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

[DeMonkey]

1 minute ago, KaliyoD said:

No, sometimes you just start another mission and others stay and join in, no communication needed.

This requires the whole squad to stay together really. In the current system, if half the squad leave (reforming the squad) and you're left with one other person you've not spoken to, 9 times out of 10 you're just going to leave as well.

Technically that's 19 times out of 20 it will happen, because it's a 9 out of 10 chance the other guy leaves as well.

This is also only applicable in situations where it's 2 friends, 2 randoms. In any situation in which it's 3 friends and 1 random, it's moot. Reforming is the same as kicking.

9 minutes ago, KaliyoD said:

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

I'm not sure why people's ability to "mind" would be affected by ease of removal. OP's already given a list of reasons they'd actually remove someone, being a new player is not one of them.

8 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

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

The privilege when disbanding is in the form of the invite given out, as dictated by the host.

You can make your words as bold and as colourful as you want, you can use whatever high sounding vocabulary you like, but as I said, bombast doesn't help make your point.

It reads like a deliberate attempt to sound better than everyone else rather than educated usage.

[Felsagger]

6 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

 The privilege when disbanding is in the form of the invite given out, as dictated by the host.

Wrong. 

You are pairing different circumstances. The privilege happens once the mission is finished. The player selects and ejects.

a. If the host player invites then he has the privilege to select with who stays and who disposes. 

b. If the host player receives a pick up group randomly then such privilege is lost since the pro bono is given to him adding other players. 

 

Not the same thing. 

6 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

You can make your words as bold and as colourful as you want

There are ideas behind the presentation. 

6 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

, you can use whatever high sounding vocabulary you like, but as I said, bombast doesn't help make your point.

Your perception. 

6 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

It reads like a deliberate attempt to sound better than everyone else rather than educated usage.

Your attitude. 

 

Go get a coffee. 

[Murox]

So stuff like people cherrypicking people with wanted relics in pub fissures won't happen.

[Fl_3]

I didn't read the whole thread, but just because of the sheer amount of times that I've been sat in a squad waiting for that one afk player to click ready, I'm all for this.

Would it be open to abuse by trolls? Yes, but the utility of not being forced to have to wait for someone who can't be bothered to tell you that they have to go afk for a while is worth way more than having to disband and reform your group so you can actually get on with playing the game.

Just for the record, I have no problem with people going afk for a few minutes as long as they are polite enough to tell the group they're leaving, and maybe apologise for making them wait when they get back? 

It's called "Good Manners" some people apparently don't believe in them.

[Noxifer]

52 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

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.

@Felsagger
Wow. Who died and made you a philosopher? Do you even understand half the terms you're using?

52 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

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

No. What you've only done is, that you've spewed a word salad of nonsense. You're basically saying, that players don't need the qualify of live improvement of being able to assemble a group faster by having the ability to remove players from the group (basically a kick function, which is nothing new in games)... and you haven't provided any relevant in-game examples as to why being able to kick while on the orbiter is a problem, but instead you've thrown a bunch of epithets as "proof".

If I am assembling a group for Tridolon, we're 3 and we need someone to play Trinity, I then write in chat "H Tridolon 3/4, need Trinity". When someone joins and 2 minutes later he still haven't swapped to Trinity, but then proceeds to argue, that we should let him stay with us anyways, I should have the option to remove him, instead of having to disband the group and reinvite the other two members after he's already wasted some of our time.
And no, it doesn't make me "privileged", "disrespectful", an "egoist", "capricious" or whatever other nonsense you have in your vocabulary.
If anything, the 4th person is disrespectful for wasting the time of 3 others and fully deserves a kick.

That's not to say, that I am not willing to make a compromise sometimes and help someone out, but that usually comes down to whether or not the person is honest from the start, and also if he communicates coherently.

52 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

The kicking option turns other players into bothering and unwanted accidents when other players should be seen as opportunity to play and enjoy

Other players will be seen the way they present themselves, regardless of how you think they should be seen.
And, to tell you the truth, it would do some good to certain inconsiderate players, if they see "you've been removed/kicked from the group" from time to time... and the more often it happens, the more they'll have to think as to why it's happening... and eventually they'll have to realize, that they should learn to act accordingly when dealing with other people, because clearly no one in their lives have bothered to teach them some manners.

