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

[Noxifer]

Seriously though, what's so offensive about "You've been removed from the group"?
I've been removed from groups, I never cried about it.

[DeMonkey]

9 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

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? 

You're forgetting one thing, the proposal pertains solely to someone and their friend playing a mission, and wishing to drop the random(s) at the end of it with less hassle.

In that regard, the OP will always be the host, because as far as I am aware you always start a new session when accompanied by a friend. Voting on squad "leader" is a tad ridiculous, because that implies privileges, something you previously had a rant about. No one is the leader, there is no reason to vote. The host (contextually) is playing with a friend and wishes to avoid having to reform a squad in the event that one of the randoms behaves... randomly.

1 minute ago, Noxifer said:

Seriously though, what's so offensive about "You've been removed from the group"?
I've been removed from groups, I never cried about it.

Milk drinkers.

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

7 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

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? 

I think it should be the first player, just like in regular random. That way no one can choose to host when starting a mission, but each of them go in anyway because of the posobility of hosting.

It's a coin toss basically. People go into a host kick mission because they hope to be the host, but they may just become a squad mate instead. People would go in because they want to be the host, but to do that they have to accept the possibility of being a squad mate instead. It's a bit of a gamble, but it's one people would be willing to take. This way, the incentive for regular random missions is that you wouldn't be at risk of being kicked, but you also won't have any benefits if you are the host. And the incentive for host kick missions is that you can kick people faster if you are the host, but you might just be the squad mate instead.

It works, I like it. Not bad.

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

18 minutes ago, Noxifer said:

Seriously though, what's so offensive about "You've been removed from the group"?
I've been removed from groups, I never cried about it.

It's ok if you don't get it.

All I'm saying is that this is what some people are saying, and if we change just this small detail then more people will be on board with it.

It doesn't seem like this change would matter so much to you so long as kicking is added to the game, so why fight it? This change may increase it's chances of being added to the game, isn't that what is really important at the end of the day?

Sure it doesn't seem like a big deal, but there are others who do see it as a big deal, and they aren't going to agree to kicking as it is now. We need to make this feature more appealing to people that don't agree with us, otherwise it's probably not going to happen.

Do you see what I'm getting at now? There are people that want it and people that don't. The best way to change minds is to see why they believe what they believe and take those grievances into account.

I'm trying to maximize support for this feature, isn't that something you want?

[Felsagger]

2 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

I think it should be the first player, just like in regular random. That way no one can choose to host when starting a mission, but each of them go in anyway because of the posobility of hosting.

It's a coin toss basically. People go into a host kick mission because they hope to be the host, but they may just become a squad mate instead. People would go in because they want to be the host, but to do that they have to accept the possibility of being a squad mate instead. It's a bit of a gamble, but it's one people would be willing to take. This way, the incentive for regular random missions is that you wouldn't be at risk of being kicked, but you also won't have any benefits if you are the host. And the incentive for host kick missions is that you can kick people faster if you are the host, but you might just be the squad mate instead.

It works, I like it. Not bad.

This is why I have a KNOT in my brain. 

A partial solution for this gamble is to let the player know if he is a squad leader or not during the formation of the squad. Those who joins later will know that such person in the squad is the leader. If this is indicated people will be more comprehensive with the proposed system. 

We are venturing in an interesting problem. 

I need to know how a random squad is formed and who will be the group leader. If the match making is done public then I suppose that there should not be a leader since the sorting was made randomly. That makes me think on how we are going to solve the problem of hierarchy for random squads. 

If we consider the scenario where the host calls in the squad then of course, kicking should be done ONLY on orbiter as the proponent of the thread suggests. Could happen after or before any mission. If the host recruits players in the recruit channel the rest of the team should know that if the player join that squad, such squad leader has those privileges. This makes a fair stance for those who joins the squad leader and a consideration for the time spent by the leader who made the squad.

All parts are aware of how things will work in that particular squad. If that is the case then I don't see issues since everybody agreed on this. If In that squad I joined accepting the terms with the host and get dumb of course I'll get the boot for being a dumb ass. For me is the concept is reasonable if I'm aware of what is going on. 

If this makes things faster, better. 

 

 

 

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

9 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

This is why I have a KNOT in my brain. 

A partial solution for this gamble is to let the player know if he is a squad leader or not during the formation of the squad. Those who joins later will know that such person in the squad is the leader. If this is indicated people will be more comprehensive with the proposed system. 

