Why can’t the host kick people out of the squad while in the orbiter?

[ALIONATED]

Well you need a coder, a code a model animation a networker ect. 

All those things just for a lil kick button + server down time to test it. 

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

36 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

I see what you are going with this but if there are alternative I simply leave kick as the last resort in the bag. 

More to my point.

-There are people who would abuse this feature that probably always will, people who don't care about others and are not willing to change.

-Then there are people who would never think of abusing it, such as yourself, and would only use it when necessary.

Both of these parties will likely remain as they are regardless of whether or not this feature is implemented. And people who would abuse it likely already are. So what's the harm? Abusers will continue the same as before and so will everyone else. It's not like this feature would increase the number of selfish people in the warframe community. This feature would allow people to disband less frequently. And sure people are going to abuse it, but that isn't anything new, it's already happening, and will continue at the same frequency regardless.

[Felsagger]

57 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

Sounds like a lot of work to go through. Reviewing every member of a squad, analyze them, then decide whether or not to kick them out. If people would do this with the addition of host kicking, then they're already doing it. If someone would go that far out of their way to control/ bully everyone in their squad then I doubt the absence of the kicking feature has stopped them until now.

You think adding this feature is going to increase how frequently people get kicked for no reason? I doubt it. People that want to do it will do it regardless and people that don't won't. People aren't very well known for their willingness to change so I doubt we'll see an increase nor decrease in the number of bullies as a result.

It's easy to find pick up groups on anything but it's quite hard finding those groups on the things we want. Relics are easy but that;s like a pending. I have to write down an if else sentence so the list is filled with people interested on that particular task. Certainly this doesn't provide 100 percent accuracy. Some of the members may sleep off the goals or do something unexpected. I understand some of these frustrations. 

The system is not the best but at least I can tweak it for my goals knowing that such 'tweak' will turn into a time sink. When someone tries to throw off a mission I take the other road of making a new squad. Those cases are rare but they happen. No one likes such situations. I learned to live with pugs for a long while learning few facts about them. I have my quota of failed spy missions due to pug's wilderness. 

A rational solution is a poll. It doesn't say much but at least gives an indication. Not everybody writes down their opinion on these forums. My second post in this thread was given as an alternative to his point of view. Anything that gives power like kicking or vote kicking causes problems. 

Quote

Stop focusing on how people will abuse this feature, because those people do the same exact thing by dismantling the squad anyway.

It's inevitable. Do you know why? Human nature. 

Quote

Instead try to focus on the people that wouldn't abuse it. They're the ones that this feature would actually effect. This is not the implementation of a new feature, the feature is already there. It's just a way of updating a feature that has been a part of this game for years.

In architecture we think about people using the space as it should when we design a program for a building. But our education forces us to think about people who will circumvent the purpose intended in our design. If we do not design for the exception then there will be accidents and of course negligence. 

If we focus on the people that is not going to abuse it, of course it would be a benefit. But with all honesty, and I don't want to weasel out the discussion, this game has far more important issues than just few seconds to save up in a transaction like squad selection. 

Why not focus there then? If I see a huge benefit on this feature then I would certainly concede and simply discuss the details. But for now I haven't seen any explanation that endorse it. If a quality of life feature is going to be implemented then it must provide a huge difference on how we do things in a daily basis. For example, the extra slot for weapon tweaking like accuracy, recharge rate and so on is a huge difference. 

I fail to see where this may be beneficial for the greater good without seeing a potential abuse. It's hard to divorce one idea from the other. Yes, the feature is already there but I don't want power over other users or the opportunity to kick people out. I feel more comfortable with the idea of diplomacy even if that takes more steps in the process. 

IMO.  

 

 

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

2 hours ago, Invoky said:

The game is broken I agree. If the host want to troll his entire group he can already do so in the current game. The difference of adding the kick feature is that he can now target one specific player he doesn't like. For example, if the host had argument with that player during the mission.

Sure you can argue that host can already disband group and ruining 3 other players. But that's already in the game we cant' do anything about it. Honestly I rather DE spend time fixing host mitgation than adding the kick.

If you want to blame the broken game allow host to troll, sure but we aren't getting fix anytime soon. But OP is asking adding something on top of this.

 

Dude, that's not what he said. He said that the rewards are given to the players before they get back to the orbiter and that if that hasn't happened, then something went wrong. He didn't say "hurr durr game broken lulz".

Do you really grasp what can cause a host migration? One of the causes is that the host decides to leave and most of the time that leads to a successful host migration. Another cause is a catastrophic failure of the connection between the host and the client. That's no something DE can control, but they do try to help you get back to the group in the event that happens. Unfortunately "catastrophic failures" can also be because the host isn't able to connect to the Internet at all. When that happens, DE might not be able to access the record of what happened in the mission because they can’t connect to the host because their internet connection has suffered a catastrophic failure. Because sometimes that's what a catastrophic failure means. 