52 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

I am not going to concede a millimetre defending this.

The fact, that you don't admit you're wrong despite plenty of people pointing it out and you deliberately ignored any and all specifics... this speaks volumes about you...
but feel free to think everyone else is "privileged" or "capricious", whatever makes you sleep at night...

[DeMonkey]

22 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

If the host player receives a pick up group randomly then such privilege is lost since the pro bono is given to him adding other players. 

This doesn't make any sense.

I'm glad you agreed with me with point a though. The host does indeed have "privileges" when handing out invites, that's what I said.

22 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Your perception. 

My perception, correct.

I have perceived a staggering amount of futile arguments you have gotten into, where you're repeatedly told you're wrong now matter how bombastic and colourful your vocabulary becomes.

I have perceived it not helping your point, and thus I have stated as such.

22 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Your attitude.

No, that's also what I have perceived as well. Someone wanting desperately to sound better than everyone else, to the point where their excessive use of bombast renders the meaning of their sentences almost indiscernible. I quoted one such sentence on a previous page.

"The element of exclusion is the trigger that detonates discomfort". This sentence is utter nonsense, especially given the context. No one speaks like that.

Your sentence structure does not utilise such a high sounding vocabulary regularly, you tend to switch to it part way through an argument, therefore it is a conscious decision on your part to do so, thus intent. English is clearly not your first language, your attempts to impress importance on your points with fancier words inevitably hurts whatever point you're making, quite simply because you're just not very good at doing it.

Again, I have indeed perceived this. I could continue to ridicule the way you speak, but I felt it would come across better if I were to explain to you where you're going wrong.

[Felsagger]

3 minutes ago, Noxifer said:

@Felsagger
Wow. Who died and made you a philosopher? Do you even understand half the terms you're using?

Yes. 

3 minutes ago, Noxifer said:

No. What you've only done, is that you've spewed a word salad of nonsense.

 

Classical armchair accusation. 

Let us work with the argument. 

3 minutes ago, Noxifer said:

 

You basically say, that players don't need the qualify of live improvement of being able to assemble a group faster by having the ability to remove players from the group (basically a kick function, which is nothing new in games)... and you haven't provided any relevant in-game examples as to why being able to kick while on the orbiter is a problem.

 

If the player assembles the group he has the privilege to decide who stays and who leaves. 

If the player picks up a group randomly he doesn't have the privilege to dump out other players. He gained a benefit that was given to him randomly. 

   

 

3 minutes ago, Noxifer said:

If I am assembling a group for Tridolon, we're 3 and we need someone to play Trinity, I then write in chat "H Tridolon 3/4, need Trinity", then someone joins and 2 minutes later he still haven't swapped to Trinity, but then proceeds to argue, that we should let him stay with us anyways, I should have the option to remove him, instead of having to disband the group and reinvite the other two members.

 

That is conditional play. Yes the player has the privilege to dump out a useless trinity if he forms the team. 

 

That is my role in Tridolon hunting. I ask first what standards the team are searching. If they say 5x3 then that demands precision. If I can't provide what they want. I simply don't join. 

True. 

3 minutes ago, Noxifer said:

And no, it doesn't make me "privileged", "disrespectful", an "egoist", "capricious" or whatever other nonsense you have in your vocabulary.
If anything, the 4th person is disrespectful for wasting the time of 3 others and fully deserves a kick.

 

This is the reason why you plan ahead with people who can provide what you want. You have to agree with terms on how the grinding will be made. 

 

If the player can't compete or attain the degree expected then you switch to another capable player. Perfectly reasonable. 

 

3 minutes ago, Noxifer said:

That's not to say, that I am not willing to make a compromise sometimes and help someone out, but that usually comes down to whether or not the person is honest from the start, and also if he communicates coherently.

 

True. 

I can't disagree with this. 

3 minutes ago, Noxifer said:

Other players will be seen the way they present themselves, regardless of how you think they should be seen.

True. 

Actions speaks louder than words. If your player shows a degree of competence playing then his word has weight. If people present themselves with attributes they don't have then that is dishonesty. 

I can't disagree with this. 

3 minutes ago, Noxifer said:

And, to tell you the truth, it would do some good to certain inconsiderate players, if they see "you've been removed/kicked from the group" so that they learn to act accordingly when dealing with other people...

