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

[(PSN)SouthSideSwanga]

18 minutes ago, Invoky said:

You forgot only people care about certain topic would comment on something. Some people might be against it just didn't care to make voice it out until it actually effects them.

No I didn’t forget. I know this isn’t an actual reflection of what all Warframe players think, which is why I didn’t say things like “we do want this”. 

[Felsagger]

6 minutes ago, (PS4)SouthSideSwanga said:

No I didn’t forget. I know this isn’t an actual reflection of what all Warframe players think, which is why I didn’t say things like “we do want this”. 

 

If you go with the idea of "something should be made" about those unwanted start missions done by PUGS then such conversation would be focused on the problem. When you mention the word 'kick' that causes problems because the word is tainted. 

If you show your proposition with a different tone excluding that word then the discussion would be along the lines of how we can save time with the nuisance of unexpected starts done by PUGS and how to clean out PUGS while staying with friends. 

I am reasonable on those terms but the term kick causes issues, abuses and of course can become a potential problem. 

[DeMonkey]

18 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

I agree with the OP

I notice that you're on console as well, and many people disagreeing with the OP are PC players.

I suspect a large part of this "it's fine the way it is" mentality is PC players have a much easier time using UI systems. The mouse is far more controllable than a joystick, a keyboard is far faster than... a joystick. 

16 minutes ago, Invoky said:

So basically you are just coming up with excuse of "this could possibility..."

Are you for real? That's literally all you've provided as counter arguments, "the game could possibly get more toxic", "we could possibly lose out on rewards from the host kicking us". I'm honestly quite flabbergasted that you'd have the gall to criticise me for this, when that's all you've had to offer so far.

Not to mention that I actually went out of my way to test one of those possibilities, and found it to be accurate. You appear to have ignored that however, how convenient.

16 minutes ago, Invoky said:

We were opposing the idea of "kick" in the current game. Because adding it would cause more harm then good.

Therefore you were opposing an idea that was never presented, by your own admission. OP's suggestion is harm free, you were arguing against something you imagined.

What's the term, discussed it recently, ah yes, "Tilting at windmills", or put simply, "attacking an imaginary enemy". You imagined the thread to be something it isn't, and have vehemently opposed something the thread is not.

You have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that the OP's suggestion will actually cause harm.

16 minutes ago, Invoky said:

I clearly stated in several post that OP's issue is only a few seconds of reforming inconvenience.

And why is wanting to shave off a few seconds a problem for you?

16 minutes ago, Invoky said:

You clearly proved my point by suggesting we need a completely rework on end mission reward to implement that feature.

No, I didn't, you just seem to have real difficulty understanding posts.

Re-read what I said, I didn't suggest reworking the reward structure in the slightest, I theorised over how the reward structure currently works, tested how it currently works and used the result to disprove your "maybe this would happen" made up counter argument. That is so completely different to "suggesting a rework" that I have actual concerns.

Please start actually reading posts, because you look like a fool if you don't.

14 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Sorry, I can't contain my human condition. 

Many of the rest of us seem to be quite capable. Regardless however, being human is understandable, not accepting that you misunderstood a thread and stubbornly sticking to "It's OP's fault I overreacted" is not that understandable. You've had plenty of opportunities to recognise the misunderstanding, apologise for overreacting and address the thread topic , instead you've told the OP to shut up and move on on page 6. That's not the behaviour of someone "just being human", that's a very different sort of behaviour.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[rpgfiend]

PC player in favor of a kick option.

[Felsagger]

24 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

 

Many of the rest of us seem to be quite capable. Regardless however, being human is understandable, not accepting that you misunderstood a thread and stubbornly sticking to "It's OP's fault I overreacted" is not that understandable.

 

 

Problem. That is not the case since the presentation caused the issue. I can concede if I where the only one with such 'confusion'. However there is none. You have to read the thread first and then judge later. If you choose to do pro bono as a lawyer, pick the right case that sustain substantial evidence. :p

I'm not judging any player or fighting against any user here. I'm struggling the idea of why kick when there are other alternatives in the game. It is not me who went 'stubborn sticking to it' in this thread. I simply worked with the information the OP provided. 

