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

[Felsagger]

3 minutes ago, (PS4)SouthSideSwanga said:

I did provide proof.
 

 

FALSE 

 

I haven't seen a single proof showing otherwise. I haven't seen an argument explaining why this mechanism is convenient. I haven't seen a coherent discussion other than a caprice for your own commodity. 

 

 

[Felsagger]

10 hours ago, (PS4)Madurai-Prime said:

The proof requires you to have a modicum of honesty with yourself and realize people on the internet can do bad things if given the opportunity.....would you right here and right now, say that is not true? It sounds like you're simply saying "everything will be fine" as a blanket reasoning but that's not enough. 

I played a game with a kick feature and it was shortly given a 3 hour cooldown per person. Would you be ok with a 2 to 5 hour timer on your kick?

You have just been repeating yourself saying "I don't think anything bad will happen" with no proof yourself at all. You want the kick feature only to apply in the orbiter....but most matches are queued publicly so you just randomly go into the mission. So if you're making a group from the orbiter....You're already making a premade group....so you control who is invited anyway. If you ran a public match....and like usual ended up in your orbiter afterwards...I'm guessing this is where you would want the kick feature? Maybe a guy was afk so you want to kick him and redo the mission? Well you've now just made another premade and now you can simply turn on "invite only" so you don't get anymore pugs in your group that you may be forced to kick. 

Maybe you can help provide some other scenarios where an orbiter-only kick would be needed? Besides after public missions....only you control who is in your group inside the orbiter so would be your personal responsibility at work.

 

 

 

WELL SAID. 

[(PSN)SouthSideSwanga]

9 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

FALSE 

 

I haven't seen a single proof showing otherwise. I haven't seen an argument explaining why this mechanism is convenient. I haven't seen a coherent discussion other than a caprice for your own commodity. 

 

 

My proof is the similarity between disbanding and kicking,which you agreed are the same, and no one complains about that being abused. 
 

It’s convenient because it allows me to get rid of people I don’t want without having to disband the squad and invite people back. 

[Godmode_Ash]

On 2020-09-26 at 4:36 AM, Yamazuki said:

OP clearly is talking about kicking after+before missions, yet everyone else responds as if op asks to kick mid mission, op even clearly states their intention later, and same thing.

Clearly people aren't reading.

There's nothing wrong with kicking in orbiter. Inviting people doesn't even prevent issues, and honestly, this is where kicking is most useful. Having the host leave to re-invite because of one person is honestly silly.

 

4 hours ago, Yagamilight123 said:

I started to get annoying of people not even understanding what this thread is about :S .... this suggesting is only for planed parties/groups .... not for public .....  and as a host that ask people in recruitment tab IT IS YOUR GAME/GROUP . How people are gonna get kicked in the orbiter in a public game if you dont even know if you are gonna be the host and you dont have even time to see who is in the party ?.... nobody said that the host can kick people once in the mission .

No, we get what OP is talking about. But like others said, we don't need any form of kicking at all. Let me cover some scenarios so maybe you will understand.

 

1) Kicking during mission: Absolute not. Imaging someone stayed 20 minutes for rotation C then get kick right before that.

2) Kicking before mission in obiter(public mode): No, a public game shouldn't have any rule to be force upon. People will abuse the kick or troll with it. Go read 2nd page, the first post I made in this thread.

3) Kicking after mission in obiter(public mode): If someone is AFK, so you can't continue the game or you need to fill the group with your friend, why not just reform?

4) Kicking in invite only or friend/clan mode: Why do you need to kick? They are people you know, just coordinate better.

5) Kicking in a premade group (recruitment): If someone joined your group and pretend to meet your rules/requirement. This is the only situation that kicking is justified. However, the kicking can't not be implement because the public game is not separate between "premade" and "random" group. Give the power to kick in premade group is the same as give the power to kick in random group(scenario 2). If you see idiots like those relic key-share leeches, just disband the group and reform.

 

There is no reason to add the kicking feature, it will only cause more harm than saving a few seconds of convenience of reforming the group.

 

 

[Felsagger]

3 minutes ago, (PS4)SouthSideSwanga said:

My proof is the similarity between disbanding and kicking,which you agreed are the same, and no one complains about that being abused. 
 

It’s convenient because it allows me to get rid of people I don’t want without having to disband the squad and invite people back. 

Sorry but.....