True. 

All what you said up to this point makes perfect sense. I'm not sarcastic. 

Keep in mind that you are selecting a team and they are providing a 'service' or cooperation on what you expect. If they agree then they need to fulfill what they promised. Otherwise it's called under delivery. 

If I can't keep up with the load I don't like to make the team lose time on my weak playing. I have to increase my standard and be sure that I'm ready to make the goal at the speed the team wants. 

This is why I select my friends when we do Eidolon hutns. I say first, this is a casual run, this is a run for fun or this is a farming run with a goal in mind. Then we agree on the terms as a team we established. 

3 minutes ago, Noxifer said:

The fact, that you don't admit you're wrong despite plenty of people pointing it out and you deliberately ignored any and all specifics...

I'm not discarding what people say. I'm dealing with the presented argument that the thread shows and how such petition is presented. 

I could be wrong, I could be right. This is why we have the forums. We see how viable an option like this benefit or impact the community. 

3 minutes ago, Noxifer said:

this speaks volumes about you...

If I allow something that can cause potential damage to the community then you can make the call for sure. 

Without the slightest hesitation. 

3 minutes ago, Noxifer said:

but feel free to think everyone else is "privileged" or "capricious", whatever makes you sleep at night...

I was very specific with the idea of privilege. 

There are conditions like in a flow chart. 

[Felsagger]

16 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

This doesn't make any sense.

Yes to you. 

16 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

I'm glad you agreed with me with point a though. The host does indeed have "privileges" when handing out invites, that's what I said.

Then we are on the same page on such concept. 

If what you say makes sense and logic why should I oppose your suggestions. 

16 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

My perception, correct.

No one disagrees with that. 

16 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

I have perceived a staggering amount of futile arguments you have gotten into, where you're repeatedly told you're wrong now matter how bombastic and colourful your vocabulary becomes.

I'm not interested on what you think about my assessment or how you perceive other users here. The discussion and debate is the argument if the kicking option is a benefit or detriment.

 

16 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

I have perceived it not helping your point, and thus I have stated as such.

Your perception. Perfectly valid. 

16 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

No, that's also what I have perceived as well. Someone wanting desperately to sound better than everyone else, to the point where their excessive use of bombast renders the meaning of their sentences almost indiscernible. I quoted one such sentence on a previous page.

How can I sound better than anyone else?

I am defending my point. If there are reasons that are valid I will recognize them like everybody else. 

 

Don't judge.  

16 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

"The element of exclusion is the trigger that detonates discomfort". This sentence is utter nonsense, especially given the context. No one speaks like that.

Again your perfection. 

In simple words. Excluding other people causes problems. Privilege is problematic. 

16 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Your sentence structure does not utilise such a high sounding vocabulary regularly, you tend to switch to it part way through an argument, therefore it is a conscious decision on your part to do so, thus intent. English is clearly not your first language, your attempts to impress importance on your points with fancier words inevitably hurts whatever point you're making, quite simply because you're just not very good at doing it.

Typical. 

I don't tell you how to paint in your canvas. 

 

If I want your advice I'll ask for it. Thank you. 

16 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Again, I have indeed perceived this. I could continue to ridicule the way you speak, but I felt it would come across better if I were to explain to you where you're going wrong.

That's how you choose to present yourself. 

I'll be brief here: I think that kicking players that previously helped you in a mission that was given randomly is wrong. 

Disbanding is way better. 

Have a nice day sir. 

[Liljeman]

Is it possible to salvage this thread still?

OP gave a problem he had, offered some of his ideas for solution. It is very much possible to create a solution to somebody elses problem, even if you don't see it as a problem yourself. Why not give him a solution you think would work instead of over and over trying to prove why something would or wouldn't work.

[Swagernator22663]

I hope i'm not too privileged to play this game.

[Swagernator22663]

 

2 minutes ago, Liljeman said:

Is it possible to salvage this thread still?

OP gave a problem he had, offered some of his ideas for solution. It is very much possible to create a solution to somebody elses problem, even if you don't see it as a problem yourself. Why not give him a solution you think would work instead of over and over trying to prove why something would or wouldn't work.

Because we have pseudo intellectuals in the community.

[Felsagger]

3 minutes ago, Swagernator22663 said:

I hope i'm not too privileged to play this game.