 

Quote

You've had plenty of opportunities to recognise the misunderstanding, apologise for overreacting and address the thread topic , instead you've told the OP to shut up and move on on page 6. That's not the behaviour of someone "just being human", that's a very different sort of behaviour.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't have to because this is not the case. You forgot to read the thread.  Come on, quit pulling the leg, mang...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

31 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

If you go with the idea of "something should be made" about those unwanted start missions done by PUGS then such conversation would be focused on the problem. When you mention the word 'kick' that causes problems because the word is tainted. 

If you show your proposition with a different tone excluding that word then the discussion would be along the lines of how we can save time with the nuisance of unexpected starts done by PUGS and how to clean out PUGS while staying with friends. 

I am reasonable on those terms but the term kick causes issues, abuses and of course can become a potential problem. 

Really? The negative connotations of the word "Kick" is what you've decided to focus on? Is there some sort of tragedy or trauma associated with it? Because otherwise I don't see how this is at all relevant. I myself couldn't think of a better word to describe it, and that is almost always the word people use, so why should the word be treated any differently in this case?

I hope that this is not the reason for the negative reactions to the idea, because frankly, a detail like that is so insignificant and technical that I wouldn't even call it an argument. It's more like a feeling or thought you decided to share. Everybody else providing their reasons for liking or hating the idea and you say "I don't like the way he said "Kick", it hurts my feelings". You know, if the word usage ever became an actual problem, DE could always change the name. This is just the idea, the OP is trying to explain his idea in a way that everyone will understand, so of course he would say "kick"... it's a word everyone understands. Bringing up the name's negative implications is something you do later in the process.

[DeMonkey]

1 minute ago, Felsagger said:

Problem. That is not the case since the presentation caused the issue.

You caused the issue.

Do you want to know the correct way to go about resolving your problem?

"Hey OP, I see what you're trying to say but I take issue with your usage of the word kick". If they want to change the term, they will, if they don't it shouldn't be any sweat off your brow and you simply leave the thread.

Instead you have whinged and moaned and even insulted the OP for 7 pages now. We are so far beyond the "problem" being the title that it's ridiculous you would suggest as such.

7 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

You forgot to read the thread. 

Ironic, coming from someone who only read the title.

[Felsagger]

19 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

Really? The negative connotations of the word "Kick" is what you've decided to focus on? Is there some sort of tragedy or trauma associated with it? Because otherwise I don't see how this is at all relevant. I myself couldn't think of a better word to describe it, and that is almost always the word people use, so why should the word be treated any differently in this case?

The ONLY alternative to solve a problem is what caused me a brain convulsion. 

 

The problem is not the word kick alone. It is what follows if such idea is carried out. I've seen drama because of it in Destiny, Destiny 2, Overwatch, Counter Strike, etc. The pandemic of authorizing someone over others causes issues and problems. Games are not a job and should never be. It's entertainment. 

Pulling the leg for one small issue is almost questionable because if such where the case then why this never where addressed seven years ago? I have to deal with it. You have to deal with it. Everybody has to deal with it somehow but looks like the problem became invisible for seven years. 

If we are going to add a constructive criticism to what should be a solution, such solution must retain players instead of causing possible disputes. Kicking is an ingredient that is tainted with abuse, trolling and even bullying. Of course 'weapons' are not responsible of the misuse but players are. However if we provide those tools at some point such option can become a trigger for a situation. 

See? 

Quote

I hope that this is not the reason for the negative reactions to the idea, because frankly, a detail like that is so insignificant and technical that I wouldn't even call it an argument. It's more like a feeling or thought you decided to share.

It's more than that. 

Do we want a community more hostile or a community more interested in dialogue instead of diatribes? 

Quote

Everybody else providing their reasons for liking or hating the idea and you say "I don't like the way he said "Kick", it hurts my feelings". You know, if the word usage ever became an actual problem, DE could always change the name. This is just the idea, the OP is trying to explain his idea in a way that everyone will understand, so of course he would say "kick"... it's a word everyone understands. Bringing up the name's negative implications is something you bring up later in the process.

But look at the title of the thread. 

 

How can you evade that? It's impossible. He made the commitment. I see what you are saying. But the word is there.  