So how are they going to fix those? They going to come to your house and rewire the connection from you to the host, and give you each computers that will never crash, to make sure that you never suffer a host migration? Is that how you propose they fix it? 

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

52 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

It's easy to find pick up groups on anything but it's quite hard finding those groups on the things we want. Relics are easy but that;s like a pending. I have to write down an if else sentence so the list is filled with people interested on that particular task. Certainly this doesn't provide 100 percent accuracy. Some of the members may sleep off the goals or do something unexpected. I understand some of these frustrations. 

The system is not the best but at least I can tweak it for my goals knowing that such 'tweak' will turn into a time sink. When someone tries to throw off a mission I take the other road of making a new squad. Those cases are rare but they happen. No one likes such situations. I learned to live with pugs for a long while learning few facts about them. I have my quota of failed spy missions due to pug's wilderness. 

A rational solution is a poll. It doesn't say much but at least gives an indication. Not everybody writes down their opinion on these forums. My second post in this thread was given as an alternative to his point of view. Anything that gives power like kicking or vote kicking causes problems. 

It's inevitable. Do you know why? Human nature. 

In architecture we think about people using the space as it should when we design a program for a building. But our education forces us to think about people who will circumvent the purpose intended in our design. If we do not design for the exception then there will be accidents and of course negligence. 

If we focus on the people that is not going to abuse it, of course it would be a benefit. But with all honesty, and I don't want to weasel out the discussion, this game has far more important issues than just few seconds to save up in a transaction like squad selection. 

Why not focus there then? If I see a huge benefit on this feature then I would certainly concede and simply discuss the details. But for now I haven't seen any explanation that endorse it. If a quality of life feature is going to be implemented then it must provide a huge difference on how we do things in a daily basis. For example, the extra slot for weapon tweaking like accuracy, recharge rate and so on is a huge difference. 

I fail to see where this may be beneficial for the greater good without seeing a potential abuse. It's hard to divorce one idea from the other. Yes, the feature is already there but I don't want power over other users or the opportunity to kick people out. I feel more comfortable with the idea of diplomacy even if that takes more steps in the process. 

IMO.  

 

 

Abuse is inevitable and it's already happening, like you said, it's human nature.

If DE made decisions based on how people might abuse it then the game would suck.

If this were DE's #1 priority then we wouldn't even have squads, or the trade chat, or the helminth, or a bunch of other stuff that people abuse in the game all of the time. The argument that people might abuse this feature simply isn't a good enough, especially since it is already a feature which is abused constantly.

[Felsagger]

20 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

Abuse is inevitable and it's already happening, like you said, it's human nature.

That's why we build against those issues. Kicking doesn't help. No matter how we paint it, the issue is there. We can't evade it. 

 

20 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

If DE made decisions based on how people might abuse it then the game would suck.

That's why we have nerfs. 

 

20 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

If this were DE's #1 priority then we wouldn't even have squads, or the trade chat, or the helminth, or a bunch of other stuff that people abuse in the game all of the time.

 

Wait, DE is FULLY aware of the potential exploits in the game. They have a complete division searching for those 'cracks' in the game. The community in this forum is one of those vehicles. I don't want exploits because that trivialize the content on the game. 

20 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

 

The argument that people might abuse this feature simply isn't a good enough, especially since it is already a feature which is abused constantly.

 

Ok, let me try your logic. 

"Since there are abuses everywhere putting another feature with a potential abuse will NOT make any difference in the list of abuses." 

Gasp*

Lord.....

 

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

Ok, let me try your logic. 

"Since there are abuses everywhere putting another feature with a potential abuse will NOT make any difference in the list of abuses." 

Gasp*

Lord.....

Nope, not what I said.

I said that "kicking" being abusable is not a good enough argument against having it in the game.

It's like you said, DE nurfs, buffs, and patches things so that people don't cheat or break the game, but they don't just get rid of those features or prevent them from happening. They put them in the game, then adjust it from there.

DE already has features that can be abused, making "abuse" a poor argument against a feature's implementation into the game. A better argument would be whether or not DE can nerf or control a feature so that it is not used to cheat, but even this argument doesn't exactly apply in this case, because there is no way kicking could be used to cheat.

It's not like kicking someone from your squad is OP in any way, it can't be used as a loophole around the logic of the game, and it certainly can't be used to break the game in any way.

DE has plenty of things that are abused in the game, but they also control them in a way that prevents breaking or cheating the game. The question here is; How would this be used to break or cheat the game? The answer is that it can't. The only thing it can do is hurt someone's feelings, which is solved by making the alert message "squad disbanding" instead of "you just got kicked out of the squad".

So what's the harm? Discrimination against limbos? Well, since this happens anyway, I don't see what the big issue is. It's not like you're concerned that this feature may cause people to START kicking limbos out of their squad. What exactly is the downside of this feature? Because it seems like all of them were already there to begin with.

[Felsagger]

3 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

Nope, not what I said.

