I will say this, if they have a vote to kick feature as soon as I see a rainbow build, I will click to vote that person out....and I'm not alone on that.
I know you're not alone in that. *soft smile* And that, man friend, is the best advertisement for never instituting such a system.
N.B. The most benign proposal, IMHO, is still the system not having you team up with people you have on your ignore list.
N.B. The most benign proposal, IMHO, is still the system not having you team up with people you have on your ignore list.
That sounds attractive but has pretty horrible side-effects (in terms of greatly increased queue times.)
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
I would think the only people getting increased queue times would be the people on the ignore lists.
Not exactly, while the people on ignore lists do experience longer queue times, so do the people who put them on the lists. This also causes problems when you put people on ignore lists for other reasons (for example, sending out a fleet recruitment message too often.)
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
And tell me genius exactly whom will I be abusing since I mainly solo and only team (on the rare occasions I join a team) with people I know. :P
But please do continue frothing at the mouth. Your paranoid delusions are entertaining.
If you do not use the public queue's and team with random strangers then you do not need a vote kick system. Are you going to be vote kicking your friends so you wont have any left?
As for private teams a kick option from the team leader is not an issue, I have absolutely no problems with a team leader in a private match having the ability to kick someone and invite someone else. the queue events should never have a vote kick and they should not have a team leader with the ability because they WILL be abused.
But please keep drooling over the ability to ruin a complete strangers ability to enjoy the game because you have the power toi kick them.
Join Date: Nobody cares.
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek:
Not exactly, while the people on ignore lists do experience longer queue times, so do the people who put them on the lists. This also causes problems when you put people on ignore lists for other reasons (for example, sending out a fleet recruitment message too often.)
This is why the ignore list should have different categories, chat and queue for starters, maybe even instance. But also have the option to add chat to the queue system or vice versa because some trolls may see you in the event and decide to kill the optional on purpose just to troll you some more. But at the very least a no queue again ignore list would be the best option even if chat is not part of the list.
Join Date: Nobody cares.
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek:
A participation meter... you know that might be interesting. Mostly because it could scale to the user. Instead of it being highest DPS or the like, maybe participation could be scaled by things like personal best DPS, or personal best amount healed... of course there would be a whole range below that, 50%, 75%, maybe even scaling up when the STF is done, giving rewards that way. Also giving an incentive for people to participate. If the meter is 0, then there would be no rewards. This takes away griefing, while also at least discouraging AFK players. Thoughts?
I will say this, if they have a vote to kick feature as soon as I see a rainbow build, I will click to vote that person out....and I'm not alone on that.
And stuff like this is why the Devs aren't sold on the idea of a kick vote.
A rainbow or skittle build is not necessarily deliberately abusing other players and it's definitely not cheating, but we've just seen one person say they'd immediately vote to kick.
The problem with a simple vote to kick is that it's too easy. One quick click, one quick vote, no need to think about it and no pain.
But we do need a way to kick real abusers. So we need vote to kick to be not-so-easy.
That gives me an idea.
One click is nothing. It's hardly an interruption, barely an inconvenience.
What about lots of clicks over a short period of time? Now you've got to take some of your time away from gameplay to repeatedly insist to the game engine that a certain player needs to be kicked. And more than that, a majority of the team would have to be doing that to register a vote to kick.
After the system tallies a certain number of majority votes within the prescribed period of time, the potential kickee gets a warning that he's about to be kicked. That gives him a chance to get with the program. If the kick votes hit the critical threshold, he's off the team and out of the scenario. To prevent real abuse, the kickee gets no cooldown penalty and is free to try to join another queue but can't rejoin one he's been kicked from.
With a system like that, some of the abuse potential goes away. Do you really want to take a chance on blowing that optional to get rid of Mr. Leech? Is the situation bad enough to make you want to divert your attention away from the battle at hand? Then maybe Player X really does deserve to be kicked... or at the very least probably needs to go find another team who'll work with him.
I'm not suggesting this is the best possible idea. There's definitely a major downside there. But would it be worth it to people to have the ability to kick somebody?