[Felsagger]

2 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

You caused the issue.

Do you want to know the correct way to go about resolving your problem?

"Hey OP, I see what you're trying to say but I take issue with your usage of the word kick". If they want to change the term, they will, if they don't it shouldn't be any sweat off your brow and you simply leave the thread.

The problem is the title. The problem is that he simply sustained the word kick throughout those seven pages. 

2 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Instead you have whinged and moaned and even insulted the OP for 7 pages now.

False. 

Show me where I insulted the user. 

2 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

We are so far beyond the "problem" being the title that it's ridiculous you would suggest as such.

Ironic, coming from someone who only read the title.

Nope. 

The blame game. 

Come on Demonky, It doesn't work that way. 

Sorry. 

 

[DeMonkey]

1 minute ago, Felsagger said:

why this never where addressed seven years ago?

Irrelevant. You're grasping at straws.

2 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

such solution must retain players instead of causing possible disputes.

What issues or disputes could arise from removing players from the orbiter lobby post-mission that don't already exist by reforming the squad? I've yet to see, in all this bellyaching, an actual issue that will arise from the addition.

[Felsagger]

1 minute ago, DeMonkey said:

Irrelevant. You're grasping at straws.

Sorry, doesn't work that way. You know it. 

1 minute ago, DeMonkey said:

What issues or disputes could arise from removing players from the orbiter lobby post-mission that don't already exist by reforming the squad? I've yet to see, in all this bellyaching, an actual issue that will arise from the addition.

Why not have an algorithm that cleans up the PUGS and keep the friends together. No one has the opportunity to abuse such option since it is the program that kick the PUGS instead of doing it manually. 

 

Such solution was given on this thread. 

[Godmode_Ash]

 

14 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

And why is wanting to shave off a few seconds a problem for you?

The QoL of shaving off a few seconds is not the problem. I was disagreeing with the potential how it's side effect could cause more problems to the game.

 

15 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

No, I didn't, you just seem to have real difficulty understanding posts.

Re-read what I said, I didn't suggest reworking the reward structure in the slightest, I theorised over how the reward structure currently works, tested how it currently works and used the result to disprove your "maybe this would happen" made up counter argument. That is so completely different to "suggesting a rework" that I have actual concerns.

Please start actually reading posts, because you look like a fool if you don't.

Yes I did misread your post. After I read it second time, it seem like you also misread my post as well.

I didn't suggest the host miitgation will cause players lose loot. I was saying it already has been, even in the current game.

There have been plenty of time after I got back to orbiter from HM, my loot were gone and my frame/weapon affinity were reset as well. It happens more common if I play at offhour when I connect with high ping. This happens especially often during railjack mission and sometimes radshare.

Host mitgation definitely has problem, you can't deny it.

[KaliyoD]

On 2020-09-25 at 9:39 PM, (PS4)SouthSideSwanga said:

I don’t understand why this isn’t a thing. I know people say it gets abused, but I don’t see that actually happening or anything different happening if it’s added. There’s not many times where I run missions with randoms and it’s only when they’d benefit me, but then they almost always become an unnecessary inconvenience.  
 

For example, say I’m going into a relic mission with one friend and we go public to get extra relics. When we get done, sometimes the randoms leave right away and sometimes they linger. Whatever reason they linger for doesn’t matter. The thing that makes it annoying is when they just do stuff like selecting another mission or going afk without saying anything. Very rarely do lingering randoms ask before starting a mission and going afk while still in a public squad is just plain bad manners. The only way to get rid of them is migrating the host and reforming the squad, which is exactly the same as kicking people.

 

 

I reform my group multiple times every day I play because we are two people and run pub missions all the time. Is it annoying sometimes? Sure, but I still wouldn't want to change it. Kicking always leaves a bad aftertaste and doing the clicks to kick other players doesn't take that much less time than regrouping.

When someone plays solo all the time and gets kicked instantly after every mission that makes it a really ugly sight and feeling.

As for being able to abuse it. I wouldn't be surprised if it would be possible to somehow kick people while the game is already starting to load a mission.Last but not least they would have to implement a feature that is already covered well enough in it's current form, with the added risk of being buggy and prone to abuse.

