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

[Felsagger]

6 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

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

Wooow.

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. 

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.

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

And I'm still waiting to actually hear one.

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?

Are you really that desperate to derail the topic?

 

Those are not my intentions. I simply came here to oppose an idea that is highly toxic. I'm not the only one disagreeing with the subject but the way is worded causes problems and oppositions. 

If I don't remember well you wrote a good phrase, good sir. It's called "know when to stop". I think you should put that phrase in practice and let us continue discussing the topic of this thread.

Have the last word if you want. I have no further replies to you. 

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

29 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Sorry, doesn't work that way. 

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. ^^

 

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. 

 

"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. 

 

 

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

 

 

What kicking benefits?

 

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

 

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. 

 

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

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

Then this is the topic we should be discussing. 

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. 

 

First, insult is defined by the recipient. If both of you say that the other was being rude then you're both right. Luckily being rude is not a crime because it would be quite difficult to identify.

Second, I suggested a solution that may solve the problem for both parties, I will repeat it just in case it was missed the first time: What if, when a person is kicked, they recieve the message "host left, squad disbanding", that way the person who is kicked thinks that the entire squad was separated, and not that he was singled out and cast aside.

Also, a feature can be implemented where multiple people are selected and kicked at the same time, because without this feature the host would kick out one of them first, and the one left over would know that the "squad disbanding" message meant he was kicked out too.

Sure, there's always the possibility of the host discussing weather or not to kick out the rest of the squad with his friend before hand, but if they did this in the team chat then they're just being a bunch of jerks, no way around that. Also, a host may also tell someone they're getting kicked before hand out of spite, but this wouldn't happen very often if unprovoked.

All and all I think this solution would work for everyone! Thoughts?

[Felsagger]

1 minute ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

First, insult is defined by the recipient. If both of you say that the other was being rude then you're both right. Luckily being rude is not a crime because it would be quite difficult to identify.

True. I tried to be sarcastic. There is a difference between being snarky and rude. 

1 minute ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

Second, I suggested a solution that may solve the problem for both parties, I will repeat it just in case it was missed the first time: What if, when a person is kicked, they receive the message "host left, squad disbanding", that way the person who is kicked thinks that the entire squad was separated, and not that he was singled out and cast aside.

Also, a feature can be implemented where multiple people are selected and kicked at the same time, because without this feature the host would kick out one of them first, and the one left over would know that the "squad disbanding" message meant he was kicked out too.

Sounds reasonable. 

I have a similar issue but the way I handle it is very easy. When a PUG gets imperative I simply disband quickly. This saves me the trouble of a wasted relic or a potential dispute. If my time is limited then I'm careful which missions I do with PUGs and which one can become a potential detriment. 

For example doing spy with PUGs can make any player throw their keyboard off the window or simply punch the desk where the PC is.  :P

1 minute ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

Sure, there's always the possibility of the host discussing weather or not to kick out the rest of the squad before hand, but if they did this in the team chat then they're just being a bunch of jerks.

All and all I think this solution would work for everyone! Thoughts?

 

In my humble opinion, I think that an explanation, or typing in the chat box sounds less harsh than simply being impersonal to other users or clients in the game. 

[Godmode_Ash]

20 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

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.

  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 oribiter.

 

Let me give you a very specific on an experience that happened to me.

I opened the navigation, picked an Axi relic and joined a 5 minute survival mission. After the mission end, I picked a reward and was loading back to orbiter. For some reason the loading took forever to load, and after a few minutes the MH happened.

I was sent to orbiter in a pre-mission stats. I could still open up the "last mission status" from menu but it showed no loot. Also the weapon/frame exp got reset and its just not UI error, I verified from equipment. I think this type of issue happened a few times before, sometimes DE would mail me the relic I lost.

You don't have to believe me. But have you never have DE mail you in game loot before after HM? And I am only talking about if you are lucky DE will send you stuff. There are time when you get absolute nothing.

There are also railjack issue where players loot completely not recording during the entire mission, but that's another topic. Point is reward maybe be distribute before mission end, but is not always record. So sometimes you can still loot during mitagtion BEFORE obiter.