Sorry, wait, you have all the privilege in the world to play this game the way you see fit. 

 

But man, kicking people when they helped you do a mission...it feels bad, IMO. 

[KaliyoD]

1 hour ago, DeMonkey said:

This requires the whole squad to stay together really. In the current system, if half the squad leave (reforming the squad) and you're left with one other person you've not spoken to, 9 times out of 10 you're just going to leave as well.

Technically that's 19 times out of 20 it will happen, because it's a 9 out of 10 chance the other guy leaves as well.

This is also only applicable in situations where it's 2 friends, 2 randoms. In any situation in which it's 3 friends and 1 random, it's moot. Reforming is the same as kicking.

I'm not sure why people's ability to "mind" would be affected by ease of removal. OP's already given a list of reasons they'd actually remove someone, being a new player is not one of them.

The privilege when disbanding is in the form of the invite given out, as dictated by the host.

You can make your words as bold and as colourful as you want, you can use whatever high sounding vocabulary you like, but as I said, bombast doesn't help make your point.

It reads like a deliberate attempt to sound better than everyone else rather than educated usage.

Now you are just projecting your behaviour on others to support your position.

If I were to speculate about numbers I would say having four solo players is what most random missions consist of, so the whole scenario your kick problem is revolving around is just a niche case. Now add to that the cases where players leave immediately and you also don't need to regroup.

As for your point about three players regrouping being kicking. You do realize that changing the system does change it for all team compositions and not just for 3+1 squads? So yes it does make a difference if you implement a kick system because it affects everyone not just your own tiny bubble.

 

[Noxifer]

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

All what you said up to this point makes perfect sense. I'm not sarcastic.

Thank you. It's a rare thing to read on an online forum.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

I'm dealing with the presented argument

 

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

If I allow something that can cause potential damage to the community then you can make the call for sure

OK, can you provide a hypothetical scenario, in which host being given the ability to remove players from the group while still on the orbiter causes damage to the community?

And also, can you explain how that would be different compared to the current situation, in which the player disbands and re-invites only the players he wants, while one or two are left out, effectively kicked?

Finally, do you assume, that most members of the community are so stupid, that every time a party disbands while still on the orbiter, especially after there's been some exchange and the party suddenly disbands, they are always like "Oh, maybe the Host lost connection, or his game crashed, or had emergency IRL" and they never think "hey, I just got kicked"?

[DeMonkey]

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

your perfection

I think you'll find that that's supposed to be, "you're", and thank you.

Whether you choose to acknowledge or even understand what I said is up to you, I care very little. Your post does nothing to change how I view you, nor does it present your argument as anything less than the biased overreaction to a singular word that you've presented for 10 pages now.

Eventually you'll get it, no one really cares how you feel about the word "kick" Felsagger. Objecting to quality of life changes because of your fee fees is not a good look, nor a rational argument.

34 minutes ago, KaliyoD said:

If I were to speculate about numbers I would say having four solo players is what most random missions consist of

Which is completely moot then, read the thread. If a solo host returns to the Orbiter and doesn't want to be with his team he'll just disband. Are you suggesting that instead of clicking on the "leave squad" button, they might instead opt to click "kick" 3 times to boot all 3 members.

The sole purpose of this proposal is to make things faster, not to waste more time.

36 minutes ago, KaliyoD said:

You do realize that changing the system does change it for all team compositions and not just for 3+1 squads?

Yes, given I stated as such in the post you quoted. Where I pointed out your supposed "issue" was only relevant in a 2 on 2 group, and irrelevant in a 3 on 1 group. I think that shows awareness of groups other than 3 on 1, does it not?

Come on...

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

2 hours ago, Noxifer said:

And, to tell you the truth, it would do some good to certain inconsiderate players, if they see "you've been removed/kicked from the group" from time to time... and the more often it happens, the more they'll have to think as to why it's happening... and eventually they'll have to realize, that they should learn to act accordingly when dealing with other people, because clearly no one in their lives have bothered to teach them some manners.

I agree with pretty much everything else you said in this post, but I would like to clarify one thing.