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
1. Give it a 20 hour cooldown.
2. Require atleast 10 clicks for a yes while imobilizing your ship and 1 click for no, get this message off my screen.
3. "YES" in red and "NO" in green for font colors. Big warning above that it is only for AFK/leeching and no other reason.
4. Kicks the person who initiates it if the kick fails, with leaver penalty.
5. 3 fails in a row gets a GM report to investigate for a potential griefer.
6. Require 4 yes votes to kick.
7. AND last but not least a way to report kicking for any reason besides AFK/leeching which is treated as intentional griefing.
Or how about just make leeching against the TOS! a GM watch the reported player in an event or 5. If the player does infact leech then the GM can give them a vacation from STO. 2 vacations then permanent for a 3 strike system. They get 1 vacation and warn others in the form of ranting in zone chat and the problem will go the way of the dinosaur.
Wow maybe the simplest solution is the best one? :eek:
Join Date: Nobody cares.
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek:
2. Require atleast 10 clicks for a yes while imobilizing your ship and 1 click for no, get this message off my screen.
Yeah, no. This would make the actual voting a form of griefing itself. People generally don't even want to see a single loot popup, let alone something you have to click 10 times.
3. "YES" in red and "NO" in green for font colors. Big warning above that it is only for AFK/leeching and no other reason.
That is going to mean nothing to those bent on kicking for other reasons.
4. Kicks the person who initiates it if the kick fails, with leaver penalty.
5. 3 fails in a row gets a GM report to investigate for a potential griefer.
It's a good way to discourage abuse; but perhaps a bit too good, as I foresee people will just be waiting for 'someone else' to initiate a vote kick (lest they themselves reap the possible negative consequences).
7. AND last but not least a way to report kicking for any reason besides AFK/leeching which is treated as intentional griefing.
Without Cryptic re-running a 'transcript' of the entire match, there's no way for the devs to verify, or falsify, any such claims.
Or how about just make leeching against the TOS! a GM watch the reported player in an event or 5. If the player does infact leech then the GM can give them a vacation from STO. 2 vacations then permanent for a 3 strike system. They get 1 vacation and warn others in the form of ranting in zone chat and the problem will go the way of the dinosaur.
Wow maybe the simplest solution is the best one? :eek:
Your ''simplest' solution is also the most time-consuming one (for the devs); and therefore never going to happen.
GM time is expensive, especially for a F2P game. Any idea that requires more GM involvement is likely a non-starter.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
How do you imagine this prevent people from kicking someone before rewards are dropped?
Well, again it would still have to be a majority vote. It's not one person clicking a dozen times, it's three or four people doing it within the same time window to show that they all agree so-and-so ought to be kicked.
Maybe it would be a good idea to lock out the vote kick system when all objectives are complete. Or maybe as soon as the "boss fight" starts. Somebody who's actively worked with the team to the very end shouldn't be kickable when things are wrapping up.
Good feedback, there. I hadn't factored that in yet.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I've said several times in as many threads AFKing is just one type of team griefing.
You mean like when knuckleheads refuse to listen and destroy the cubes before they should on The Cure? Just because they go pew-pew-pew crazy even with the whole team shouting at them to stop?
I guess that isn't griefing, but some method of correcting those idiots so they stop and listen or better yet learn the STF would be nice. Besides swearing at them I mean.
Having played City of Heroes for 7 years I never once saw a leader abuse his ability to kick team mates, I don't know why some people are so adamant about it being an issue here. Even later on in the game when entire leagues would form up (ie 40 people all in the same instance. a leader on each 8 man unit or team) even then it wasn't abused.
Having this feature would help in other ways too, not just for the leacher/griefer, but also for those who have been hit with an sto bug!
More than once I've been in queue for an stf, only to not zone in with the rest of the team. I've sent the person organizing it a message saying I need the room name or something only to have them respond that I am actually in the map but not moving! Its like, um, no im in sector space! So I would of been labled a leacher and not even have known it.