 

Btw those randoms you are playing with are other players/people. You say: it’s only when they’d benefit me, but then they almost always become an unnecessary inconvenience...

Calling other people an inconvenience and annoying only to use them for your benefit might also influence the tone you receive in some replies.

On top of that you complain about them having bad manners, while on the other hand you want to kick them in an instant as soon as your are done with them. Really makes you wonder who the one with bad manners is here.

 

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

2 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Why not have an algorithm that cleans up the PUGS and keep the friends together. No one has the opportunity to abuse such option since it is the program that kick the PUGS instead of doing it manually. 

This solution isn't good enough though. For some people in certain situations it works, but it doesn't exactly solve the problem.

Say you go relic farming with a friend and 2 randoms. You decide to turn on what I will call "selective disband" for the time being. You finish the mission and say to yourself "this is a pretty good squad" and decide to stay a bit longer... but you can't, because the game already kicked them from the squad.

There's no real problem with "kicking", it's the same as creating a new squad but slower. Why can't we just have that instead?

[Felsagger]

2 minutes ago, KaliyoD said:

I reform my group multiple times every day I play because we are two people and run pub missions all the time. Is it annoying sometimes? Sure, but I still wouldn't want to change it. Kicking always leaves a bad aftertaste and doing the clicks to kick other players doesn't take that much less time than regrouping.

When someone plays solo all the time and gets kicked instantly after every mission that makes it a really ugly sight and feeling.

As for being able to abuse it. I wouldn't be surprised if it would be possible to somehow kick people while the game is already starting to load a mission.Last but not least they would have to implement a feature that is already covered well enough in it's current form, with the added risk of being buggy and prone to abuse.

 

Btw those randoms you are playing with are other players/people. You say: it’s only when they’d benefit me, but then they almost always become an unnecessary inconvenience...

Calling other people an inconvenience and annoying only to use them for your benefit might also influence the tone you receive in some replies.

On top of that you complain about them having bad manners, while on the other hand you want to kick them in an instant as soon as your are done with them. Really makes you wonder who the one with bad manners is here.

 

 

 

 

Thank you so much. I think this settles it perfectly. 

[Godmode_Ash]

1 minute ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

This solution isn't good enough though. For some people in certain situations it works, but it doesn't exactly solve the problem.

Say you go relic farming with a friend and 2 randoms. You decide to turn on what I will call "selective disband" for the time being. You finish the mission and say to yourself "this is a pretty good squad" and decide to stay a bit longer... but you can't, because the game already kicked them from the squad.

There's no real problem with "kicking", it's the same as creating a new squad but slower. Why can't we just have that instead?

If the connection between host and player isn't smooth and fast. When the host get back on the ship first and kick, that person could get host mitgation and lose loot.

Yes, host mitgation already happening right now. But the kick feature allow the host to target specific player. Possibility create abusive play.

[DeMonkey]

19 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

The problem is the title.

Hence why I said "stubbornly" earlier.

You're deluding yourself Felsagger.

19 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Show me where I insulted the user. 

 I'm glad you asked, really.

16 hours ago, Felsagger said:

You forced my hand. 

 

Mocking laughter, pretty insulting.

3 hours ago, Felsagger said:

you don't know when to shut up and move on. You don't know the meaning of the word no. You don't know when to stop.

Speaks for itself really, you cannot argue that that isn't insulting.

3 hours ago, Felsagger said:

Welcome to the real world where people think by themselves. 

Also pretty insulting.

Now, you could always try and weasel this into "it wasn't mean to be insulting, you're just choosing to interpret it as such" which would absolutely be ridiculous in itself, but what's more it leads back into you choosing to take issue with the word kick in a context in which it is harmless, whereas you absolutely intended here to be rude.

14 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

You cannot repeatedly wave away arguments with "it doesn't work that way". It's incredibly dismissive and shows you don't actually have a counter argument, or an argument in the first place for that matter.

14 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Such solution was given on this thread. 

And if people want to continue playing with the random because, as it so happens occasionally in public matches, they want to continue playing together? The system would literally just automate the thing OP wants to do, so why is the thing the OP wants to do a problem but the automation isn't?