So if host can load back into obiter before anyone else and target specific person to kick before that person can load. I see a potential way to abuse.

[DeMonkey]

  

19 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

I simply came here to oppose an idea that is highly toxic.

Cutting a 10 step process to a 3 step process is not toxic.

And whilst you may not have intended to be insulting, I have my doubts about that claim. I still remember you from back in the day Felsagger, and I know there was a reason you took an extended break from the forums. I might even go so far as to suggest that you didn't have much of a choice in that extended break. 

19 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

let us continue discussing the topic of this thread. 

You have done anything but discuss the topic of the thread, you have by your own admission berated the OP for their choice of words for quite a few pages.

Your claim that you're discussing the topic of this thread is utterly laughable and highly ironic, given I'm here trying to explain the topic of the thread to you.

18 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

What if, when a person is kicked, they recieve the message "host left, squad disbanding"

I mean, I just assumed it would work like that by default if implemented.

11 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

In my humble opinion, I think that an explanation, or typing in the chat box sounds less harsh than simply being impersonal to other users or clients in the game. 

Given that the OP provides examples of when they'd remove someone from the group as:

1) AFK'ing in the lobby.

2) Starting random missions.

Then it's safe to say that they're not wanting to just boot people willy nilly. You can't have a conversation with a person who's afk, for example.

8 minutes ago, Invoky said:

After the mission end, I picked a reward and was loading back to orbiter. For some reason the loading took forever to load, and after a few minutes the MH happened.

Okay, so here we have a mission that borked, perhaps the host crashed. Because the mission borked, you didn't (or you did in the form of mail) get the resources from the completion. 

If a hypothetical host were to return to the orbiter with the intent of kicking people from the group and trying to host migrate them out of loot, then the mission hasn't borked. In a non-borked mission the rewards are distributed before the host can return to the orbiter.

And, as you yourself outline, DE already have systems in place to get you rewards in the case of a host migration causing a problem at the end of a mission.

So again, where is the issue?

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

2 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

I mean, I just assumed it would work like that by default if implemented.

Maybe the OP should say this specifically, because one argument I've heard repeatedly is that kicking would be rude and promote toxic behavior, but if the recipient were unaware then it wouldn't really have this effect would it?

[Felsagger]

The problem of saving few seconds may not be an issue but giving power to a person of cleaning the PUGs sounds a bit harsh. If anything the problem could be evaded. I had issues with random starts. How I evade those? Well, focus on doing the important missions first then the grinding can be dispatched with any PUGs I want. 

If the problem of insolent players persist, my only option is to disengage and rearm the squad again. If that constitute a problem? Probably. But the game has harsher issues than just random starts and leeches trying to weasel out certain conditions. 

[EvilChaosKnight]

ITT: DeMonkey destroys the opposition with facts and logic.

Ahem.

Anyway. I still fail to see what BAD HORRIBLE THINGS can host kicking do. Be it pre or post-mission in the Orbiter, really. Like. They don't appreciate my Nyx? Fine. I'd rather just go somewhere else than read people's complaints in the chat anyway.

And if I never find out in the first place that I was kicked? Aka I'd just get "squad disbanded" instead? All the better. My ego will live on unbruised to shine another day session.

[DeMonkey]

Just now, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

Maybe the OP should say this specifically, because one argument I've heard repeatedly is that kicking would be rude and promote toxic behavior, but if the recipient were unaware then it wouldn't really have this effect would it?

Probably, they need to be making a thread in feedback for this regardless, hopefully whilst taking on board the staggering amount of "criticism" they've received.

Honestly, whilst the thread title says kicked, upon actually reading the OP it didn't cross my mind at all that it could be viewed maliciously in game, in so much as I can't see a reason why it would even need to tell someone they were kicked in the first place.

Hence my unending confusion as to why so many people have assumed not only that this is a cross-game kick feature, but that everyone will know they were kicked and have their feelings hurt about it.