I said that "kicking" being abusable is not a good enough argument against having it in the game.

Then what constitute a good argument against having the 'kick option' in the game? 

3 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

It's like you said, DE nerfs, patches, and blocks things so that people don't cheat or break the game, but they don't just get rid of those features or prevent them from happening. They put them in the game, then adjust it from there.

Of course. But why do we need inevitable consequences as an example on something that is going to provide arguments and division between players? The demand of a kick button on the orbiter is improvisation. This is more of a caprice instead of a needed quality of life feature. 

If we make a list of priorities for DE, this one would be the last in the list, IMO. I rather ask for other features than just an eject key. Saving few seconds doesn't make any difference when there are loading times between doors and there are loading screens in the game that takes minutes.

I don't want to see power badly distributed. It caused issues on other games. We don't want to carry the cross here. Take a look to Destiny 1, Destiny 2, CoD lobbies, Fortnite lobbies. DE made a game that focuses on the community. That is what I understood throughout all these seven years. 

 

3 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

DE has features that can be abused, making "abuse" a poor argument against a feature's implementation into the game. A better argument would be whether or not DE can nerf or control a feature so that it is not used to cheat, but even this argument doesn't exactly apply in this case, because there is no way kicking could be used to cheat.

See? lol, Even you have a bit of struggle finding a good argument in favor or against kicking. 

I know. I'm talking by experience. I should not do that. Youtube has a lot of prime examples where vote kicking caused mountains of salt and salt mines. Eve is one of those games that is featured for such controversial disputes. 

Our society teaches us to evade potential problems. No one wants to visit the court. I prefer to talk with a psychologist than a lawyer. It's cheaper, faster and better. My philosophy, doesn't have to be the philosophy of other users here, is to prevent possible situations. 

3 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

 The question here is; How would this be used to break or cheat the game? The answer is that it can't. The only thing it can do is hurt someone's feelings, which is solved by making the alert message "squad disbanding" instead of "you just got kicked out of the squad".

Let me answer that one. 

The game will not be negatively affected with this feature at all. 

But here we are talking about people and how they feel when someone kicks them due to their low rank, the frame of their preference or their lack of knowledge on certain tasks. As you rightly say, this doesn't affect the game directly. But it adds a harsher atmosphere to new players. They have to go through all these situations in their ranking. 

DE has the philosophy of an inclusive game. Let me ask you this: Kicking is inclusive or exclusive? Does kicking helps to improve the environment between players or erode the environment between players? 

If we balance benefits versus detriments, people will point out detriments first. That's how our human mind works. 

3 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

So what's the harm? Discrimination against limbos? Well, since this happens anyway

 

That taints the reputation of a CHARACTER in the game. You will hear anecdotes of people saying "every time I bring a Limbo the team leader ditch me out off the group." . 

 

3 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

, I don't see what the big issue is.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Being+kicked+in+a+video+game

3 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

It's not like you're concerned that this feature may cause people to START kicking limbos out of their squad. What exactly is the downside of this feature? Because it seems like all of them were already there to begin with.

 

If we managed to fly seven years without this feature then why all of the sudden this becomes a priority? 

 

 

 

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

47 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Then what constitute a good argument against having the 'kick option' in the game? 

So far you have made 1 good argument against this feature, that argument was that it make players feel less than if they were kicked out of a squad. But than I suggested that the message be "squad disbanding", and you agreed. What happened? That was the one actual issue and we solved it!

 

47 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Let me answer that one. 

The game will not be negatively affected with this feature at all. 

But here we are talking about people and how they feel when someone kicks them due to their low rank, the frame of their preference or their lack of knowledge on certain tasks. As you rightly say, this doesn't affect the game directly. But it adds a harsher atmosphere to new players. They have to go through all these situations in their ranking. 

DE has the philosophy of an inclusive game. Let me ask you this: Kicking is inclusive or exclusive? Does kicking helps to improve the environment between players or erode the environment between players? 

If we balance benefits versus detriments, people will point out detriments first. That's how our human mind works. 

Again, WE ALREADY SOLVED THIS PROBLEM! Don't you remember when I told you that the message would be "squad disbanding" instead of "you just got kicked". We're going around in circles at this point. This specific issue has already been discussed and I was under the impression that we arrived at a mutually agreed upon solution. The person kicked would never even know they were kicked. They would either think there was a bad connection or that the host left.

 

47 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

This is more of a caprice instead of a needed quality of life feature. 

It's not needed, no one said it was. In fact "quality of life" implies that it is not needed. It is something meant to benefit players, but no, it isn't mandatory, which is why we've been able to go all this time without it.

 

47 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Of course. But why do we need inevitable consequences as an example on something that is going to provide arguments and division between players?

Gahh! *sigh* I'll just go ahead and repeat this again I guess.