This degree of "looking for something to whinge about" is irrational.

I like how you still failed to provide an actual problem with the system.

12 minutes ago, Invoky said:

I was disagreeing with the potential how it's side effect could cause more problems to the game.

You have not provided a valid detrimental side effect.

12 minutes ago, Invoky said:

it seem like you also misread my post as well.

I did not, yes host migration has issues. If the host is only able to kick people upon returning to their ship however, then there will be no issues with the host migration, because I have already tested and stated that the rewards are given before arriving back on the orbiter.

I.e. The host wouldn't be able to kick anyone before they've received their rewards. It doesn't matter that host migration has issues, it doesn't happen before reward distribution.

3 minutes ago, Invoky said:

If the connection between host and player isn't smooth and fast. When the host get back on the ship first and kick, that person could get host mitgation and lose loot.

It's almost as if, despite saying you re-read my post, you still didn't actually understand it.

3 minutes ago, Invoky said:

Possibility create abusive play.

What was it you said earlier?

1 hour ago, Invoky said:

So basically you are just coming up with excuse of "this could possibility..."

Oh yeah, there we go.

[Felsagger]

2 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

This solution isn't good enough though. For some people in certain situations it works, but it doesn't exactly solve the problem.

Say you go relic farming with a friend and 2 randoms. You decide to turn on what I will call "selective disband" for the time being. You finish the mission and say to yourself "this is a pretty good squad" and decide to stay a bit longer... but you can't, because the game already kicked them from the squad.

There's no real problem with "kicking", it's the same as creating a new squad but slower. Why can't we just have that instead?

NO. 

Because it can leave a bad soar and it shows bad manners. I prefer a better civic approach than just kicking. It's like "hey you fulfilled your function, piss off!"

I used the phrase "plan ahead". If I want to do relic runs, I select my team mates that are committed to that task. Those could be friends, invites and/or clan members. Planning ahead extricate the possibility of a bad apple that gets rotten through the grinding.

If I want to have a clean ride then I select my friends. If I chose PUGS then I have to deal with the public. See?  

 

 

 

[Godmode_Ash]

1 minute ago, DeMonkey said:

I did not, yes host migration has issues. If the host is only able to kick people upon returning to their ship however, then there will be no issues with the host migration, because I have already tested and stated that the rewards are given before arriving back on the orbiter.

I.e. The host wouldn't be able to kick anyone before they've received their rewards. It doesn't matter that host migration has issues, it doesn't happen before reward distribution.

Your test mean absolute nothing if you have not experience what the others have experienced.

I literally just told you, not all the time, but some HM completely reset the other play back to the ship in pre-mission stats even after a long mission.

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

1 minute ago, Felsagger said:

NO. 

Because it can leave a bad soar and it shows bad manners. I prefer a better civic approach than just kicking. It's like "hey you fulfilled your function, piss off!"

I used the phrase "plan ahead". If I want to do relic runs, I select my team mates that are committed to that task. Those could be friends, invites and/or clan members. Planning ahead extricate the possibility of a bad apple that gets rotten through the grinding.

If I want to have a clean ride then I select my friends. If I chose PUGS then I have to deal with the public. See?  

That is a good point, but I think this effect can be avoided. If someone gets kicked, what if instead of the popup message being "you just got kicked" it was "host left, squad disbanding". That way, to the person kicked, it would seem like the squad as a whole was dismantled.

And it's not like people would use this feature all the time, only when playing with a friend, because otherwise it doesn't make much sense to get rid of someone that could help you out. So every now and then someone will get kicked from the squad, and they will have no idea that the rest of the squad is still together.

[DeMonkey]

1 minute ago, Invoky said:

Your test mean absolute nothing if you have not experience what the others have experienced.

I literally just told you, not all the time, but some HM completely reset the other play back to the ship in pre-mission stats even after a long mission.

You statement means absolutely nothing without validation.

If you're talking about an in mission host migration, sure, but that's not relevant to the conversation given we're discussing a post mission, post reward distribution migration.

If you're talking about a post-mission host migration then your point is utterly moot anyway, because it's no different to what we currently have. Having the ability to remove random players from the group whilst on the orbiter will not increase the number of host migrations in the slightest. Players will continue to get host migrated out of groups whether the mechanic in the OP is implemented or not because it happens on every reform.