I don't think it would say "you've been kicked". One argument against this feature has been that it would hurt peoples feelings and create division in the warframe community, which is a valid argument in my opinion. So, as a solution I proposed that maybe the message popup for the recipient of getting kicked should be "squad disbanding" instead of "you just got kicked". And so far the response to that solution has been generally positive. This way we have the kicking feature, and the person that gets kicked usually has no idea. They'll just assume that either the connection was lost or the host left.

[Felsagger]

37 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

I think you'll find that that's supposed to be, "you're", and thank you.

It was 'your' not 'you are.'

37 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Whether you choose to acknowledge or even understand what I said is up to you, I care very little. Your post does nothing to change how I view you, nor does it present your argument as anything less than the biased overreaction to a singular word that you've presented for 10 pages now.

Eventually you'll get it, no one really cares how you feel about the word "kick" Felsagger. Objecting to quality of life changes because of your fee fees is not a good look, nor a rational argument.

Which is completely moot then, read the thread. If a solo host returns to the Orbiter and doesn't want to be with his team he'll just disband. Are you suggesting that instead of clicking on the "leave squad" button, they might instead opt to click "kick" 3 times to boot all 3 members.

The sole purpose of this proposal is to make things faster, not to waste more time.

Yes, given I stated as such in the post you quoted. Where I pointed out your supposed "issue" was only relevant in a 2 on 2 group, and irrelevant in a 3 on 1 group. I think that shows awareness of groups other than 3 on 1, does it not?

Come on...

 

I understand what you are trying to say. I'm aware but try to see the other side of the fence. The other players are human. The other players will live in this eternal limbo of not knowing why they are thrown away. 

I could be wrong, maybe I'm wrong of course, but somehow some gratitude should be shown. DE gave me a game free to play that worth a lot when the experience is shared with other players. I can't see other players as dead weight or a nuisance. I chose playing with public random players. If something happens it runs on my decision not on them. 

This is how I see it. Kicking is way too rude....IMO. 

[Noxifer]

11 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

One argument against this feature has been that it would hurt peoples feelings and create division in the warframe community

What division? For there to be division, there have to be two sides. Which would be the two sides?
Those in favor of kicking, and those in favor of people being forced to play with them?!
Because in reality, people are already being kicked, one way or another.
 

14 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

I don't think it should say "you've been kicked".

I don't insist on the game letting the other person know he's been kicked, but I would really like the option to remove players instead of having to disband entire party.
It would definitely be more honest though, more so than the current iteration anyways.

16 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

So, as a solution I proposed that maybe the message popup for the recipient of getting kicked should be "squad disbanding" instead of "you just got kicked". And so far the response to that solution has been generally positive. This way we have the kicking feature, and the person that gets kicked usually has no idea. They'll just assume that either the connection was lost or the host left.

 

1 hour ago, Noxifer said:

do you assume, that most members of the community are so stupid, that every time a party disbands while still on the orbiter, especially after there's been some exchange and the party suddenly disbands, they are always like "Oh, maybe the Host lost connection, or his game crashed, or had emergency IRL" and they never think "hey, I just got kicked"?

Also, imagine the following scenario: some insufferable individual plays Warframe, people often remove him, either with the current system (by disbanding the party and reinviting without him) or with the new hypothetical system (where he gets kicked, but the game doesn't tell him he was kicked).
If that happens too often and the person is not smart enough to figure out, that he's being kicked, guess what he's going to do.
He's gonna think the game is broken and the party disbands all the time... instead of the interface giving him an indication, that maybe it's up to him to change his ways and all of a sudden the party is not going to "randomly disband" as often.

[DeMonkey]

12 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

The other players will live in this eternal limbo of not knowing why they are thrown away

Don't be so melodramatic.

Also no, because it's no different to the host reforming. Exact same outcome, host migrations and empty lobbies. If you have a problem with this, I suggest creating a feedback thread about how the ability to reform a group without someone is rude. In fact, after 11 pages of voicing this problem, I really would hope you actually care enough about it to create said thread, because if you don't it looks like you're just being unbelievably contrarian for the sake of it, and not because you actually care about your argument.

Please provide a link when posted.

[Felsagger]

12 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Don't be so melodramatic.

Don't be so insensitive. :P

12 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Also no, because it's no different to the host reforming. Exact same outcome, host migrations and empty lobbies. If you have a problem with this, I suggest creating a feedback thread about how the ability to reform a group without someone is rude. In fact, after 11 pages of voicing this problem, I really would hope you actually care enough about it to create said thread, because if you don't it looks like you're just being unbelievably contrarian for the sake of it, and not because you actually care about your argument.

