Suggestion: Votekick Or Autokick For Afk

[lunfy]

Encountered a problem when doing the Hyena mission, when Hyena wouldn't activate because a player was AFK at the starting point. Would be good to implement(especially for AFK autokick) as I can imagine a situation like there being 2 players, 1 AFKs and there's the door that requires two people to activate.

 

Please do remind me if this has already been suggested.

[VER1]

Yes afk kick and kick voting has been requested before.

[lunfy]

<Topic Closed>

[KudaGila]

Kick voting rather not, that will lead to jerks who will simply kick ppl out of their parties, because they forgot to use Private or they just want to see ppl in rage. Imagine that you get in last minute in Alert for orokin catalyst/reactor/Vauban part, and some fun having person would suggest, that best thing to do instead of killing enemies, is to kick you out. 

 

Autokick yes, after set amount of time if player haven't moved. Problem with Jackal can be easily fixed with Loki, teleporting this AFK person to the boss.:)

[PapaKicks]

Problem with Jackal can be easily fixed with Loki, teleporting this AFK person to the boss.:)

 

That's a long run... and assumes you won't run out of energy. (they were afk at the map starting point)

[lunfy]

Kick voting rather not, that will lead to jerks who will simply kick ppl out of their parties, because they forgot to use Private or they just want to see ppl in rage. Imagine that you get in last minute in Alert for orokin catalyst/reactor/Vauban part, and some fun having person would suggest, that best thing to do instead of killing enemies, is to kick you out. 

 

Autokick yes, after set amount of time if player haven't moved. Problem with Jackal can be easily fixed with Loki, teleporting this AFK person to the boss.:)

 

Thanks for reminding me of the jerks. I feel so naive, thinking everyone will play nice. So far this game has been great.

[lunfy]

That's a long run... and assumes you won't run out of energy. (they were afk at the map starting point)

3 Lokis then hahaha

[ytNoise]

If this problem is only boss related, they could add a timer that starts running (60secs) when then first guy arrives at the boss.

After the timer runs out, everyone not in the boss arena gets kicked automatically and the fight begins.

Ofc, if everyone is closeby, the fight starts whatever is left on the clock.

Just like extraction.

Edited May 21, 2013 by ytNoise

[SoanoS]

I'd rather have the idle-kick after 5 minutes of inactivity. People have real-life things to attend sometimes and they need to go AFK suddenly for a few minutes. 5 minutes would usually be enough for this sort of activity.

 

If someone is intentionally leaving the character AFK then the 5 minutes would be more or less a perfect timer.

 

Also, a large on-screen timeout warning for the user in question after 4 minutes of inactivity would be handy.

 

In case of the host being the AFKer, the player could be moved into a "host only" spectator mode where his presence in the game would not be taken into account and he could only watch the game from the sidelines (player character despawned and moved into spectator mode, following another player with option to switch between spectated player).

 

I feel this would work well for most people and would not ruin the fun for anyone.

[HailCreation]

I agree with AFK, but not voting. Unless the vote is a prompt rather than a player request. 

[Kingly_Bacon]

I think there should be a voting system combined with an AFK timer. I agree that the timer should be around 5 minutes, but I think that system should have an option for players to boot instead of just autokicking the players from the map. Kinda like what HailCreation just said above: a prompt.

 

Some parties may not want to have that player booted for a certain reason, so when the 5 minutes of AFK time is up, a small pop-up appears in the corner of the screen of the active players asking if they would like the player to be kicked. If at least one player agrees, then the player is booted. If the request is declined and the player stays, the pop-up appears again every 8 or so minutes.

 

This would please both lone wolves and 4-player parties that are only waiting for their member to return.

 

Let me also point out that AFK players don't present a problem just for bosses, but also for defense maps as well. The map doesn't start until all players enter the room containing the cryopod.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Kingly_Bacon

[Ryanshow]

5 minutes is far too generous IMO.

 

Especially if the AFK player is preventing a defense mission from starting or a boss from starting. Or in a two man game a door from opening.

 

5 minutes is fine for missions outside of those as the team can still carry on and complete the mission. But if the team is blocked from progressing and the last player is just idle then I say you've got 30 seconds of doing nothing before the game throws you out.