In point of fact, OP's suggestion will involve less host migrations. Instead of leaving the group and reforming (3 potential host migrations) you instead remove 1 to 2 players from your group, causing 1 to 2 host migrations.

Do you not see how completely irrelevant your "issues" are?

[Felsagger]

4 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Hence why I said "stubbornly" earlier.

You're deluding yourself Felsagger.

Sorry, doesn't work that way. 

4 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

 I'm glad you asked, really.

Mocking laughter, pretty insulting.

I'm glad that you took the time quotting the exact moment where I made a parody. 

He wrote: "Mephane had the same solution I provided so if his solution is fair, then my solution is fair and there’s no reason for you to oppose it. "

 

Problem: The title of this thread says kick. First issue. Then second issue is that he cutting my possibility of opposing his claim. This is why is laughable. It's a democracy people are going to oppose ideas because the way they are presented. 

It leaves a bad taste to play with other clients and then dispatch them drastically because they do not serve your purpose anymore. Kicking reaffirms that. 

 

Thank you so much for bringing this up. ^^

 

4 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Speaks for itself really, you cannot argue that that isn't insulting.

So is not insulting the fact that I can't oppose an opinion because he say so? 

Sorry but in any league that is insulting. 

 

4 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Also pretty insulting.

"Welcome to the real world where people think by themselves. "

 

Tell me how that one is insulting. It's impossible for that sentence to be insulting. And he is not letting me oppose his idea. 

 

4 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Now, you could always try and weasel this into "it wasn't mean to be insulting, you're just choosing to interpret it as such" which would absolutely be ridiculous in itself, but what's more it leads back into you choosing to take issue with the word kick in a context in which it is harmless, whereas you absolutely intended here to be rude.

 

Isn't rude the idea of not letting other people differ in opinion as the OP tried to imply? 

 

4 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

You cannot repeatedly wave away arguments with "it doesn't work that way". It's incredibly dismissive and shows you don't actually have a counter argument, or an argument in the first place for that matter.

 

What kicking benefits?

 

He presented no argument on this matter. So how can I present a counter argument in the first place. 

 

4 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

And if people want to continue playing with the random because, as it so happens occasionally in public matches, they want to continue playing together? The system would literally just automate the thing OP wants to do, so why is the thing the OP wants to do a problem but the automation isn't?

Because such option can cause problems. 

If a machine does it, there is no one to blame because it's an option that the player selects previously. For example if the player chooses an option keep players always and clean up PUGS that would be better than he kicking other players. 

 

4 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

This degree of "looking for something to whinge about" is irrational.

I like how you still failed to provide an actual problem with the system.

Simple. Mephane already provided a fair solution. A solution that I agree with. 

4 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

You have not provided a valid detrimental side effect.

Do I have to? The internet shows endless examples of this. 

4 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

I did not, yes host migration has issues. If the host is only able to kick people upon returning to their ship however, then there will be no issues with the host migration, because I have already tested and stated that the rewards are given before arriving back on the orbiter.

I.e. The host wouldn't be able to kick anyone before they've received their rewards. It doesn't matter that host migration has issues, it doesn't happen before reward distribution.

Then this is the topic we should be discussing. 

4 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

It's almost as if, despite saying you re-read my post, you still didn't actually understand it.

What was it you said earlier?

Oh yeah, there we go.

The problem is that you never read the thread the first time. You came with pitch and fork in hand. 

 

Have a good day DeMonkey. 

 

[Godmode_Ash]

12 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

You statement means absolutely nothing without validation.

If you're talking about an in mission host migration, sure, but that's not relevant to the conversation given we're discussing a post mission, post reward distribution migration.

If you're talking about a post-mission host migration then your point is utterly moot anyway, because it's no different to what we currently have. Having the ability to remove random players from the group whilst on the orbiter will not increase the number of host migrations in the slightest. Players will continue to get host migrated out of groups whether the mechanic in the OP is implemented or not because it happens on every reform.