 

You have no proof. 

 

 

[twilightfallen]

it can be just as toxic and abusive so no to this D:

[HelloItIsIJimbles]

I mean, it would be nice to help reduce some of the host migrations.

I just play with a full party or 3 out of 4 so one of us is host, if the 4th member who is a rando doesn't queue up we just force the mission. Not my problem they didnt pick a relic or leave.

[EvilChaosKnight]

To all the anti-kick people, here's a question. Why is it completely fine for a single player in a group to pick a mission and force-start it?

Sure, you could potentially stop it by counter-voting before the timer is out, but nevertheless, it is a possibility that one person may control what the entire group is going to do. Even moreso, in case of 3 people pub squad, I believe a 4th person may be but in the squad by matchmaking as the timer goes down, and then even counter-voting won't save ya (2vs2). Also non-pubs only get 5 seconds lol.

So, if one person who's not even the host can pick and choose what missions everyone's gonna play, why is it bad to give the host the option to pick and choose the squad they want? Nobody's talking about mid-mission kicks, only the Orbiter part.

Another situation. You are playing pub, and you really like your group. Happened to me before. But then 1 out of 3 leaves for whatever reason if any. Instead of them, here comes an incompetent rando who kills synth targets/runs off and ruins spawns/team hampers/you name it. How do I deal with this? If I just disband, the other 2 likely won't rejoin even if invited. I guess I could PM each one of them to make a new squad, and then reform, but chances are... we might not even have a common language. EU servers btw.
And so 1 bad rando ruins a nice cooperative team. Yay.

But what can you expect from pubs, right? Sure, it's better to give tools to one party to hamper the entire squad and call it a day, than to even out the odds and give the host options to deal with it in some way.

[Acersecomic]

4 hours ago, Brosef42 said:

You didn't read the post dude. If you did. You would understand how that wouldn't be possible during a mission and why that already happens before and after missions already. With groups being forced to disband while forming if people don't bring what's required. I'm surprise you people don't think the Leave party is bad because people might feel offended that people leave when they join with their meme build. 

Then a group will disband, less abuse.

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

3 hours ago, (PS4)SouthSideSwanga said:

My proof is the similarity between disbanding and kicking,which you agreed are the same, and no one complains about that being abused. 
 

It’s convenient because it allows me to get rid of people I don’t want without having to disband the squad and invite people back. 

Clicking a few buttons or names isn't an inconvenience at all.....you are aware you're pressing multiple buttons at a much faster rate inside an actual mission, right? 

And it would also be convenient for you to simply get a 3rd and/or 4th person. 

If you seriously want to get 1 buddy to spam relics......you might as well get 2 more people so you don't even have to kick anyone repeatedly after each mission.....Your group of 4 can simply queue mission after mission with no issues at all. This is called a "premade". 

[Brosef42]

7 hours ago, Felsagger said:

I showed what that can possibly cause. 

The conception of kicking is a detriment to the community because it separates and create grudges between players. If the player selects carefully their friends then none of this happens. Yes there are people with mental impairments, there are people with brain wiring that renders impairment on the get go. We may select people who are not schizophrenic, people with Asperger or people with borderline personality disorder. 

Ableism is a reality in our society such as racism, discrimination and of course segregation. Yes we have the right to choose our friends but hurting them with our actions is way too far. I can be polite and we should be polite with people who are less fortunate with their biology and intelligence. We should not treat them like useless animals or clueless beasts. Kicking accentuate those issues exponentially. 

On the other hand you have the people who miss behave or simply act immature. Kicking fuels them to retaliate and cause more drama within the game. It will generate a tone of gossip, back stabbing and tons of arguments eroding the atmosphere of the game. This happened before in Destiny 1. I've seen this all the time. we've seen this in Law of Retribution and Jordas' Verdict. 

We can't applaud or empower people with such responsibilities. The best diplomatic solution is to simply disengage breaking the squad and reassembling it again with the people who are interested doing the task. May this should as a remedy? No. We are being polite with our action. It's a signature of how we do things here. I took my moderation and suspensions but taught me well. I took my random bans on the chat for using key words. What we achieved during such process? 

 

DISCIPLINE.  

However people who are in control of these feature may cause more problems than solutions. Discrimination, racism and bulling is one of those consequences. Remember, nobody is perfect, nobody is a saint and nobody has the whole truth. However giving these features to players erodes even more the community. 