 

I got stuck trying to do valefor defense yesterday.

 

Joined the game, idle guy just sitting there can't start the map.

 

Quit, try and find a game again in valefor, same game same guy still afk.

 

I am now blocked from playing valefor with PUGs because some guy is sitting there afk and the match making keeps throwing me in with him.

 

Utter garbage, I wonder if he was trolling.

[WhisperByte]

If this problem is only boss related, they could add a timer that starts running (60secs) when then first guy arrives at the boss.

After the timer runs out, everyone not in the boss arena gets kicked automatically and the fight begins.

Ofc, if everyone is closeby, the fight starts whatever is left on the clock.

Just like extraction.

Too abusable. Some speedrunner Loki or Volt can reach boss way faster than, let's say, Rhino. Instead of kicking I would prefer just starting the boss fight even if the whole team is not at the boss location when the timer runs out

[Excitonex]

5 minutes is far too generous IMO.

 

Especially if the AFK player is preventing a defense mission from starting or a boss from starting. Or in a two man game a door from opening.

 

5 minutes is fine for missions outside of those as the team can still carry on and complete the mission. But if the team is blocked from progressing and the last player is just idle then I say you've got 30 seconds of doing nothing before the game throws you out.

 

I got stuck trying to do valefor defense yesterday.

 

Joined the game, idle guy just sitting there can't start the map.

 

Quit, try and find a game again in valefor, same game same guy still afk.

 

I am now blocked from playing valefor with PUGs because some guy is sitting there afk and the match making keeps throwing me in with him.

 

Utter garbage, I wonder if he was trolling.

Auto-kick after 30 seconds of idling? Gee, how could that go wrong ever? You could get kicked waiting at the end for the rest of your cell.

[Ryanshow]

Auto-kick after 30 seconds of idling? Gee, how could that go wrong ever? You could get kicked waiting at the end for the rest of your cell.

 

IF YOU READ

 

You would've understood I meant this only for when the team is blocked from progression. Otherwise 5 minutes is fine.

 

 

edit: in case  you still don't get it. How could you be waiting at the end if the team is blocked from progression?

Edited May 21, 2013 by Ryanshow

[Excitonex]

IF YOU READ

 

You would've understood I meant this only for when the team is blocked from progression. Otherwise 5 minutes is fine.

 

 

edit: in case  you still don't get it. How could you be waiting at the end if the team is blocked from progression?

Ah right, so the person who go to the jackal first can get kicked, just as good an idea. I think 3 minutes at a minimum would be a reasonable timer, life happens and I don't think we should be punishing people for it when afkers aren't really a large issue in this game.

[Hezekiah]

I was against vote kicking till some punk used Mag's pull to wipe the entire team out of a countdown timer mission.   I have since wished for the ability to vote kick.

[Drusus]

So an Idle kick is warranted, but it won't help the deliberate abuse cases.

To prevent an idle kick, the person need only have a macro capable bit of software or hardware and ensure he shoots or jumps or takes a step or what not at least once within the idle timer range. People have been defeating these for some time.

Similarly, a Vote Kick on a max of a 4 man team is simply not enough numerical breadth to structure it to prevent abusive use rather than the intended use of stopping abusive players. If it operates on majority rule, that only affects 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 cases, a rather incomplete percentage of the cases where an abuser can affect your experience.

I maintain the best strategy forward is still a "block" system that ensures that once someone is on your ignore list or block list (if a separate construct), you simply will not join any game sessions they are in and they cannot join any game session where they are in the Block list.

This model is 100% reliable in that once a jerk has taken actions against ANY of the players in a session, they will never have to deal with said idiot again short of them remaking a new account. A kick system opens abuse cases and does NOT provide 100% reliability in preventing repeat cases.

Additionally, a block system becomes rapidly self regulating in that those that behave poorly are persistently sequestered to play with one another.

This kind of model would also decidedly assist in the Rusher/Explorer conflicts right now as if you don't like the way they play, you are locking down the likelihood of having that experience again.

This seems to me the path of most gain for least resistance from a mechanics stand point. Whether the database functions involved would be problematic to keep efficient is a separate concern, but I'd think still very manageable.

[liavalenth]

I believe a report system would work much better and be much more difficult to abuse. Add to it a timer-then vote to kick for AFK players and you solve a lot of problems.