In point of fact, OP's suggestion will involve less host migrations. Instead of leaving the group and reforming (3 potential host migrations) you instead remove 1 to 2 players from your group, causing 1 to 2 host migrations.

Do you not see how completely irrelevant your "issues" are?

So basically unless I record a video of HM reset the player back to orbiter pre-mission stats, you wouldn't believe that type of bug exist?

Also just to be clear, I was talking about HM after picking the mission, but before loading back to obiter. Sometimes when it happened DE will have mail send me relic/reward next day. Doesn't happen all the time but it does happen.

My argument is also relevant because I am not talking about HM that happens when already on obiter, talking about host has the agility to target specific person while everyone still loading back to orbiter. HM during orbiter is not important or any issue at all. Hence I don't see the problem of few seconds of inconvenience of reforming.

 

[DeMonkey]

17 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Sorry, doesn't work that way. 

Ohhh, hard man, doing the exact thing I asked you not to do.

Wooow.

17 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

I'm glad that you took the time quotting the exact moment where I made a parody. 

Call it whatever you want to call it, a bird, a parody, a saucepan. Your posts were made with the intent to insult, either through their implications or not so subtle mocking.

What's more you know this, please don't play dumb. 

17 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

And he is not letting me oppose his idea. 

Because there is nothing to oppose unless you're being maliciously contrarian. His suggestion turns a 10 step process into a 3 step process, with the exact same results.

17 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

What kicking benefits?

 

He presented no argument on this matter. So how can I present a counter argument in the first place. 

Ah, being disingenuous now. The benefits have been repeated to death, including literally right above this quote.

17 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Because such option can cause problems. 

And I'm still waiting to actually hear one.

17 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Do I have to?

If anyone makes the claim "this will cause problems" then it's entirely reasonable to expect them to provide valid examples, yes. Did you really just ask that?

17 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Then this is the topic we should be discussing. 

Are you really that desperate to derail the topic?

7 minutes ago, Invoky said:

So basically unless I record a video of HM reset the player back to orbiter pre-mission stats, you wouldn't believe that type of bug exist?

Also just to be clear, I was talking about HM after picking the mission, but before loading back to obiter. Sometimes when it happened DE will have mail send me relic/reward next day. Doesn't happen all the time but it does happen.

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to explain myself in a way that you'll actually understand. I've repeated myself twice already.

I believe that the bug exists, I questioned you on when the bug actually happens. If it's during the mission (before reward distribution) then it is not relevant to the OP's proposal, given all host migrations would happen post reward distribution.

7 minutes ago, Invoky said:

My argument is also relevant because I am not talking about HM that happens when already on obiter, talking about host has the agility to target specific person while everyone still loading back to orbiter.

  Which is irrelevant, because as I've already stated, by the time the host loads back onto their orbiter everyone already has their rewards. Reward distribution happens before the host gets back on the orbiter.

I cannot explain this any clearer.

7 minutes ago, Invoky said:

HM during orbiter is not important or any issue at all.

That's literally when OP's proposed system would work, so yes, you're right, there is no issue with it and Host Migration is not important to the proposal.

[Felsagger]

23 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

That is a good point, but I think this effect can be avoided. If someone gets kicked, what if instead of the popup message being "you just got kicked" it was "host left, squad disbanding". That way, to the person kicked, it would seem like the squad as a whole was dismantled.

And it's not like people would use this feature all the time, only when playing with a friend, because otherwise it doesn't make much sense to get rid of someone that could help you out. So every now and then someone will get kicked from the squad, and they will have no idea that the rest of the squad is still together.

I see what you are trying to say. 

 

When I ask nicely to PUGs and explain them the purpose of the grind they even leave without me kicking them. 

Do you know why it works? Because I was kind, I was persuasive and I explained myself in that team. Reason makes wonders. It takes more effort? Yes, always being polite and civic takes more effort because there are more steps that must be made. 

If I commit to the fast game and I don't want or allow interruption then I plan ahead my runs so I can maximize my time playing the game. The OP is dealing with a problem called OPTIMIZATION. He wants to spend less time doing errands without the hassle of people getting imprudent and insolent. 

If that is his case then a better alternative is to cut that possibility off the bat "programming" my runs. Otherwise I have to remedy.