 

 

Problem with such description and logistics:

a. You select your friends previously in a full squad or friends invites. So there are no 'seats' for random players. If you want full squads you need four friends committed to one goal. Can't fill the squad? Deal with what you have in the mission. You can play solo or work with a team of two or three. 

b. If one of your friends went south after the mission you simply break the squad and form again the team who is interested in the task at hand. If you select a random then you have to deal with the random. Simple. How you evade that? Invites only or friends only. Simple. 

c. Plan ahead means that you have to not deal with randoms who becomes insolent or deal with strangers who exercise their #$&(% bag gene. You don't need the vote kick, you don't need kicking at all. We went throughout seven years without that options. Why we need it now? Caprice? 

 

Sorry but I'm going blunt here. The original poster is draining himself in a glass of water with a stupid simple problem like this. 

 

No you people are ridiculous. You are telling me that we can't have a votekick because of possible abuse. In that case. Remove Squad chat. People can be racist to each other and say discriminate words towards others. People can make death threats and make people scared for their lives. Even commit suicide because hurt feelings. It's possible. I mean look at facebook. People have hurt themselves because of words. Also remove the ability to leave squad. People shouldn't have to worry that people may leave if they join. Also remove private messages. I can't tell you how many people I've blocked because of harassment. It's possible. This is all possible. So we need to remove it because of possible toxicity. 

This how you sound.

I have trust in the players and don't believe we should have something removed because of possible abuse. 

[Felsagger]

1 hour ago, Brosef42 said:

No you people are ridiculous.

 

Because we don't want toxicity? 

 

 

1 hour ago, Brosef42 said:

You are telling me that we can't have a votekick because of possible abuse.

 

Because you think that is not going to happen or very unlikely to happen? 

 

1 hour ago, Brosef42 said:

 

In that case. Remove Squad chat. People can be racist to each other and say discriminate words towards others. People can make death threats and make people scared for their lives.

 

So is harder for you to evade instead of remedy? 

 

1 hour ago, Brosef42 said:

Even commit suicide because hurt feelings. It's possible.

 

Do we want more tools that accentuate this? 

 

1 hour ago, Brosef42 said:

I mean look at facebook. People have hurt themselves because of words. Also remove the ability to leave squad. People shouldn't have to worry that people may leave if they join. Also remove private messages. I can't tell you how many people I've blocked because of harassment. It's possible. This is all possible. So we need to remove it because of possible toxicity. 

 

 

But we are talking about a game that has options for such cases, why we need vote kick? 

 

1 hour ago, Brosef42 said:

This how you sound.

 

 

No, that's how you sound because those ARE your words. 

 

1 hour ago, Brosef42 said:

I have trust in the players and don't believe we should have something removed because of possible abuse. 

 

How can we remove something that doesn't exist? 

Hint: Kicking and vote kicking are not implemented in this game and of course we don't want that crap in here. 

[Brosef42]

58 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Do we want more tools that accentuate this? 

Of course it can happen but, even DE understands that you can't remove something just because it might be abused or we wouldn't have Voice, Team, region, and private chat. People are banned everyday because of abuse. It happens everyday. Yet DE understands its worth the risk because the game benefits more that it does from the risk. 

 

[Godmode_Ash]

2 hours ago, Brosef42 said:

No you people are ridiculous. You are telling me that we can't have a votekick because of possible abuse. In that case. Remove Squad chat. People can be racist to each other and say discriminate words towards others. People can make death threats and make people scared for their lives. Even commit suicide because hurt feelings. It's possible. I mean look at facebook. People have hurt themselves because of words. Also remove the ability to leave squad. People shouldn't have to worry that people may leave if they join. Also remove private messages. I can't tell you how many people I've blocked because of harassment. It's possible. This is all possible. So we need to remove it because of possible toxicity. 

This how you sound.

I have trust in the players and don't believe we should have something removed because of possible abuse. 

 

18 minutes ago, Brosef42 said:

Wow. How do you even cross the road. With the possibility to get ran over. Of course it can happen but, even DE understands that you can't remove something just because it might be abused or we wouldn't have Voice, Team, region, and private chat. People are banned everyday because of abuse. It happens everyday. Yet DE understands its worth the risk because the game benefits more that it does from the risk. 