We already solved this problem. This feature cannot cause division, or friction, or argument, or backlash if the recipient is not aware of it. To the person kicked it will seem like they lost connection or the host left because the message will say "squad disbanding" instead of "you just got kicked". Has anyone ever argued with you for leaving the game? If not then there shouldn't be any problems, because that is exactly what it will seem like.

 

47 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

See? lol, Even you have a bit of struggle finding a good argument in favor or against kicking. 

No, I have been pretty clear in each of my arguments. I keep repeating them over and over.

1)The recipient of being kicked would never be aware of it. They would think the host left because that is what the message will say. This prevents unnecessary conflict.

2)The host can only kick from the orbiter. This prevents people from being overly inconvenienced by a bad host.

3)People can already kick others out of their squad, it just takes longer the way it's set up right now.

4)The game already has features that are abused regularly, meaning we should not dismiss this feature just because people may abuse it.

5)This feature would have no effect on the game. It cannot be used to cheat or break the game, and therefore, the kind of abuse which it may entail would not prevent it from being put in the game (Although there wouldn't be very much abuse since the recipients would be completely unaware that they were kicked from the squad)

 

47 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

If we managed to fly seven years without this feature then why all of the sudden this becomes a priority? 

So? You can say that about literally everything, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. We managed to fly for years without the lightbulb or electricity before they were invented. Our ancestors survived just fine living in caves, you wanna go back to the stone age now?

And it's not "suddenly a priority", some people want this and think it's a good idea, others do not, that is why we are here.

Also, you should have explained what the point of that video is, or at least provided me with the min/sec that you wanted me to see. I'm not going to sit through 2 and a half minutes of video in the hopes that I will be able to guess what the point is.

[Felsagger]

1 hour ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

So far you have made 1 good argument against this feature, that argument was that it make players feel less than if they were kicked out of a squad. But than I suggested that the message be "squad disbanding", and you agreed. What happened? That was the one actual issue and we solved it!

I agree with the disband message but I do not agree with the kick option. Yes we solved the presentation but I'm not going to agree with a kick feature. That's my stance. I'll not change it. Besides If I'll change it that would be irresponsible on my behalf. 

Quote

 

Again, WE ALREADY SOLVED THIS PROBLEM! Don't you remember when I told you that the message would be "squad disbanding" instead of "you just got kicked". We're going around in circles at this point. This specific issue has already been discussed and I was under the impression that we arrived at a mutually agreed upon solution. The person kicked would never even know they were kicked. They would either think there was a bad connection or that the host left.

I don't have issues with that. 

The problem is very elementary in nature. We can't give that power to players. That decisions should be given by an algorithm that cleans out the PUGS keeping friends together. Other than that I'll oppose tenaciously the decision of adding a kick feature in the game. 

I can negotiate a feature that automatically disband players in the option menu. If the player selects this option every time a mission ends then the team gets disbanded automatically. This is my tone and preference working with the subject. Kicks are not welcomed on my book. 

Quote

 

It's not needed, no one said it was. In fact "quality of life" implies that it is not needed. It is something meant to benefit players, but no, it isn't mandatory, which is why we've been able to go all this time without it.

Then why all of the sudden we want a kick option in the first place? Caprice? Commodity? Speed? Hassle of dealing with strangers in a civilized way? Again I haven't seen a convincing argument on these lines. 

Quote

 No, I have been pretty clear in each of my arguments. I keep repeating them over and over.

1)The recipient of being kicked would never be aware of it. They would think the host left because that is what the message will say. This prevents unnecessary conflict.

2)The host can only kick from the orbiter. This prevents people from being overly inconvenienced by a bad host.

3)People can already kick others out of their squad, it just takes longer the way it's set up right now.

4)The game already has features that are abused regularly, meaning we should not dismiss this feature just because people may abuse it.

5)This feature would have no effect on the game. It cannot be used to cheat or break the game, and therefore, the kind of abuse which it may entail would not prevent it from being put in the game (Although there wouldn't be very much abuse since the recipients would be completely unaware that they were kicked from the squad)

I will hold my position on this thread. You have your reasons. I have mine. I will not support a kick option in this game. 

Quote

 Also, you should have explained what the point of that video is, or at least provided me with the min/sec that you wanted me to see. I'm not going to sit through 2 and a half minutes of video in the hopes that I will be able to guess what the point is.

The description is in the title. 

 

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

30 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

I agree with the disband message but I do not agree with the kick option. Yes we solved the presentation but I'm not going to agree with a kick feature. That's my stance. I'll not change it.

That's fine, I can respect that. You're entitled to have your own opinion, just like me or anybody else.

 

30 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Besides If I'll change it that would be irresponsible on my behalf. 

Why? I can understand believing something because it's your opinion, and I can understand not wanting to change it. But in what way is it irresponsible to change your opinion based on the words and evidence presented to you by someone else?

 

30 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

The problem is very elementary in nature. We can't give that power to players.

You cannot give someone power which they already have. Players already have the power to kick someone from their squad. All this feature would do is give people the power to do so more quickly.