Please provide a link when posted.

The proposal should be done by the original poster of this thread. He is the one who is making the suggestion of adding kicking from the orbiter. In here we express our opinion on the matter. We here give our input on what we think. 

If he thinks that such idea could fly. We will help him reform it so it provides the service that he is seeking. That initiative should be started by him. 

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

36 minutes ago, Noxifer said:

What division? For there to be division, there have to be two sides. Which would be the two sides?
Those in favor of kicking, and those in favor of people being forced to play with them?!
Because in reality, people are already being kicked, one way or another.

Yeah, I know people are already getting kicked. That has been one of my reoccurring arguments in favor of putting kicking in the game. But in order to get this feature in the game we need to account for other people that may have different opinions than we do, otherwise this is pointless. We aren't going to get anywhere if both sides of the argument keep bickering without taking a second to consider the other's point of view.

That's essentially what I was trying to do. Someone said that it would be rude to the person getting kicked, and for that reason it may promote unnecessary conflict. Sure you may not see this as a problem, and frankly neither do I, but I am still able to see where they're coming from.

In order for this feature to be put in the game it needs to gain as much support from players as possible. And I think this is the best way to accommodate as many people as possible.

I think this is how it has to be.

 

36 minutes ago, Noxifer said:

Also, imagine the following scenario: some insufferable individual plays Warframe, people often remove him, either with the current system (by disbanding the party and reinviting without him) or with the new hypothetical system (where he gets kicked, but the game doesn't tell him he was kicked).
If that happens too often and the person is not smart enough to figure out, that he's being kicked, guess what he's going to do.
He's gonna think the game is broken and the party disbands all the time... instead of the interface giving him an indication, that maybe it's up to him to change his ways and all of a sudden the party is not going to "randomly disband" as often.

I see what you're getting at. You want annoying people to be aware that they are getting kicked as a result of their own behavior. You don't want them to think it's happening to them rather than because of them.

Well I think this is a sacrifice we're going to have to make. I'm sure they'll figure it out eventually though. They would probably wonder why it is happening so frequently and turn to the internet for answers. I'm sure they'll be plenty of threads explaining that if you're squad disbands constantly, it's probably because you're getting kicked.

 

Another argument could be made for people that are getting kicked unfairly. I've heard that sometimes people are kicked from squads because they have an extremely rare/ exclusive accessory/ glyph which is no longer available. I guess sometimes other players get jealous and disband out of spite. There are of course other reasons why a person might get kicked from a squad unjustly, but I won't get into all of them right now.

Anyway, another argument can be made that people who are kicked from squads unfairly would have no idea why it keeps happening to them, and that they have a right to know that they are getting kicked. Otherwise they would assume it is just bad luck, or a broken game, or terrible internet. They may even leave the game as a result. But again, there would no doubt be threads online explaining what is going on, and I imagine that most players would check the internet before quitting warframe forever. But I imagine that most people wouldn't get kicked THAT often, especially when the host is unprovoked, so it will probably be fine for the most part.

[DeMonkey]

23 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

The proposal should be done by the original poster of this thread. He is the one who is making the suggestion of adding kicking from the orbiter. In here we express our opinion on the matter. We here give our input on what we think. 

If he thinks that such idea could fly. We will help him reform it so it provides the service that he is seeking. That initiative should be started by him. 

So we've moved onto pedantry? Is that all you have left to offer?

OP's thread is a proposal. It's in the wrong place, as are a substantial number of other threads, but it's a proposal nonetheless by virtue of proposing an idea.

You have showed your hand, you have nothing more to contribute but melodrama and pedantry.

[Felsagger]

13 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

Yeah, I know people are already getting kicked. That has been one of my reoccurring arguments in favor of putting kicking in the game. But in order to get this feature in the game we need to account for other people that may have different opinions than we do, otherwise this is pointless. We aren't going to get anywhere if both sides of the argument keep bickering without taking a second to consider the other's point of view.

That's essentially what I was trying to do. Someone said that it would be rude to the person getting kicked, and for that reason it may promote unnecessary conflict. Sure you may not see this as a problem, and frankly neither do I, but I am still able to see where they're coming from.