 

You really sound like arguing for the sake of argument at this point. You see how crazy this thread is before the kick is even implementing? Yea, try tell me it's not going to be chaotic or toxic after it is actually implemented.

Yes, chat can be abuse but we need it. It is the only communication we have in game, and the voice chat doesn't work. So we have no alternation. On the other hand kicking is non-essential, we have been doing fine for years without it. The feature will only cause more harm than saving a few seconds of convenience of reforming the group.

Not sure why you bring up crossing street, it doesn't fit the narrative here.

 

[Godmode_Ash]

6 hours ago, EvilChaosKnight said:

To all the anti-kick people, here's a question. Why is it completely fine for a single player in a group to pick a mission and force-start it?

Sure, you could potentially stop it by counter-voting before the timer is out, but nevertheless, it is a possibility that one person may control what the entire group is going to do. Even moreso, in case of 3 people pub squad, I believe a 4th person may be but in the squad by matchmaking as the timer goes down, and then even counter-voting won't save ya (2vs2). Also non-pubs only get 5 seconds lol.

So, if one person who's not even the host can pick and choose what missions everyone's gonna play, why is it bad to give the host the option to pick and choose the squad they want? Nobody's talking about mid-mission kicks, only the Orbiter part.

Another situation. You are playing pub, and you really like your group. Happened to me before. But then 1 out of 3 leaves for whatever reason if any. Instead of them, here comes an incompetent rando who kills synth targets/runs off and ruins spawns/team hampers/you name it. How do I deal with this? If I just disband, the other 2 likely won't rejoin even if invited. I guess I could PM each one of them to make a new squad, and then reform, but chances are... we might not even have a common language. EU servers btw.
And so 1 bad rando ruins a nice cooperative team. Yay.

But what can you expect from pubs, right? Sure, it's better to give tools to one party to hamper the entire squad and call it a day, than to even out the odds and give the host options to deal with it in some way.

Since you post on this thread I assuming you read my post? People need to reply to others on their point or this conversation is going no where.

From what I gather from your post, you want kick feature because it saves you a few seconds of reforming if someone force start the game, and you want to have the power to decide who plays at your game. Am I correct?

This is the third time I am explaining the same scenario. Noone seem to be reading so here I will go again:

A random game in public mode shouldn't have any restricting or rules. If we give host or anyone in the squad the power to kick, the game will become toxic. Too many people are too full of themselves thinking they should decide how other play or equip their setup. There are also trolls who like to make the other people miserable. It's an internet game people like to poke the others.

If you are talking about recruitment where you make your own group. You also can't have kick even if the squadmates doesn't meet your recruit requirement. Because there is no separate game mode for recruit game or random game. Both are under public game category. If DE give kick to recruited squad, it can be abuse in random game too.

We been fine without kicks for years, the worst we get is few seconds of rejoin group inconvenience.

 

[Brosef42]

31 minutes ago, Invoky said:

 

You really sound like arguing for the sake of argument at this point. You see how crazy this thread is before the kick is even implementing? Yea, try tell me it's not going to be chaotic or toxic after it is actually implemented.

Yes, chat can be abuse but we need it. It is the only communication we have in game, and the voice chat doesn't work. So we have no alternation. On the other hand kicking is non-essential, we have been doing fine for years without it. The feature will only cause more harm than saving a few seconds of convenience of reforming the group.

Not sure why you bring up crossing street, it doesn't fit the narrative here.

 

At this point I would have to agree it would be chaotic if this is the response we get. Also yeah the road didn't really fit. So I removed it. Should of thought that out more before responding while heated. Sorry Felsagger

[ALIONATED]

Because the Mods are not coders, Coders cost money. - Ascii Coder
 

[Mephane]

Better solution, a add a new matchmaking mode. Not sure how to call it, maybe "semi-open", but basically it does perform matchmaking as if set to public, but after the mission removes everone from the squad who wasn't originally not part of it before queueing up for a mission, if you were alone, you would effectively leave the squad automatically, if you were in a 2-3 player squad with friends, it would automatically be back to those friends only.

[Felsagger]

5 minutes ago, Mephane said:

Better solution, a add a new matchmaking mode. Not sure how to call it, maybe "semi-open", but basically it does perform matchmaking as if set to public, but after the mission removes everone from the squad who wasn't originally not part of it before queueing up for a mission, if you were alone, you would effectively leave the squad automatically, if you were in a 2-3 player squad with friends, it would automatically be back to those friends only.