2 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

The problem of saving few seconds may not be an issue but giving power to a person

What power? People can already do this, people are removed from groups all the time, just with extra steps.

It's like trying to stop someone giving me a Supercar because I'll probably run over a rabbit with it. I can already run over a rabbit in my normal car though, I would just do it faster in a Supercar, so what exactly are you preventing?

[Felsagger]

1 hour ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

Maybe the OP should say this specifically, because one argument I've heard repeatedly is that kicking would be rude and promote toxic behavior, but if the recipient were unaware then it wouldn't really have this effect would it?

 

Lets practice science for a minute here. 

Imagine this same thread without the word kick. Can you imagine how different the outcome is? The element of exclusion is the trigger that detonates discomfort. It doesn't matter if you call it kick or vote kick. 

If this is worded in a different tone then the reaction would be more passive instead of being passive aggressive. When we speak about a subject in the title then we have to choose carefully key words that guides the clients who reads the thread. 

I will blatantly oppose any measure that accentuates potential problems. Kicking is one of them. If we want a cleaner community then our take should be more persuasive instead of being imperative. 

My solution works in the following way. Well, it's the sum of few other given solution previously. But here is my flow chart:

a. Prevention. It costs nothing, it's free and evades potential problems. 

b. Know where PUGS are useful and where they can be a potential detriment. 

c. Add an option that cleans out PUGS once the mission is done. This could be after or before any mission. 

d. After the mission is done then the vote mission should be the ruler. If one decides to start then mission will not start until everybody VOTES. 

e. If we want to play with PUGs we establish a relationship with them by typing or asking for help. Talking costs nothing. It's way better than being impersonal and rude. 

 

 

[DeMonkey]

4 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

The element of exclusion is the trigger that detonates discomfort.

Your overuse of bombast hurts what you're trying to say.

[Godmode_Ash]

27 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Okay, so here we have a mission that borked, perhaps the host crashed. Because the mission borked, you didn't (or you did in the form of mail) get the resources from the completion. 

If a hypothetical host were to return to the orbiter with the intent of kicking people from the group and trying to host migrate them out of loot, then the mission hasn't borked. In a non-borked mission the rewards are distributed before the host can return to the orbiter.

And, as you yourself outline, DE already have systems in place to get you rewards in the case of a host migration causing a problem at the end of a mission.

So again, where is the issue?

Or perhaps in the example I gave, the host didn't crash. I was the only one having issue and not getting reward. That reward mailing system is there because DE knows something like happens from time to time. But there is no guaranteed the system will always kick in when that happen. So the reward is not always guaranteed after end mission if HM happens.

So here is the issue: We are adding a feature that could only save a few seconds of inconvenience, but in the exchange for a possibility of new way for the host to troll a specific teammate.

 

[Felsagger]

7 minutes ago, EvilChaosKnight said:

ITT: DeMonkey destroys the opposition with facts and logic.

Ahem.

Allow me take the bait, please. :3 (That bait has a list with my name in it. ^^)

There was no opposition to begin with. The way the thread was disclosed caused a tone where many users pointed on the word 'kick'. However if logic is used, then the tone of this thread would be way different. The opposition started in the title of the thread. 

 

7 minutes ago, EvilChaosKnight said:

Anyway. I still fail to see what BAD HORRIBLE THINGS can host kicking do.

1. Possibility of discrimination. 

2. Possibility of abuse and a bad soar. It's not etiquette. In a civil world, the one we live in I hope, we say thank you and we have manners. 

3. Possibility of retaliation. If something goes wrong in the farm then that 'kick' could be interpreted as a retaliation. 

4. Possibility of causing more division between players. "ignore lists" will become the order of the day. 

5. Hey you are a limbo user. "I don't like you" off you go. I don't want Limbos in my squad. 

 

Let us wind the clock back and think about Law of Retribution and all the arguments that happened there. Imagine if you add the kick button in it. 

7 minutes ago, EvilChaosKnight said:

Be it pre or post-mission in the Orbiter, really. Like. They don't appreciate my Nyx? Fine. I'd rather just go somewhere else than read people's complaints in the chat anyway.