Something needs to be done, pure and simple. Whether its a way to gauge participation or to give the team/leader the authority to take action.
You mean like when knuckleheads refuse to listen and destroy the cubes before they should on The Cure? Just because they go pew-pew-pew crazy even with the whole team shouting at them to stop?
I guess that isn't griefing, but some method of correcting those idiots so they stop and listen or better yet learn the STF would be nice. Besides swearing at them I mean.
You realize RML is a valid cure tactic right? Do not call us knuckleheads, because it is actually the fastest and most reliable way to do the instance if you have the DPS for it.
The real knuckleheads are the ones that refuse to go more than 10k away from Kang and kill the Bops and raptors at their spawn points. (because cubes are sooo scurry)
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus
I'd kick anyone in a Rainbow boat, or pretty much anyone who's build i just didn't like.
you were warned.
And I'd kick you for being an elitist moron, so we're even.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
One person (either your highest DPS, or a blend of moderately high dps with tractor repulsors/grav wells for CC) stations themself between the kang and the Left and Center cubes.
They alternate the BOP spawns before they ever get close to the Kang. (and can even work on the bottom nanites if they have the time to)
The other four people bumrush the right cube, and then kill the first two front nanites. When the Negh and Raptor spawn, they kill them where they spawn. They also kill the spawning bops before they can get past. After the rap and negh are dead, the team takes down the other four nanites and the cube.
The person who was guarding now moves to the left cube only, and stops the raptors at the spawn point. The team that was on right, now moves to center and prevents those raptors from getting past as well. They then repeat the previous process in the last step. One person is designated as a backup for the Left guard in case of emergency.
When center is dead, all move to left, and its usually really easy from there with five people on one spawn point. Pop that cube, hail the kang, clean up any remaining neghs.
The only really "needed" thing for this strategy is one person that can reliably kill 3 raptors solo in less than 30 seconds. A good DPS specced escort can with very little trouble.
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus
Okay, I'm not going to pretend that I read this whole thread(sorry, arguments and counter arguments were becoming a little long in the tooth for me).
What I saw as the primary recommendations to counter leechers and adversely abusers was to either implement a VtK function or code to determine contributions, namely dps/hps.
VtK runs the chance of abuse. The level of chance is skewed by perception.
Code runs risks as well.
-I run a drain tank. Last parse I ran I had dps in the range of of 600 - 700. Hps escapes me, but it was all focused on me. However, I can tank elite tac cubes buying time and space for team mates to take down other mobs. Now dps and hps wise I don't contribute to the team and may be penalized for that.
But, if we use the pros of each to counter act the other's con, an effective system could be devised. my suggestion is to implement code that tracks all contributing acts over certain time periods capable of weighting dead time, ie someone runs to the bathroom, versus active time. Once a predetermined benchmark is met that indicates a leech, a AtK button is activated for that individual.
If someone brought this up, my bad. Reference first sentence.
I am in favor of the kick button. Seen it in other games and rarely have seen abuse of it. Those who frustrate, leech or arent simply playing the game can be booted this way with a fair system of unanimity.
Those who are afraid there will be abuse must realize that there will always be trols and that you can report those people. But again the pros outweigh the cons by far from my experience.
One thing. The kick button must become active after 33% of the mission is done. It would be unfair to kick a player who had a long loading time and comes to realize that he is back on ESD where he started because people got impatient.
I agree Vote to Kick is a HUGE mistake. It WILL be abused to no end. Both by elitists and the disruptive scourge that exist to make other players' lives miserable. It would NOT end well.
The problem I see us dealing with is the grouping system itself. It's been brought up already, but the system that's in place leaves teams with no choice over who joins their mission. We're stuck with whoever the system gives us. The game needs a system where the team lead posts a group for a certain mission, and people apply to it, allowing the existing team to decide whether they want that player or not. Those that develop a reputation for piking, or leeching, will find themselves being declined by groups left and right, and may actually change their ways.