A SOLUTION. 

 

A good one. 

[(PSN)GingyGreen]

1 hour ago, Invoky said:

A random game in public mode shouldn't have any restricting or rules. If we give host or anyone in the squad the power to kick, the game will become toxic. Too many people are too full of themselves thinking they should decide how other play or equip their setup. There are also trolls who like to make the other people miserable. It's an internet game people like to poke the others.

If you are talking about recruitment where you make your own group. You also can't have kick even if the squadmates doesn't meet your recruit requirement. Because there is no separate game mode for recruit game or random game. Both are under public game category. If DE give kick to recruited squad, it can be abuse in random game too.

We been fine without kicks for years, the worst we get is few seconds of rejoin group inconvenience.

And if those people are so "toxic" as you claim, then don't play with them and join another game. Do you really want to play with someone who is supposedly so "toxic"? Because the reverse is even worse. Worst case scenario you have 3 people toxic to 1 player and kick them. Just join a less toxic group. But now the game is stuck in scenarios with it's one toxic jackass screwing over 3 other players and being an inconvenience to them.

 

"Just leave and remake the game" is such a stupid suggestion that doesn't even bandaid the problems with this game. Unless DE decides to implement a filter so that only people fitting certain parameters, like something other than a working non-mote amp for Tridolons, filter out Limbo's or Banshees for hosts who don't want to put up with them, etc. Kicking is the only solution.

 

This isn't even getting to the more egregious cases that tends to happen mid-mission. An idiot who decides to start trolling during the Hydrolyst phase, a troll who took control of the Railjack and start blowing all resources and committing suicide, etc. Unless you're the type who does those things, there aren't a lot of reasons to be opposed to kicking.

[Felsagger]

32 minutes ago, (PS4)GingyGreen said:

And if those people are so "toxic" as you claim, then don't play with them and join another game. Do you really want to play with someone who is supposedly so "toxic"? Because the reverse is even worse. Worst case scenario you have 3 people toxic to 1 player and kick them. Just join a less toxic group. But now the game is stuck in scenarios with it's one toxic jackass screwing over 3 other players and being an inconvenience to them.

 

"Just leave and remake the game" is such a stupid suggestion that doesn't even bandaid the problems with this game. Unless DE decides to implement a filter so that only people fitting certain parameters, like something other than a working non-mote amp for Tridolons, filter out Limbo's or Banshees for hosts who don't want to put up with them, etc. Kicking is the only solution.

 

This isn't even getting to the more egregious cases that tends to happen mid-mission. An idiot who decides to start trolling during the Hydrolyst phase, a troll who took control of the Railjack and start blowing all resources and committing suicide, etc. Unless you're the type who does those things, there aren't a lot of reasons to be opposed to kicking.

 

Mephane solved the problem. There is no need for a kick option. 

 

 

 

[(PSN)SouthSideSwanga]

11 hours ago, Invoky said:

No, we get what OP is talking about.

I disagree because people keep bringing up irrelevant points they wouldn’t be bringing up if they got what I was talking about. 

[(PSN)SouthSideSwanga]

11 hours ago, Felsagger said:

You have no proof. 

I provided an example that currently exists in the game and that it doesn’t cause problems. It’s not conclusive proof, but it’s better than any proof from the people who disagree. 

[(PSN)SouthSideSwanga]

1 hour ago, Mephane said:

Better solution, a add a new matchmaking mode. Not sure how to call it, maybe "semi-open", but basically it does perform matchmaking as if set to public, but after the mission removes everone from the squad who wasn't originally not part of it before queueing up for a mission, if you were alone, you would effectively leave the squad automatically, if you were in a 2-3 player squad with friends, it would automatically be back to those friends only.

I said basically that same thing in the post. 

[(PSN)Yggranya]

15 minutes ago, (PS4)SouthSideSwanga said:

I provided an example that currently exists in the game and that it doesn’t cause problems. It’s not conclusive proof, but it’s better than any proof from the people who disagree. 

They simply don't want anyone having the ability to kick, because they know it would be used against them for good reason. You could ask what they do to have a reason to fear that, but i doubt they will tell you.

My guess is, they do everything in their power to make sure nobody else can take part in the mission, and they know people would actually like to play the game. They will counter with the usual "people thank me when i make it boring for everyone!" but that is just BS. As always, arguing with these... people is pointless.