That's one of the problems. 

7 minutes ago, EvilChaosKnight said:

And if I never find out in the first place that I was kicked? Aka I'd just get "squad disbanded" instead? All the better. My ego will live on unbruised to shine another day session.

 

Oh, let us think about it. 

What is faster. Kicking the the user by going on the user and press kick or simply me disbanding? 

 

See?

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

2 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

 

Lets practice science for a minute here. 

Imagine this same thread without the word kick. Can you imagine how different the outcome is? The element of exclusion is the trigger that detonates discomfort. It doesn't matter if you call it kick or vote kick. 

If this is worded in a different tone then the reaction would be more passive instead of being passive aggressive. When we speak about a subject in the title then we have to choose carefully key words that guides the clients who reads the thread. 

I will blatantly oppose any measure that accentuates potential problems. Kicking is one of them. If we want a cleaner community then our take should be more persuasive instead of being imperative. 

My solution works in the following way. Well, it's the some of few other given solution previously. But here is my flow chart:

a. Prevention. It costs nothing, it's free and evades potential problems. 

b. Know where PUGS are useful and where they can be a potential detriment. 

c. Add an option that cleans out PUGS once the mission is done. This could be after or before any mission. 

d. After the mission is done then the vote mission should be the ruler. If one decides to start then mission will not start until everybody VOTES. 

e. If we want to play with PUGs we establish a relationship with them by typing or asking for help. Talking costs nothing. It's way better than being impersonal and rude. 

 

 

Dude you need to let this go. No one else cares that the word "kick" is in the title. You keep bringing it up when that is clearly not the point.

What would you have the OP do? Just cut the word out of the title entirely? It would say: "Why can't the host ____ people out of the squad while in the orbiter?", is that what you want it to say?

You keep saying it shouldn't say "kick" in the title and yet you haven't provided any other words to replace it with. What would you say? Kick is THE word when describing what the OP is proposing, so what's the alternative? You can't tell the OP to change his entire topic either.

Also, the idea of preventing the mission from starting until EVERYONE votes is a bad one. Even in the OP one of the scenarios is someone is that someone in your squad is afk. It would be such a hassle to have to disband every time someone is afk.

[Felsagger]

5 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Your overuse of bombast hurts what you're trying to say.

:-/ lmao... 

I have to like his character. I have to...

 

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

7 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

1. Possibility of discrimination. 

WHAAAAT? What are you talking about. Discrimination based on what? The color of your glyph? Come on man, be real.

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

4 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Oh, let us think about it. 

What is faster. Kicking the the user by going on the user and press kick or simply me disbanding? 

 

See?

I see nothing... It is faster to kick a user. It just is. That's the whole point.

[Godmode_Ash]

2 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

WHAAAAT? what are you talking about. Discrimination based on what? the color of your glyph? come on man, be real.

This is off topic but I am a founder, so I used to wear Exc. Prime glyph.

I used to go conclave and people would say stuff like "a founder got rekt", so I took off my glyph and funny noone said anything after that.

[DeMonkey]

4 minutes ago, Invoky said:

in exchange for possibility of new way for the host to troll a specific player.

  See below.

2 hours ago, Invoky said:

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

And no, this would shave a few seconds of inconvenience in exchange for the possibility of something that already happens, happening again. As you said, this already happens, and it's the games fault that it happens.

Rewards are, and should be, given out prior to people returning to the orbiter. If they aren't then the game broke, and if the host causes a problem when kicking someone, then that is a problem with the game, not with the host and not with the proposal.

6 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

What is faster. Kicking the the user by going on the user and press kick or simply me disbanding? 

Given that the topic involves the OP playing with friends it looks more like this.

"What is faster. Kicking the user by going on the user and pressing kick, or simply me disbanding, then clicking on the plus sign at the top, then scrolling through my friends list to invite the right person from that list, then repeat process if playing with a third person".

[Felsagger]

1 minute ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

Dude you need to let this go. No one else cares that the word "kick" is in the title. You keep bringing it up when that is clearly not the point.

