GrubySzymek.1362 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > @Genesis.5169 said: > > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > > There's no realistic way to implement a system that stops blocked players from entering a party, and this is mostly because parties in GW2 don't operate the same way they do in a lot of other games. For one thing, there is no party leader. So how then would you fairly determine when a player should be excluded from a party in a case where, for example, one other member in that party might have blocked said player? Would it be fair for me to not be able to play with someone else who might be trying to join the same party I am in, just because someone else in my party might have blocked them for what could be silly or archaic reasons? > > > > > > Luckily, the game is designed in such a way that people need to vote to kick, which prevents abuse. If three people vote to kick someone, then I'm more inclined to believe there was a real issue and that removing the player might be justified. With that being said, if things don't go your way, you are more than welcome to leave a party yourself, if you don't want to play with someone in it. > > > > Also just gonna say i disagree with the vote kicking system, i make a party so i can do what i wanted to do, people who disagree with me the said creator of party that you (not really you but work with me here) are joining because you were too lazy to make your own. Raiding and parties should be treated the same leader/creator calls the shots period you wanna have a voice make your own pt, don't crap out mines because you were to lazy to make your own. > > It's fine if you disagree with the system, you are entitled to your opinion in that regard. However, I'm of the opinion that having a party leader system is more open to abuse. > > I'll give an example, let's say a player makes a party. As the party leader he/she has the power to kick players at will. He creates a party for a hard dungeon like Arah, and then they complete it. Just because they get to the end, said player then kicks all other party members, and then sells the open spots for dungeon completion. This is a situation that the voting kick system would usually protect players against to a degree, but now that you give all the power to one person, you are at the mercy of their whims, whether their decisions to kick you are justified or not. > > I've also had situations in group content where people have voted to kick for silly reasons. Like if a person makes one honest mistake, and one party member overreacts and votes to kick. No-one else in the party believes the mistake was severe enough to warrant a kick and so the vote doesn't go through, but if that one person was the party leader, said player would have been removed and the rest of the party might have become disgruntled. > > Also, I'm not sure why you label people who join parties as being lazy. It's common sense to join a party before making a new one, because if no-one joined and everyone created, parties would never be filled. If we went by that logic, that if people want their way they should create their own parties, and every player followed that logic and treated the idea of joining a made party as a stigma, then nothing would ever get done. > > In the end, there is already a solution for people like you, who want a party that adheres to specific parameters that suit your needs. Play in organized groups. So why do we have squad leader system with omnipotential power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenrai Senshi.2017 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > > @Genesis.5169 said: > > > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > > > There's no realistic way to implement a system that stops blocked players from entering a party, and this is mostly because parties in GW2 don't operate the same way they do in a lot of other games. For one thing, there is no party leader. So how then would you fairly determine when a player should be excluded from a party in a case where, for example, one other member in that party might have blocked said player? Would it be fair for me to not be able to play with someone else who might be trying to join the same party I am in, just because someone else in my party might have blocked them for what could be silly or archaic reasons? > > > > > > > > Luckily, the game is designed in such a way that people need to vote to kick, which prevents abuse. If three people vote to kick someone, then I'm more inclined to believe there was a real issue and that removing the player might be justified. With that being said, if things don't go your way, you are more than welcome to leave a party yourself, if you don't want to play with someone in it. > > > > > > Also just gonna say i disagree with the vote kicking system, i make a party so i can do what i wanted to do, people who disagree with me the said creator of party that you (not really you but work with me here) are joining because you were too lazy to make your own. Raiding and parties should be treated the same leader/creator calls the shots period you wanna have a voice make your own pt, don't crap out mines because you were to lazy to make your own. > > > > It's fine if you disagree with the system, you are entitled to your opinion in that regard. However, I'm of the opinion that having a party leader system is more open to abuse. > > > > I'll give an example, let's say a player makes a party. As the party leader he/she has the power to kick players at will. He creates a party for a hard dungeon like Arah, and then they complete it. Just because they get to the end, said player then kicks all other party members, and then sells the open spots for dungeon completion. This is a situation that the voting kick system would usually protect players against to a degree, but