 

30 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Then why all of the sudden we want a kick option in the first place? Caprice? Commodity? Speed? Hassle of dealing with strangers in a civilized way?

carprice: No

Commodity: Yes

Speed: Yes

Hassle of dealing with strangers in a civilized way: No

 

Haven't you ever wanted anything that you didn't need? Sometimes people want things that they can go without.

The people who want a kick option want it for speed and convenience. I would think that, even if you're opposed to the idea, that you could at least figure out why people may want it without someone having to explain it to you directly.

 

30 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Again I haven't seen a convincing argument on these lines. 

You haven't seen any convincing arguments. Really!?

You haven't given even a single one of my posts a second thought have you. At least I was decent enough to say that you made one solid argument, and I even offered up a solution in response. But you're telling me that NOT ONE of my arguments were convincing. That's not fair man... not fair.

 

30 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

I will hold my position on this thread. You have your reasons. I have mine. I will not support a kick option in this game. 

Fair enough.

 

30 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

The description is in the title. 

Oops, I missed that to be honest with you. Still don't get it though. Oh well.

[Felsagger]

1 hour ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

 Why? I can understand believing something because it's your opinion, and I can understand not wanting to change it. But in what way is it irresponsible to change your opinion based on the words and evidence presented to you by someone else?

 

The community is the north. Going against what makes the community special and unique is a detriment to what we stand for. The idea of such posture is that our community is distinguished by the rules we have, the moderation team, the norms and of course how we guide ourselves in the game. The north is cooperation, contribution and help. I always ask what does such option contributes other than another problem. 

People are free to do whatever they want, talk to whoever they want and of course think by themselves. But anything that turns into possible discrimination, abuse of power and of course food for possible segregation among players, I will be in complete opposition. Well, If Call of Duty runs with a kick option, that fine. The community accepted that carrying with the consequences. Here we have another way doing business. 

I got moderated few times. I never argued and I agree with what the moderation was. This is a community that cares for the health of the clients and how they treat each other. I agreed with that and I agreed with a civic behavior. Kicking will create more problems than just a saving of few seconds. If a petition is based on personal caprice and commodity, then such petition doesn't hold much ground for the whole community. 

 

Quote

 

You cannot give someone power which they already have. Players already have the power to kick someone from their squad. All this feature would do is give people the power to do so more quickly.

Such option doesn't exists now. 

I can break squads as a host but I can't kick people. 

 

Quote

 

carprice: No

Sorry but it's a caprice. It's impossible to flip that coin. 

Quote

Hassle of dealing with strangers in a civilized way: No

Sorry but that's not etiquette. 

Quote

Haven't you ever wanted anything that you didn't need? Sometimes people want things that they can go without.

I want a first person view in this game. Well, no one needs it but I wanted it. However DE said no, so I run with what the game is. 

Quote

The people who want a kick option want it for speed and convenience. I would think that, even if you're opposed to the idea, that you could at least figure out why people may want it without someone having to explain it to you directly.

I would like to believe you but is social awkwardness and caprice. Why? It doesn't improve or downgrade the game. I have options in my game that provides all those possibilities. 

I was hunting a Tusk thumper but the PUGs left the mission. I lost few minutes there. But it was my bad judgment. Then I played solo and achieved my goal. Hence that's why the game provides options. If there where no options about it then kicking would be one but we have other options. 

Quote

You haven't seen any convincing arguments. Really!?

Yep, 

Quote

You haven't given even a single one of my posts a second thought have you. At least I was decent enough to say that you made one solid argument, and I even offered up a solution in response. But you're telling me that NOT ONE of my arguments were convincing. That's not fair man... not fair.

I recognize that. You are honest. But when I speak I do it in general terms, I haven't seen an argument with reasonable weight that favors kicking over non kicking. 

Quote

Fair enough.

We have principles. Sometimes we agree sometimes we don't. I would be deeply worried if people agree with me all the time. And I would be very suspicious if people disagree with me all the time. 

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

Such option doesn't exists now. 

I can break squads as a host but I can't kick people. 

It does exist. You can kick people by breaking squads and reforming it. It's the same thing.

 

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

Sorry but it's a caprice. It's impossible to flip that coin. 

I actually looked up the word "carprice" in order to respond to this. I didn't know what it meant before. The internet says that carprice is "a sudden and unaccountable change of mood or behavior" and "A sudden, impulsive and seemingly unmotivated notion or action".

Unless this is not what you meant, you're wrong. This idea is not sudden nor of the blue as you suggest. It is not impulsive nor unmotivated. Someone had an idea for a feature because it has certain benefits, and so they made a thread about it. Many others also agree that this feature may have certain benefits. You and many others may not agree, and that's fine, but to say this idea is sudden and unmotivated is not an opinion, and it's not debatable, it's just wrong.

Clearly the people that want this to happen have their reasons, and to suggest otherwise is just unreasonable. In both the OP and many of the posts supporting it, the reasons are clearly stated.

