Give The Host The Option To Boot Other Players In Party

[AlphaHorseman]

I think the Dev's have thought about how people may abuse it. It may be that there will be a Majority Rule in place, to where, if there is a squad of four, and one player isn't being helpful, people may start a Vote in the Squad and, if 3/4 or 2/3 vote the other person out, they are kicked, Though, this becomes problematic in squads of 2.

 

But these are just my thoughts, any suggestions otherwise or constructive feedback as to why this is good/bad/how to improve?

[Aggh]

1) An active content poll by the developers in which they use voting to make the final decision on whether or not a feature is put into the game does in fact mean it will be implemented.

 

2) Not once did I say it wouldn't be abused, but thanks for your insults.

1.) No, it was a hot topic poll where they were asking people what their opinion on the issue was.  How that information is acted upon is still left to DE's discretion.

 

2.) No, you said that there would be less abuse.  Guess what? Vote kick systems are most effectively used by trolls.  Pugs often can't get enough votes for various reasons no matter how much the person actually deserves it.  Overall player abuse would sky rocket, especially with the discontent that vote kick trolling will cause along with the ensuing revenge vote kicking that often results.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Aggh

[AXCrusnik]

Read the developer posts throughout the thread for yourself. 

 

Link

That's just a community hot topic, not vote for the next features in warframe. The polls are there to gauge the community's thoughts on these things, not outright decide whether or not they go in.

 

While yes, the majority of votes think the Kick option is a good idea, that by no means guarantees the option will be added... It increases the chance it will, and gives devs more of a reason to think about it though.

[Wiegraf]

People who voted for a kick system probably got trolled before and were frustrated in turn in their voting for it without considering the trolling will be several times worst if there's a working kick system  implemented.

 

Much like others have posted, this will lead to people kicking others out of their games for fickle reasons (or right out malicious purposes). Don't believe me? Remember, this is the internet and the GIFT (also known as the "Online Disinhibition Effect") is rampant. People will be quick on the kick trigger, even if it depends on a majority vote since people are naturally inclined to click yes by reflex.

 

Really, the only viable solution would be a blacklist feature so that while you have to deal with obnoxious individuals at least once, you can ensure you're never matched with them afterwards (and really, even with a kick feature, you do need to be exposed to that individual once anyway).

Edited August 14, 2014 by Wiegraf

[J-Reyno]

I support a lobby kick for invite-only sessions, available to the host.  Absolutely.

[Dead_Rabbits]

lobby kick yes, ingame kick hell no.

[RSITH]

This will be to abuse cause lets say your a beginner invited to Void they would just kick you out not giving you any chance.

[WERElektro]

^

this

 

----------------

 

Since it was recently on the hot topic, something like this might come.

[Dead_Rabbits]

My experience with games that have vote kick: Someone gets mad because you stole their kill, they start a vote to kick you for "hacking" Everyone just mindless clicks yes instantly, regardless of reason most people just mindless click yes just to get the vote off their screen.


Take that unplayable piece of crap combat arms for example, you can't even get a triple kill without someone starting a vote kick on you for hacking, lol or even for having a kdr above a 1.0.

[Tsukinoki]

I cant wait to try a pug where someone does anything and then I constantly get spammed with "Do you want to kick player X?" over and over and over and over again.
Good luck trying to do anything in a mission with that constantly bothering you and stopping you from doing anything.

And I cant wait to see the rage threads that will happen when people get a good void survival reward and someone in the group is kicked out by the others for the 'lulz'.

And I cant wait to see how new players will cope with a person with 2 accounts sitting on mercury and just vote-kicking them every time they join the mission....that'll sure by 'fun'.

[(PSN)SancticuS]

^

this

 

----------------

 

Since it was recently on the hot topic, something like this might come.

 

They really should run these pools ingame with a script so more players would participate and not only the ones that frequent the forums. If DE start making major game decisions based upon 884 votes then something is very wrong.

[Evanescent]

They really should run these pools ingame with a script so more players would participate and not only the ones that frequent the forums. If DE start making major game decisions based upon 884 votes then something is very wrong.

^This.

Can't you people see the newbie abuse incoming.

I's be fine with it if u couldnt kick in game.

[arsyadpower]

no, because it will be the birth of warframist

[WERElektro]

They really should run these pools ingame with a script so more players would participate and not only the ones that frequent the forums. If DE start making major game decisions based upon 884 votes then something is very wrong.

 

 

Now that you've mentioned it.... that's really not a lot of votes.

Good idea... maybe they could show it on that news section in game.

[Doomauculas]

Giving the host the ability to kick would...

 

A: give to much power to one person.

 

B: allow him to abuse this power

 

C: Allow for complete trolling in games

and

D: hi

[manole10]

The poll was for a vote kick feature, not a host kick feature. Problem is vote kick WILL be abused and trolled, while the host currently has the power to shut the whole thing down and it's not abused that much. Hosting should not be democratic. Not when the whole population is 4.

[jennibear]

they had a vote on this already, it'll most likely happen since most came in yes.

[RitaVrataski]

The ones who voted no is nearly equal to those who voted yes. So even if the poll decide whether or not votekicking is implemented, it won't. It ain't the majority of the community

[Adaptor-Face]

Kick a player you invited to your lobby (not in game) yes, anything else no (no kicking randoms after a pug, no kicking while playing)

[TrinityPrime]

I really just want the black list option.  That is, the ability to add players to a list disallowing anyone on that list to join a game I'm in while also stopping me from joining a game that has them in it.

 

This functionality already exists out of DE's control due to how they set up host and client connections.  I've read that even a few mods have learned how to auto detect the ip addresses of player connections in accordance to who connected first, after which they can then add their ip to be blocked by their router or firewall.

[Macdermott]

How is the host chosen on a pug match?

[so_many_watermelons]

There are plenty of ways to prevent those kinds of trolls.

 

1) No kicking after the objective has been completed. That way you can't be robbed of good loot. Just as it is currently, it'd mean wave 5/ minute 5/ round 2 would have kicks disabled.

2) Only the host of a key mission can start vote kicks. If no one agrees with the host, then he just end the game and find different people to play with.

3) Have a timer that unlocks the ability to kick a player who's been afk for a certain amount of time. Perhaps 2 1/2 minutes of being AFK could suffice.

4)This one is a bit iffy, but maybe have a kick initiate limit based on mastery rank? Say, if you're new and at rank 1, you can only initiate a single vote kick a day. Even if it fails, you can no longer initiate another vote kick until the daily reset. This shouldn't be affected by founder status like trading is, since I've met QUITE a few founders who acted all high and mighty for spending hundreds of dollars on a game.