now that you give all the power to one person, you are at the mercy of their whims, whether their decisions to kick you are justified or not. > > > > I've also had situations in group content where people have voted to kick for silly reasons. Like if a person makes one honest mistake, and one party member overreacts and votes to kick. No-one else in the party believes the mistake was severe enough to warrant a kick and so the vote doesn't go through, but if that one person was the party leader, said player would have been removed and the rest of the party might have become disgruntled. > > > > Also, I'm not sure why you label people who join parties as being lazy. It's common sense to join a party before making a new one, because if no-one joined and everyone created, parties would never be filled. If we went by that logic, that if people want their way they should create their own parties, and every player followed that logic and treated the idea of joining a made party as a stigma, then nothing would ever get done. > > > > In the end, there is already a solution for people like you, who want a party that adheres to specific parameters that suit your needs. Play in organized groups. > > So why do we have squad leader system with omnipotential power? Probably because the party system only supports up to five players, and using squads for raids was the most simple solution they could think of to amend that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > > > @Genesis.5169 said: > > > > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > > > > There's no realistic way to implement a system that stops blocked players from entering a party, and this is mostly because parties in GW2 don't operate the same way they do in a lot of other games. For one thing, there is no party leader. So how then would you fairly determine when a player should be excluded from a party in a case where, for example, one other member in that party might have blocked said player? Would it be fair for me to not be able to play with someone else who might be trying to join the same party I am in, just because someone else in my party might have blocked them for what could be silly or archaic reasons? > > > > > > > > > > Luckily, the game is designed in such a way that people need to vote to kick, which prevents abuse. If three people vote to kick someone, then I'm more inclined to believe there was a real issue and that removing the player might be justified. With that being said, if things don't go your way, you are more than welcome to leave a party yourself, if you don't want to play with someone in it. > > > > > > > > Also just gonna say i disagree with the vote kicking system, i make a party so i can do what i wanted to do, people who disagree with me the said creator of party that you (not really you but work with me here) are joining because you were too lazy to make your own. Raiding and parties should be treated the same leader/creator calls the shots period you wanna have a voice make your own pt, don't crap out mines because you were to lazy to make your own. > > > > > > It's fine if you disagree with the system, you are entitled to your opinion in that regard. However, I'm of the opinion that having a party leader system is more open to abuse. > > > > > > I'll give an example, let's say a player makes a party. As the party leader he/she has the power to kick players at will. He creates a party for a hard dungeon like Arah, and then they complete it. Just because they get to the end, said player then kicks all other party members, and then sells the open spots for dungeon completion. This is a situation that the voting kick system would usually protect players against to a degree, but now that you give all the power to one person, you are at the mercy of their whims, whether their decisions to kick you are justified or not. > > > > > > I've also had situations in group content where people have voted to kick for silly reasons. Like if a person makes one honest mistake, and one party member overreacts and votes to kick. No-one else in the party believes the mistake was severe enough to warrant a kick and so the vote doesn't go through, but if that one person was the party leader, said player would have been removed and the rest of the party might have become disgruntled. > > > > > > Also, I'm not sure why you label people who join parties as being lazy. It's common sense to join a party before making a new one, because if no-one joined and everyone created, parties would never be filled. If we went by that logic, that if people want their way they should create their own parties, and every player followed that logic and treated the idea of joining a made party as a stigma, then nothing would ever get done. > > > > > > In the end, there is already a solution for people like you, who want a party that adheres to specific parameters that suit your needs. Play in organized groups. > > > > So why do we have squad leader system with omnipotential power? > > Probably because the party system only supports up to five players, and using squads for raids was the most simple solution they could think of to amend that? That's not my question. You try to rationalize why party leader system is bad while we already have squad leader with omni power in game and looks like no doom and gloom happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Red Arachnid.2493 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 > @MarkoNS.3261 said: > i voted wrong xd my vote is no. reflex action . Same here. Anyway, my concern isn't for parties it is for squads. When doing overworld stuff, it isn't important that you like every single person in a 50 man squad. For parties, though, definitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenrai Senshi.2017 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > > > > @Genesis.5169 