It also helps the game develop socially outside of the fleet. You get to know more people who are from outside your fleet, which is something I feel this game sorely lacks. It would reduce the need for fleets to do so much "blind" recruiting by giving fleet-less players a place to be seen, and a place for fleets to see who's out there who's good and needs a fleet.
I've seen a half dozen pikers in the last few days alone. It's becoming more prevelant. From people who just sit at the spawn point, to one individual from a fleet known for their disruptive behaviour who WALKED, not ran, not moved normally, but used the WALK EMOTE to follow us around and WATCH us all fight in a Colony Invasion.
A prime example of a good system is Dungeons and Dragons Online. I played DDO for 3 years and it was by FAR the best grouping system I've seen in an MMO. It allowed you to see who was requesting to join, the guild they belonged to, and allowed the group to decide if they were welcome in the mission.
Vote to Kick is a band-aid. We need a cure to the "piker" problem. We need a new system. My $.02.
But, if we use the pros of each to counter act the other's con, an effective system could be devised. my suggestion is to implement code that tracks all contributing acts over certain time periods capable of weighting dead time, ie someone runs to the bathroom, versus active time. Once a predetermined benchmark is met that indicates a leech, a AtK button is activated for that individual.
If someone brought this up, my bad. Reference first sentence.
What do you guys think?
It'd be a heckuva complicated algorithm but it certainly seems like a good suggestion.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I agree Vote to Kick is a HUGE mistake. It WILL be abused to no end. Both by elitists and the disruptive scourge that exist to make other players' lives miserable. It would NOT end well.
That's what some people keep saying about it. But I haven't seen any actual evidence that it would be such a huge problem.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
Comments
I know you're not alone in that. *soft smile* And that, man friend, is the best advertisement for never instituting such a system.
N.B. The most benign proposal, IMHO, is still the system not having you team up with people you have on your ignore list.
That sounds attractive but has pretty horrible side-effects (in terms of greatly increased queue times.)
Not exactly, while the people on ignore lists do experience longer queue times, so do the people who put them on the lists. This also causes problems when you put people on ignore lists for other reasons (for example, sending out a fleet recruitment message too often.)
If you do not use the public queue's and team with random strangers then you do not need a vote kick system. Are you going to be vote kicking your friends so you wont have any left?
As for private teams a kick option from the team leader is not an issue, I have absolutely no problems with a team leader in a private match having the ability to kick someone and invite someone else. the queue events should never have a vote kick and they should not have a team leader with the ability because they WILL be abused.
But please keep drooling over the ability to ruin a complete strangers ability to enjoy the game because you have the power toi kick them.
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek:
This is why the ignore list should have different categories, chat and queue for starters, maybe even instance. But also have the option to add chat to the queue system or vice versa because some trolls may see you in the event and decide to kill the optional on purpose just to troll you some more. But at the very least a no queue again ignore list would be the best option even if chat is not part of the list.
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek:
Remove the penalty for leaving, then a Player can make a choice if they want to support a lazy a-- Fu----.
Yes, it might. But to play Devil's Advocate, what else might happen if they institute a kick vote?
Oh, look... Here's one:
And stuff like this is why the Devs aren't sold on the idea of a kick vote.
A rainbow or skittle build is not necessarily deliberately abusing other players and it's definitely not cheating, but we've just seen one person say they'd immediately vote to kick.
The problem with a simple vote to kick is that it's too easy. One quick click, one quick vote, no need to think about it and no pain.
But we do need a way to kick real abusers. So we need vote to kick to be not-so-easy.
That gives me an idea.
One click is nothing. It's hardly an interruption, barely an inconvenience.
What about lots of clicks over a short period of time? Now you've got to take some of your time away from gameplay to repeatedly insist to the game engine that a certain player needs to be kicked. And more than that, a majority of the team would have to be doing that to register a vote to kick.
After the system tallies a certain number of majority votes within the prescribed period of time, the potential kickee gets a warning that he's about to be kicked. That gives him a chance to get with the program. If the kick votes hit the critical threshold, he's off the team and out of the scenario. To prevent real abuse, the kickee gets no cooldown penalty and is free to try to join another queue but can't rejoin one he's been kicked from.