 

The timer should prompt for a vote kick after 2 min, and every 5 min after that if they still are idle. This way groups that don't want to kick them don't have too much of a problem, but other groups can get them removed rather quickly. If you make the vote appear in a corner and have it be small, require all active players to vote 'yes' to kick, and assume no vote within 30 seconds is 'no' it would be unobtrusive enough to not cause too many problems.

 

As per the report system it would have multiple choices - AFK (or leeching), Griefing, Language, etc. When someone joins a group a statistics page with how many times they have been reported for each in the last 1-2 weeks can be viewed by other players. If you are reported for leeching or griefing, say, 10 times within 1 hour, or 15 times in 2 hours, you cannot join another PuG for an hour. If this happens again within 24 hours after the ban the time doubles, doubling each additional time.

 

You can only be reported inside a mission and only once per person per action. This prevents the system from being abused against someone, at least to a point.

[Excitonex]

So an Idle kick is warranted, but it won't help the deliberate abuse cases.

To prevent an idle kick, the person need only have a macro capable bit of software or hardware and ensure he shoots or jumps or takes a step or what not at least once within the idle timer range. People have been defeating these for some time.

Similarly, a Vote Kick on a max of a 4 man team is simply not enough numerical breadth to structure it to prevent abusive use rather than the intended use of stopping abusive players. If it operates on majority rule, that only affects 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 cases, a rather incomplete percentage of the cases where an abuser can affect your experience.

I maintain the best strategy forward is still a "block" system that ensures that once someone is on your ignore list or block list (if a separate construct), you simply will not join any game sessions they are in and they cannot join any game session where they are in the Block list.

This model is 100% reliable in that once a jerk has taken actions against ANY of the players in a session, they will never have to deal with said idiot again short of them remaking a new account. A kick system opens abuse cases and does NOT provide 100% reliability in preventing repeat cases.

Additionally, a block system becomes rapidly self regulating in that those that behave poorly are persistently sequestered to play with one another.

This kind of model would also decidedly assist in the Rusher/Explorer conflicts right now as if you don't like the way they play, you are locking down the likelihood of having that experience again.

This seems to me the path of most gain for least resistance from a mechanics stand point. Whether the database functions involved would be problematic to keep efficient is a separate concern, but I'd think still very manageable.

I, too, think a block/ignore system would be very useful. At first you might think it will alienate some players but I think groups of people with the same play styles will end up playing together and less with the other groups, making for a more enjoyable experience. Of course those who adapt to play with everyone shouldn't be affected by the ignore system negatively in any fashion.

[Ryanshow]

Ah right, so the person who go to the jackal first can get kicked, just as good an idea. I think 3 minutes at a minimum would be a reasonable timer, life happens and I don't think we should be punishing people for it when afkers aren't really a large issue in this game.

 

Dear lord you can't logic can you?

 

Only the person who was blocking the team, as in the one not at the boss or not going into the defense mission zone would be subject to it. In a two man game with the door blocked they guy who has been running around doing the mission had to be active to that point as well so he is exempt.

 

[PapaKicks]

Dear lord you can't logic can you?

 

Only the person who was blocking the team, as in the one not at the boss or not going into the defense mission zone would be subject to it. In a two man game with the door blocked they guy who has been running around doing the mission had to be active to that point as well so he is exempt.

 

 

 

HIS point was that waiting for the afk person, you can easily stand still for 30 seconds, and wind up getting kicked yourself on such a short timer.

[DAWGUNITALPHA]

Wave 15 of a defense mission, one ancient/moa/marine left. You're all ready to kill it. Then the vote kick pops up and people vote you out for no reason other than to troll.

 

So yeah, don't implement a vote kick system.

[EvilMath]

Waiting 20 mins for an afk player to show up to the boss fight. Twice today. Not the same person. The boss doesn't start moving unless we're all there.

 

Vote kick or at least an ignore feature so I never have to team up with them again.

[Excitonex]

Waiting 20 mins for an afk player to show up to the boss fight. Twice today. Not the same person. The boss doesn't start moving unless we're all there.

 

Vote kick or at least an ignore feature so I never have to team up with them again.

You do know you can press escape and leave the mission, right?