In other words, no... it isn't carprice.

 

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

Sorry but that's not etiquette. 

This isn't about avoiding people, and it's not about the absence of manners. Warframe is a fairly fast pace game, so if there are ways to cut down on waiting unnecessarily or taking more steps in order to arrive at the same result, I believe it should at least be considered.

If it's peoples feelings that you're worried about, I have made suggestions which may prevent that, but clearly my suggestions are not valuable to you seeing as I have made no convincing arguments so far.

 

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

I would like to believe you but is social awkwardness and caprice.

I already told you why it isn't carprice, but I haven't heard a single person bring up social awkwardness on either side of the argument. The reason I haven't heard anyone bring this up is probably because it makes no sense. In what way are you being social when leaving a squad? and in what way are you being less social when kicking someone from your squad? Neither scenario requires any form of communication whatsoever.

 

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

Yep, 

At this point you're just being spiteful. I gotta say, for someone so against rudeness that was quite rude.

I haven't made any good arguments... unbelievable. I gave you some credit and got none in return... typical. What was it you said before? That's not very etiquette? Fancy words, but they don't mean anything. You talk about wanting people to be respectful but you don't have any respect for people.

[--K--Sharkfin]

This thread had stray too far away from the original topic, anyhow I am just passing by to drop my opinion on this "leave to regroup" = "kick random" action

As quote from Neil Sheppard

Quote

an architect has designed a very clear-cut path through the park above. The people making their way through the park are supposed to walk up to the right, where it’s labelled “design” and then turn left. Of course, it’s only human nature for people to cut across the grass. So many people have done it, in fact, that the grass has been worn away.

A smart designer would have predicted that park visitors would not have followed the path and would have designed the layout of the park so the paths followed the shortest distance between the entrances. Certainly, seeing the worn grass, a new path should be added to save muddy feet on rainy days.

In OP case:
Original Design = expected randoms to communicate or leave on their own if they don't share common goal. Or have a squad of friends only in the first place.
User experience = disband and regroup with friends to "kick" the random

Building a new path on the worn grass = create a kick system if the squad is in orbitor

Of course some might say this raise dissatisfaction as people don't like being "kicked". People pursue free-will and rights nowadays.  It would be much better if the message of being kicked is similar to disconnecting from host / squad disbanded to hide the original intention.

Furthermore, I believe disbanding in orbitor is the same as kicking teammates out, but with more steps if you want to regroup with friends. This "more steps" becomes tedious the more one does it, especially when one knows there could be an easier way.

I have seen worse in which people unplug the ethernet cable and disconnect everyone else during a mission while keeping themselves in it. 

[Noxifer]

I am saddened by all the nonsense displayed in this thread. Too much feelings, not enough actual examples from how things actually play out in-game.

OP suggested the option to remove players from the group before the mission has started, so he can have an easier time assembling a group as a party leader. It is a reasonable request.
A lot of people responded, as if he wants to kick people during the mission and grief them, possibly waste their time, cost them the reward and hurt their feelings. Those responses are inadequate to say the least.

 

People claim, that removing players from your party is somehow abusive. It isn't.
If I don't wanna play with a particular individual, for whatever reason, what I do as of current is, that I PM the other two, I leave the squad and I reinvite them.
The person left out is effectively kicked, regardless as to whether he realizes it or not. If he figures it out, he can feel abused all he wants, but in reality he really wasn't. They shouldn't have felt entitled to my time in the first place. Whatever feelings they experience in this case are based on them misinterpreting reality and their feeling of entitlement to someone else's time and not on them actually being abused.

 

You can effectively kick 3 people out of your party mid game already, during open world by leaving squad. You can say "but that's you leaving, you're not kicking them", but in reality when I am doing 98% of the damage, it's effectively me kicking them and severely reducing their chance to complete the mission, while I'm guaranteeing mine.
What's the problem, if you can remove one or two players while still on the orbiter and saving yourself and themselves the trouble? They can feel slightly abused, but in reality they wouldn't be. The alternative would be to proceed with them and actually end up abusing them and actually wasting their time, by causing them to fail and lose the reward for the specific mission.

 

[Swagernator22663]

Its 2020 almost 2021 having kick option in a party based game is a must, just DE is kinda ... slow.

[WindKitsune]

There is a kick option. The host leaving is basically them kicking themselves. In missions, they also kick everyone out since the game has to choose a new host and thus creating a new party.

[Liljeman]

As so many seems to dislike removing others here is another option:

Instead of removing undesired players from a squad I would suggest keeping desired players in the squad. Let me explain how it would work:

Player A and B is premade while player C and D are pubs, A in this case would be the host. Instead of A pressing button "kick C" and "kick D" player B would request to be a "sticky" player. Player A accepts and now A can press leave squad which would make A and B leave the squad and B automatically rejoin A. Both A and B can at anytime opt out of the sticky squad.

