scenario. Tanks only get Vote Kicked if they are not a tank. Healers rarely get Vote Kicked as well unless they insist on being dumb and doing something like pulling constantly (I have initiated against this type). As someone who only tanks during FP, if a DPS is badly behaved or needs on tank gear without asking, I initiate a Vote Kick. If it fails, I leave. I have better things to do than spend time with jerks or people who are friends with jerks. Now the group is broken because the tank has left. A shame for the other two? Sure. Next time kick the idiot. As a tank, I give DPS one warning, then Vote Kick.

 

Yes, 2/4 is slightly unfair (it is 50% though). With 3/4 needed, you will have a lot more people just bailing when the vote fails because one person abstained or just feels about about vote kicking.

[Hei_Atzfel]

As a tank, I give DPS one warning, then Vote Kick.

 

You sound like one of the tanks who try to vote kick a DPS who tears aggro off of you during a boss fight for a reason of "trying to tank".