We are venturing in an interesting problem. 

I need to know how a random squad is formed and who will be the group leader. If the match making is done public then I suppose that there should not be a leader since the sorting was made randomly. That makes me think on how we are going to solve the problem of hierarchy for random squads. 

If we consider the scenario where the host calls in the squad then of course, kicking should be done ONLY on orbiter as the proponent of the thread suggests. Could happen after or before any mission. If the host recruits players in the recruit channel the rest of the team should know that if the player join that squad, such squad leader has those privileges. This makes a fair stance for those who joins the squad leader and a consideration for the time spent by the leader who made the squad.

All parts are aware of how things will work in that particular squad. If that is the case then I don't see issues since everybody agreed on this. If In that squad I joined accepting the terms with the host and get dumb of course I'll get the boot for being a dumb ass. For me is the concept is reasonable if I'm aware of what is going on. 

If this makes things faster, better. 

 

I think I understand the confusion. You're saying that people in host kicking mode will receive his/ her squad from people who started their mission in public mode, and prior to starting the mission they will be warned that they are joining a host that can kick them.

I am saying that they should be completely separate. There is public and there is host kicking mode.

Those who join a public mission do so because they don't want to get kicked, but they agree to the condition that, should they be the host, they won't be able to kick anyone.

Those who start a host kicking mission do so because they want to be able to kick people as the host, but by joining a host kicking mission they are accepting the fact that being the host is not guaranteed, so if they aren't the host like they hoped to be then they're just going to have to get over it.

This way, people that want kicking can have it, and people that don't won't.

[Felsagger]

26 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

You're forgetting one thing, the proposal pertains solely to someone and their friend playing a mission, and wishing to drop the random(s) at the end of it with less hassle.

I've seen this in Overwatch a lot. When players are friend it shows a tie or a link. It helps distinguish who is in a squad and who is random. When I join a squad of this sort, I'm aware that the leader can clean out randoms. The difference is that i'm aware of it if I'm the random in that squad. 

Can this generalized to random sorting? 

26 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

In that regard, the OP will always be the host, because as far as I am aware you always start a new session when accompanied by a friend. Voting on squad "leader" is a tad ridiculous, because that implies privileges, something you previously had a rant about.

If there is a way that let other randoms become aware of this then I have no issue, none. 

 

26 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

No one is the leader, there is no reason to vote. The host (contextually) is playing with a friend and wishes to avoid having to reform a squad in the event that one of the randoms behaves... randomly.

True. 

So in random searches, the proposal on this thread can't happen. Some other condition or design of the game should be proposed for it. 

 

[Felsagger]

17 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

I think I understand the confusion. You're saying that people in host kicking mode will receive his/ her squad from people who started their mission in public mode, and prior to starting the mission they will be warned that they are joining a host that can kick them.

Yes. They are aware of possible actions that the host can perform. 

That will entail a bit of more 'discipline' in that squad wish is a good thing. 

17 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

I am saying that they should be completely separate. There is public and there is host kicking mode.

True. Doesn't make sense mixing one with the other. It's a new mode but DeMonkey explained why could be redundant. 

17 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

Those who join a public mission do so because they don't want to get kicked, but they agree to the condition that, should they be the host, they won't be able to kick anyone.

Yes. 

17 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

Those who start a host kicking mission do so because they want to be able to kick people as the host, but by joining a host kicking mission they are accepting the fact that being the host is not guaranteed, so if they aren't the host like they hoped to be then they're just going to have to get over it.

This way, people that want kicking can have it, and people that don't won't.

Now we are drawing a good layout of the problem. People are aware of those searches and once the squad is formed they will know if the squad was formed completely public or host public. 

If the host forms the squad he inherently has the feature to kick before or after the mission. The host committed time forming the squad. It's fair for his investment. He doesn't want trolls or people who are dishonest in his squad. Perfectly fair. 

[Cleesus]

Locking to clean the thread

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

Ummmm... What happened to all the comments that just got posted?

This isn't just me right? A bunch of people posted comments in this thread today, including me, and they all appear to be gone now.

[(PSN)isbergen]

On 2020-09-25 at 10:32 PM, (PS4)SouthSideSwanga said:

That’s why it would be limited to just the orbiter. 

Multi-stage sortie. Someone is using Limbo (or Frost) and you have a good chance of that person getting kicked after the first stage because there are apparently a lot of toxic idiots that hate others for using a frame that they don't like.