This would solve the issue of the host being able to target either C or D individually and C and D would automatically be put together as if the host and B left the squad individually.

Much faster for A and B to do 1 sticky squad per day instead of remaking a squad 10 times a day.

I also think this sticky system should be extended to other hubs like relays, dojo, Cetus, Fortuna, Deimos and future openworld towns not just the orbiter.

Abit out of context but would be nice if the sticky members also could freely move between hubs without disbanding the squad.

 

[KaliyoD]

Why are some people argumenting it is the same?

If you leave a team after a mission the rest still has the option to stay and do other missions. So you decide for yourself and not for everyone.

If you kick others to keep only one, those others are now insted forced to team up again if they want to play more missions, thus forcing others to regroup. Since there will probably no communication prior to a kick, kicked people won't be able to use group chat to reform.

If you want to regroup, then you need to do the work, that's how I see it.

 

[DeMonkey]

27 minutes ago, KaliyoD said:

Why are some people argumenting it is the same?

If you leave a team after a mission the rest still has the option to stay and do other missions. So you decide for yourself and not for everyone.

If you kick others to keep only one, those others are now insted forced to team up again if they want to play more missions, thus forcing others to regroup. Since there will probably no communication prior to a kick, kicked people won't be able to use group chat to reform.

If you want to regroup, then you need to do the work, that's how I see it.

 

If random player C actively wishes to continue playing with random player D, then there must have been some communication in the chat prior to the end of the mission to cause as such. Otherwise they are just randoms to one another, with plenty of other random fish in the sea to find by just starting their next mission, player D is the same as player E, F, G H and I if no one talks. I mean, no one will be so desperate to play with someone they haven't spoken to that they'll get upset about a squad disconnecting on them.

If they did make such an impression upon one another that they want to continue playing (which absolutely does happen) it's really easy to find them under the recent player list. Furthermore, in a mission in which players C and D are active in the chat, players A and B are far less likely to boot upon returning from the the mission.

What's that thing that Felsagger blathers on about, thinking it's contributing to the discussion? Communication, if you as player C want to team up with player D or the squad as a whole after the mission, then communicate that. Problem solved. Why would anyone assume that the players will stick around, and get upset when they don't? 

That doesn't make any sense.

[Aldain]

4 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Why would anyone assume that the players will stick around, and get upset when they don't? 

Because by and large most of the human race is stupid and can't properly communicate without some form of %&#* slinging?

[DeMonkey]

6 minutes ago, Aldain said:

Because by and large most of the human race is stupid and can't properly communicate without some form of %&#* slinging?

As a retail worker, can confirm.

[Aldain]

1 minute ago, DeMonkey said:

As a retail worker, can confirm.

My condolences.

[KaliyoD]

7 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

If random player C actively wishes to continue playing with random player D, then there must have been some communication in the chat prior to the end of the mission to cause as such. Otherwise they are just randoms to one another, with plenty of other random fish in the sea to find by just starting their next mission, player D is the same as player E, F, G H and I if no one talks. I mean, no one will be so desperate to play with someone they haven't spoken to that they'll get upset about a squad disconnecting on them.

If they did make such an impression upon one another that they want to continue playing (which absolutely does happen) it's really easy to find them under the recent player list. Furthermore, in a mission in which players C and D are active in the chat, players A and B are far less likely to boot upon returning from the the mission.

What's that thing that Felsagger blathers on about, thinking it's contributing to the discussion? Communication, if you as player C want to team up with player D or the squad as a whole after the mission, then communicate that. Problem solved. Why would anyone assume that the players will stick around, and get upset when they don't? 

That doesn't make any sense.

No, sometimes you just start another mission and others stay and join in, no communication needed. If they don't you can leave and start the mission anyway. It's even more likely that people start talking after doing multiple missions when they decide to stay and this works because the system doesn't immediately undermine the whole thing with a kick tool that only one player per squad would be able to use.

As the system is now it promotes playing more missions with your team, happens a lot for alerts and void relics. 

It's simply the positive version of a kick tool. It helps you to go on with a team without much hassle. So for example if you have four people and one is a newbie chances are high nobody minds the newbie tagging along as compared to having a kick feature that would probably get him kicked after each mission immediately.

Also if you do have a problem with a certain team member you can opt out of that team anytime but without disrupting others staying.

Seems to me a much more healthy solution than a kicking tool.

[Felsagger]

8 hours ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

It does exist. You can kick people by breaking squads and reforming it. It's the same thing.

It's disbanding. 

Disbanding: The complete team is disassembled. NO PRIVILEGE IS DICTATED BY THE HOST

Kicking: The host player retains fraction of the team. The full team is not dissolved but a member or members is/are ejected. AN ARBITRARY PRIVILEGE COULD BE DICTATED BY THE HOST

It's not the same thing. 