But IS written in the TITLE....It's like turn left when is turn right. 

 

lol. 

1 minute ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

What would you have the OP do? Just cut the word out of the title entirely? It would say: "Why can't the host ____ people out of the squad while in the orbiter?", is that what you want it to say?

That sounds better. Way better. You read it out. This gives the opportunity to let people conceive an idea without preconceptions. This works better for me IMO. 

1 minute ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

You keep saying it shouldn't say "kick" in the title and yet you haven't provided any other words to replace it with. What would you say? Kick is THE word when describing what the OP is proposing, so what's the alternative? You can't tell the OP to change his entire topic either.

Also, the idea of preventing the mission from starting until EVERYONE votes is a bad one. Even in the OP one of the scenarios is someone is that someone in your squad is afk. It would be such a hassle to have to disband every time someone is afk.

Lets focus on AFK, those are my favorites. 

 

If I see another AFK in my list the problem with them is easy too. Once the mission is finished, say Hydron, I simply let them in. I leave the squad and talk to other active players who are interested playing. The AFK will will enjoy the punishment of for his behavior alone. We leave the squad without telling him. It's a passive way of dealing with such problem. 

[Felsagger]

7 minutes ago, (XB1)Mentor0fHeroes said:

WHAAAAT? What are you talking about. Discrimination based on what? The color of your glyph? Come on man, be real.

Limbo. 

Case closed....:P

[DeMonkey]

Just now, Felsagger said:

This gives the opportunity to let people conceive an idea without preconceptions. This works better for me IMO. 

That's literally clickbait. Jeez...

As per the guidelines, titles should be descriptive and informative. Not leaving words out, not cutting off mid sentence so as to "let people conceive an idea".

[Felsagger]

Just now, DeMonkey said:

That's literally clickbait. Jeez...

As per the guidelines, titles should be descriptive and informative. Not leaving words out, not cutting off mid sentence so as to "let people conceive an idea".

mhm...

But one word threw the topic to the left. If the OP focus on more ideas instead of kicking throughout the responses then the word would be left behind. But he insisted that kicking is a solution for him. Without any possible hesitation he went directly towards that option. 

If there were other options in the tread for example a poll then we would be seeing votes. 

[(XBOX)Mentor0fHeroes]

2 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

But IS written in the TITLE....It's like turn left when is turn right. 

 

lol. 

I have no idea what you're trying to say here to be honest with you.

 

3 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

That sounds better. Way better. You read it out. This gives the opportunity to let people conceive an idea without preconceptions. This works better for me IMO. 

I think I'm going to stop taking you seriously now...

 

4 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Lets focus on AFK, those are my favorites. 

 

If I see another AFK in my list the problem with them is easy too. Once the mission is finished, say Hydron, I simply let them in. I leave the squad and talk to other active players who are interested playing. The AFK will will enjoy the punishment of for his behavior alone. We leave the squad without telling him. It's a passive way of dealing with such problem. 

Did you just say you like punishing AFK players? You know what AFK means right? It means there is no player there to punish. This makes no sense.

Also, this doesn't explain why it would be a good idea to make everyone's vote for a mission mandatory. Basically you are saying that you enjoy jumping through unnecessary hoops so that you can mess with a player that isn't even there... and that is the reason why it should be in the game... just cuz.

[DeMonkey]

1 minute ago, Felsagger said:

mhm...

But one word threw the topic to the left. If the OP focus on more ideas instead of kicking throughout the responses then the word would be left behind. But he insisted that kicking is a solution for him. Without any possible hesitation he went directly towards that option. 

If there were other options in the tread for example a poll then we would be seeing votes. 

Yes, that's because that is the term attributed to a mechanic whereby you forcibly remove someone from a group, which is what the OP proposed. Why would they call it anything else?

Our current system is also indisputably kicking, you are instead kicking everyone from your group instead of a select person.

I mean surely OP's proposal is fantastic by that logic, resulting in less kicking overall.

Also no, you threw this topic to the left.