With a system like that, some of the abuse potential goes away. Do you really want to take a chance on blowing that optional to get rid of Mr. Leech? Is the situation bad enough to make you want to divert your attention away from the battle at hand? Then maybe Player X really does deserve to be kicked... or at the very least probably needs to go find another team who'll work with him.
I'm not suggesting this is the best possible idea. There's definitely a major downside there. But would it be worth it to people to have the ability to kick somebody?
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
1. Give it a 20 hour cooldown.
2. Require atleast 10 clicks for a yes while imobilizing your ship and 1 click for no, get this message off my screen.
3. "YES" in red and "NO" in green for font colors. Big warning above that it is only for AFK/leeching and no other reason.
4. Kicks the person who initiates it if the kick fails, with leaver penalty.
5. 3 fails in a row gets a GM report to investigate for a potential griefer.
6. Require 4 yes votes to kick.
7. AND last but not least a way to report kicking for any reason besides AFK/leeching which is treated as intentional griefing.
Or how about just make leeching against the TOS! a GM watch the reported player in an event or 5. If the player does infact leech then the GM can give them a vacation from STO. 2 vacations then permanent for a 3 strike system. They get 1 vacation and warn others in the form of ranting in zone chat and the problem will go the way of the dinosaur.
Wow maybe the simplest solution is the best one? :eek:
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek:
Yeah, no. This would make the actual voting a form of griefing itself. People generally don't even want to see a single loot popup, let alone something you have to click 10 times.
That is going to mean nothing to those bent on kicking for other reasons.
It's a good way to discourage abuse; but perhaps a bit too good, as I foresee people will just be waiting for 'someone else' to initiate a vote kick (lest they themselves reap the possible negative consequences).
Without Cryptic re-running a 'transcript' of the entire match, there's no way for the devs to verify, or falsify, any such claims.
Your ''simplest' solution is also the most time-consuming one (for the devs); and therefore never going to happen.
GM time is expensive, especially for a F2P game. Any idea that requires more GM involvement is likely a non-starter.
I agree with that for the most part. I can think of other reasons to kick someone who's not being a team player, though.
Well, again it would still have to be a majority vote. It's not one person clicking a dozen times, it's three or four people doing it within the same time window to show that they all agree so-and-so ought to be kicked.
Maybe it would be a good idea to lock out the vote kick system when all objectives are complete. Or maybe as soon as the "boss fight" starts. Somebody who's actively worked with the team to the very end shouldn't be kickable when things are wrapping up.
Good feedback, there. I hadn't factored that in yet.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I think you just nailed it.
You mean like when knuckleheads refuse to listen and destroy the cubes before they should on The Cure? Just because they go pew-pew-pew crazy even with the whole team shouting at them to stop?
I guess that isn't griefing, but some method of correcting those idiots so they stop and listen or better yet learn the STF would be nice. Besides swearing at them I mean.
Having this feature would help in other ways too, not just for the leacher/griefer, but also for those who have been hit with an sto bug!
More than once I've been in queue for an stf, only to not zone in with the rest of the team. I've sent the person organizing it a message saying I need the room name or something only to have them respond that I am actually in the map but not moving! Its like, um, no im in sector space! So I would of been labled a leacher and not even have known it.
Something needs to be done, pure and simple. Whether its a way to gauge participation or to give the team/leader the authority to take action.
id be fair, too. The only people id sanction would be those either:
1. Intentionally griefing the instance with balloons and fire extinguishers
2. AFK or non responsive after a warning PM
Im totally serious, too.
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus
You realize RML is a valid cure tactic right? Do not call us knuckleheads, because it is actually the fastest and most reliable way to do the instance if you have the DPS for it.
The real knuckleheads are the ones that refuse to go more than 10k away from Kang and kill the Bops and raptors at their spawn points. (because cubes are sooo scurry)
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus
you were warned.