A privilege is the main problem even if the result is the same. The player becomes selective making distinctions of what he needs and what he disposes. This is the essence of a caprice. We should not educate towards a privilege. The right of privilege produces negative results in the individual and it focuses on a daily practice of egoism. The game provides all the tools for the player to carry everything alone. 

A community is respected when deal with privilege in an egregious way. A community is respected when puts privilege aside and think as a collective respecting differences and engagement with the game. This is how you make business and how you present yourself. This is how you engage other players. The idiocy of being judgmental has to end. It's a practice that becomes pernicious almost striving in arrogance and petulance. 

I can't favor dementia of this magnitude. Asking for this is silly. Such action teaches young kids be seclusive and selective in unfair ways. This is a way of applauding "It's all about me, me, me, me, me"

 

8 hours ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

 

I actually looked up the word "carprice" in order to respond to this. I didn't know what it meant before. The internet says that carprice is "a sudden and unaccountable change of mood or behavior" and "A sudden, impulsive and seemingly unmotivated notion or action".

Merrian Webster. 

Caprice: 

: a disposition to do things impulsive

example: a preference for democratic endeavor over authoritarian caprice

I understand and comprehend the language at this level of precision. Don't underestimate.

8 hours ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

Unless this is not what you meant, you're wrong.

Caprice: a disposition to do things impulsively. 

The privilege is a problem in our current society. Caprice and privilege 

8 hours ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

This idea is not sudden nor of the blue as you suggest. It is not impulsive nor unmotivated. Someone had an idea for a feature because it has certain benefits, and so they made a thread about it. Many others also agree that this feature may have certain benefits. You and many others may not agree, and that's fine, but to say this idea is sudden and unmotivated is not an opinion, and it's not debatable, it's just wrong.

The idea is rooted in caprice and privilege. The user doesn't need it. The user can play the game without being affected by this parameter since the game supply for solo, friends only and invites only. If the game exclude these features then we can incorporate options like the one you suggest. 

The benefits are only for the host but not for the rest of the team. It is a slow practice of egoism that fuels such idea. Why? Because it practice privilege. We assign privilege to members we like over members we don't like. We practice privilege arbitrary because we don't like certain characters or type of players. It's giving everything in a silver platter. 

 

If we choose to play public then we have to give our time to others. 

If we choose to play solo then we have to carry our own weight. 

If we choose to play with friends only we commit to certain tasks where friends agree. 

If we choose to play with invites only we commit to players who has certain commitment to the game and are focused on topics like meta. 

 

These choices exist because there is a discourse in this game. We choose our level of cooperation with certain compromises. The choice we are doing is giving the "right of privilege' to the player. This message tells the player that he can 'discriminate' between players open wide. Is this what we really want? 

8 hours ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

Clearly the people that want this to happen have their reasons, and to suggest otherwise is just unreasonable. In both the OP and many of the posts supporting it, the reasons are clearly stated.

Reasons that are based on his commodity. 

8 hours ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

In other words, no... it isn't carprice.

It is. 

8 hours ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

This isn't about avoiding people, and it's not about the absence of manners.

That's exactly what it is. 

8 hours ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

Warframe is a fairly fast pace game, so if there are ways to cut down on waiting unnecessarily or taking more steps in order to arrive at the same result, I believe it should at least be considered.

Then other topics like loading times, resets, reboots should be optimized. These has more priority over a kick feature in orbiter. 

8 hours ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

If it's peoples feelings that you're worried about, I have made suggestions which may prevent that, but clearly my suggestions are not valuable to you seeing as I have made no convincing arguments so far.

It's the wrong message this send to the player community. 

8 hours ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

 

I already told you why it isn't carprice, but I haven't heard a single person bring up social awkwardness on either side of the argument. The reason I haven't heard anyone bring this up is probably because it makes no sense.

Doesn't matter how many time you write it down. It's a caprice because it involves privilege and commodity. 

8 hours ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

In what way are you being social when leaving a squad? and in what way are you being less social when kicking someone from your squad? Neither scenario requires any form of communication whatsoever.

I say thank you for playing. 

I say, 'are you guys interested in doing anything in particular'. 

I say, 'any of you need help on anything'. 

 

DISPOSITION OF HELPING OTHERS. 

 

The kicking option turns other players into bothering and unwanted accidents when other players should be seen as opportunity to play and enjoy or even share a good moment. 

8 hours ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

At this point you're just being spiteful. I gotta say, for someone so against rudeness that was quite rude.

I am not going to concede a millimetre defending this. 

If you want to convince me, you have to think hard and work a true clever solution. 

8 hours ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

I haven't made any good arguments... unbelievable.

As I said, I was talking in general terms. I am being honest. 

8 hours ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

I gave you some credit and got none in return... typical. What was it you said before? That's not very etiquette? Fancy words, but they don't mean anything. You talk about wanting people to be respectful but you don't have any respect for people.

Hold your horses. 

Is it respectful to eject people for arbitrary reasons or caprice or your own privilege in a mission based on favoritism? 

 

 

BRUH, come on.