In order for this feature to be put in the game it needs to gain as much support from players as possible. And I think this is the best way to accommodate as many people as possible.

I think this is how it has to be.

 

I see what you're getting at. You want annoying people to be aware that they are getting kicked as a result of their own behavior. You don't want them to think it's happening to them rather than because of them.

Well I think this is a sacrifice we're going to have to make. I'm sure they'll figure it out eventually though. They would probably wonder why it is happening so frequently and turn to the internet for answers. I'm sure they'll be plenty of threads explaining that if you're squad disbands constantly, it's probably because you're getting kicked.

 

Another argument could be made for people that are getting kicked unfairly. I've heard that sometimes people are kicked from squads because they have an extremely rare/ exclusive accessory/ glyph which is no longer available. I guess sometimes other players get jealous and disband out of spite. There are of course other reasons why a person might get kicked from a squad unjustly, but I won't get into all of them right now.

Anyway, another argument can be made that people who are kicked from squads unfairly would have no idea why it keeps happening to them, and that they have a right to know that they are getting kicked. Otherwise they would assume it is just bad luck, or a broken game, or terrible internet. They may even leave the game as a result. But again, there would no doubt be threads online explaining what is going on, and I imagine that most players would check the internet before quitting warframe forever. But I imagine that most people wouldn't get kicked THAT often, especially when the host is unprovoked, so it will probably be fine for the most part.

Ok, let us put an end with a solution on this "dilemma". 

 

In the option menu there are options of invite only, friends only, solo or public. We propose a new option. 

In the option menu we add another option with a short explanation that says Host Public where the host CAN kick players in the orbiter. 

In that option there will be an explanation, a symbol, or Icon telling the other players that the host leader of the team has this power. People who joins randomly will be aware of this feature. 

Public will be displayed in one color and Host Public will be displayed in another color. This indicates that the team assembled randomly by the host can be selectively disbanded. In my screen I'll see a symbol or any indication that the host can select players. If the rest of the random team knows and accept the condition then there is no issue since everybody is aware. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Felsagger]

1 minute ago, DeMonkey said:

So we've moved onto pedantry? Is that all you have left to offer?

OP's thread is a proposal. It's in the wrong place, as are a substantial number of other threads, but it's a proposal nonetheless by virtue of proposing an idea.

You have showed your hand, you have nothing more to contribute but melodrama and pedantry.

A possible solution is provided in the previous post I made. 

 

I try to solve it making a difference between public and host-public. When a host makes a host public search the rest of the team who joins randomly in the selection knows that the host has the authority to kick players off the squad. If the rest of the players who joined knows this then there are no issues since everybody knows what is going on. 

But I think it is more technical than that. 

1. Who is the host when I join a public lobby and I join another game? Is it the first that enters the game, for example, the first who starts Hydron? 

2. Can players vote on who will be the squad leader after the mission finishes? 

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

2 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Ok, let us put an end with a solution on this "dilemma". 

 

In the option menu there are options of invite only, friends only, solo or public. We propose a new option. 

In the option menu we add another option with a short explanation that says Host Public where the host CAN kick players in the orbiter. 

In that option there will be an explanation, a symbol, or Icon telling the other players that the host leader of the team has this power. People who joins randomly will be aware of this feature. 

Public will be displayed in one color and Host Public will be displayed in another color. This indicates that the team assembled randomly by the host can be selectively disbanded. In my screen I'll see a symbol or any indication that the host can select players. If the rest of the random team knows and accept the condition then there is no issue since everybody is aware. 

Really? I'm not against this solution, I'm just surprised.

This is all that needs to be added for you to approve? Just make a separate mode for host kicking and make sure the squad always knows about it. That's really all you need to get on board? Man... I've just been trying way to hard haven't I.

I don't see how this solves the problem though. Pretty much everybody would play on this mode, like all the time. I could see it working though. So long as there are no guarantees of being the host.

People would start missions on "host kick random", hoping to become the host, but if they don't then they knew what they were signing up for from the beginning, no no biggie. You might become the host and have the ability to kick people, or you might become a squad member that can be kicked, I can definitely see people flipping that coin. Then everybody else will just do the regular random because they don't want to get kick anyone/ get kicked.

This works, I'm on board with it.