And I'd kick you for being an elitist moron, so we're even.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
How you gonna outvote me, I never travel in this game alone.
and name calling tisk squared
One person (either your highest DPS, or a blend of moderately high dps with tractor repulsors/grav wells for CC) stations themself between the kang and the Left and Center cubes.
They alternate the BOP spawns before they ever get close to the Kang. (and can even work on the bottom nanites if they have the time to)
The other four people bumrush the right cube, and then kill the first two front nanites. When the Negh and Raptor spawn, they kill them where they spawn. They also kill the spawning bops before they can get past. After the rap and negh are dead, the team takes down the other four nanites and the cube.
The person who was guarding now moves to the left cube only, and stops the raptors at the spawn point. The team that was on right, now moves to center and prevents those raptors from getting past as well. They then repeat the previous process in the last step. One person is designated as a backup for the Left guard in case of emergency.
When center is dead, all move to left, and its usually really easy from there with five people on one spawn point. Pop that cube, hail the kang, clean up any remaining neghs.
The only really "needed" thing for this strategy is one person that can reliably kill 3 raptors solo in less than 30 seconds. A good DPS specced escort can with very little trouble.
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus
What I saw as the primary recommendations to counter leechers and adversely abusers was to either implement a VtK function or code to determine contributions, namely dps/hps.
VtK runs the chance of abuse. The level of chance is skewed by perception.
Code runs risks as well.
-I run a drain tank. Last parse I ran I had dps in the range of of 600 - 700. Hps escapes me, but it was all focused on me. However, I can tank elite tac cubes buying time and space for team mates to take down other mobs. Now dps and hps wise I don't contribute to the team and may be penalized for that.
But, if we use the pros of each to counter act the other's con, an effective system could be devised. my suggestion is to implement code that tracks all contributing acts over certain time periods capable of weighting dead time, ie someone runs to the bathroom, versus active time. Once a predetermined benchmark is met that indicates a leech, a AtK button is activated for that individual.
If someone brought this up, my bad. Reference first sentence.
What do you guys think?
Those who are afraid there will be abuse must realize that there will always be trols and that you can report those people. But again the pros outweigh the cons by far from my experience.
One thing. The kick button must become active after 33% of the mission is done. It would be unfair to kick a player who had a long loading time and comes to realize that he is back on ESD where he started because people got impatient.
The problem I see us dealing with is the grouping system itself. It's been brought up already, but the system that's in place leaves teams with no choice over who joins their mission. We're stuck with whoever the system gives us. The game needs a system where the team lead posts a group for a certain mission, and people apply to it, allowing the existing team to decide whether they want that player or not. Those that develop a reputation for piking, or leeching, will find themselves being declined by groups left and right, and may actually change their ways.
It also helps the game develop socially outside of the fleet. You get to know more people who are from outside your fleet, which is something I feel this game sorely lacks. It would reduce the need for fleets to do so much "blind" recruiting by giving fleet-less players a place to be seen, and a place for fleets to see who's out there who's good and needs a fleet.
I've seen a half dozen pikers in the last few days alone. It's becoming more prevelant. From people who just sit at the spawn point, to one individual from a fleet known for their disruptive behaviour who WALKED, not ran, not moved normally, but used the WALK EMOTE to follow us around and WATCH us all fight in a Colony Invasion.
A prime example of a good system is Dungeons and Dragons Online. I played DDO for 3 years and it was by FAR the best grouping system I've seen in an MMO. It allowed you to see who was requesting to join, the guild they belonged to, and allowed the group to decide if they were welcome in the mission.
Vote to Kick is a band-aid. We need a cure to the "piker" problem. We need a new system. My $.02.
It'd be a heckuva complicated algorithm but it certainly seems like a good suggestion.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Most definitely would be. On the bright side it wouldn't be me trying to code it:D
That's what some people keep saying about it. But I haven't seen any actual evidence that it would be such a huge problem.
The irony here is that an alternate suggestion (the ignore list system) is always shot down based upon a "too much code argument".