said: > > > > > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > > > > > There's no realistic way to implement a system that stops blocked players from entering a party, and this is mostly because parties in GW2 don't operate the same way they do in a lot of other games. For one thing, there is no party leader. So how then would you fairly determine when a player should be excluded from a party in a case where, for example, one other member in that party might have blocked said player? Would it be fair for me to not be able to play with someone else who might be trying to join the same party I am in, just because someone else in my party might have blocked them for what could be silly or archaic reasons? > > > > > > > > > > > > Luckily, the game is designed in such a way that people need to vote to kick, which prevents abuse. If three people vote to kick someone, then I'm more inclined to believe there was a real issue and that removing the player might be justified. With that being said, if things don't go your way, you are more than welcome to leave a party yourself, if you don't want to play with someone in it. > > > > > > > > > > Also just gonna say i disagree with the vote kicking system, i make a party so i can do what i wanted to do, people who disagree with me the said creator of party that you (not really you but work with me here) are joining because you were too lazy to make your own. Raiding and parties should be treated the same leader/creator calls the shots period you wanna have a voice make your own pt, don't crap out mines because you were to lazy to make your own. > > > > > > > > It's fine if you disagree with the system, you are entitled to your opinion in that regard. However, I'm of the opinion that having a party leader system is more open to abuse. > > > > > > > > I'll give an example, let's say a player makes a party. As the party leader he/she has the power to kick players at will. He creates a party for a hard dungeon like Arah, and then they complete it. Just because they get to the end, said player then kicks all other party members, and then sells the open spots for dungeon completion. This is a situation that the voting kick system would usually protect players against to a degree, but now that you give all the power to one person, you are at the mercy of their whims, whether their decisions to kick you are justified or not. > > > > > > > > I've also had situations in group content where people have voted to kick for silly reasons. Like if a person makes one honest mistake, and one party member overreacts and votes to kick. No-one else in the party believes the mistake was severe enough to warrant a kick and so the vote doesn't go through, but if that one person was the party leader, said player would have been removed and the rest of the party might have become disgruntled. > > > > > > > > Also, I'm not sure why you label people who join parties as being lazy. It's common sense to join a party before making a new one, because if no-one joined and everyone created, parties would never be filled. If we went by that logic, that if people want their way they should create their own parties, and every player followed that logic and treated the idea of joining a made party as a stigma, then nothing would ever get done. > > > > > > > > In the end, there is already a solution for people like you, who want a party that adheres to specific parameters that suit your needs. Play in organized groups. > > > > > > So why do we have squad leader system with omnipotential power? > > > > Probably because the party system only supports up to five players, and using squads for raids was the most simple solution they could think of to amend that? > > That's not my question. You try to rationalize why party leader system is bad while we already have squad leader with omni power in game and looks like no doom and gloom happened. Perhaps you should have elaborated on your question if you wanted a more specific answer. In any case, what is your point? I merely gave my opinion on why I believe one system is better than another. I cannot account for why both systems exist in the game in some form or another, that would be up to the devs to do if they so wished. I'm not sure what that has to do with my opinion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawr.9467 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Honestly I don't think the playerbase is big enough for blocked people to be prevented from joining groups. For example, if I found some particularly salty player in pvp and blocked him, I wouldn't want that to stop him from joining my squad in pve. At the same time though, I wouldn't want to be in another pvp match with that person. I think blocking people from your group would be situationally noticed at best and I don't think it would benefit the game in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > > > > > @Genesis.5169 said: > > > > > > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > > > > > > There's no realistic way to implement a system that stops blocked players from entering a party, and this is mostly because parties in GW2 don't operate the same way they do in a lot of other games. For one thing, there is no party leader. So how then would you fairly determine when a player should be excluded from a party in a case where, for example, one other member in that party might have blocked said player? Would it be fair for me to not be able to play with someone else who might be trying to join the same party I am in, just because someone else in my party might have blocked them for what could be silly or archaic reasons? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Luckily, the game is designed in such a way that people need to vote to kick, which prevents abuse. If three people vote to kick someone, then I'm more inclined to believe there was a real issue and that removing the player might be justified. With that being said, if things don't go your way, you are more than welcome to leave a party yourself, if you don't want to play with someone in it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also just gonna say i disagree with the vote kicking system, i make a party so i can do what i wanted to do, people who disagree with me the said creator of party that you (not really you but work with me here) are joining because you were too lazy to make your own. Raiding and parties should be treated the same leader/creator calls the shots period you wanna have a voice make your own pt, don't crap out mines because you were to lazy to make your own. > > > > > > > > > > It's fine if you disagree with the system, you are entitled to your opinion in that regard. However, I'm of the opinion that having a party leader system is more open to abuse. > > > > > > > > > > I'll give an example, let's say a player makes a party. As the party leader he/she has the power to kick players at will. He creates a party for a hard dungeon like Arah, and then they complete it. Just because they get to the end, said player then kicks all other party members, and then sells the open spots for dungeon completion. This is a situation that the voting kick system would usually protect players against to a degree, but now that you give all the power to one person, you are at the mercy of their whims, whether their decisions to kick you are justified or not. > > > > > > > > > > I've also had situations in group content where people have voted to kick for silly reasons. Like if a person makes one honest mistake, and one party member overreacts and votes to kick. No-one else in the party believes the mistake was severe enough to warrant a kick and so the vote doesn't go through, but if that one person was the party leader, said player would have been removed and the rest of the party might have become disgruntled. > > > > > > > > > > Also, I'm not sure why you label people who join parties as being lazy. It's common sense to join a party before making a new one, because if no-one joined and everyone created, parties would never be filled. If we went by that logic, that if people want their way they should create their own parties, and every player followed that logic and treated the idea of joining a made party as a stigma, then nothing would ever get done. > > > > > > > > > > In the end, there is already a solution for people like you, who want a party that adheres to specific parameters that suit your needs. Play in organized groups. > > > > > > > > So why do we have squad leader system with omnipotential power? > > > > > > Probably because the party system only supports up to five players, and using squads for raids was the most simple solution they could think of to amend that? > > > > That's not my question. You try to rationalize why party leader system is bad while we already have squad leader with omni power in game and looks like no doom and gloom happened. > > Perhaps you should have elaborated on your question if you wanted a more specific answer. > > In any case, what is your point? I merely gave my opinion on why I believe one system is better than another. I cannot account for why both systems exist in the game in some form or another, that would be up to the devs to do if they so wished. I'm not sure what that has to do with my opinion though. My point is the system is in game already but for whatever reason it is allowed only to commanders to own their squad while people playing 5-man instances are refused this feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenrai Senshi.2017 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > > > > > > @Genesis.5169 said: > > > > > > > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said: > > > > > > > > There's no realistic way to implement a system that stops blocked players from entering a party, and this is mostly because parties in GW2 don't operate the same way they do in a lot of other games. For one thing, there is no party leader. So how then would you fairly determine when a player should be excluded from a party in a case where, for example, one other member in that party might have blocked said player? Would it be fair for me to not be able to play with someone else who might be trying to join the same party I am in, just because someone else in my party might have blocked them for what could be silly or archaic reasons? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Luckily, the game is designed in such a way that people need to vote to kick, which prevents abuse. If three people vote to kick someone, then I'm more inclined to believe there was a real issue and that removing the player might be justified. With that being said, if things don't go your way, you are more than welcome to leave a party yourself, if you don't want to play with someone in it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also just gonna say i disagree with the vote kicking system, i make a party so i can do what i wanted to do, people who disagree with me the said creator of party that you (not really you but work with me here) are joining because you were too lazy to make your own. Raiding and parties should be treated the same leader/creator calls the shots period you wanna have a voice make your own pt, don't crap out mines because you were to lazy to make your own. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's fine if you disagree with the system, you are entitled to your opinion in that regard. However, I'm of the opinion that having a party leader system is more open to abuse. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll give an example, let's say a player makes a party. As the party leader he/she has the power to kick players at will. He creates a party for a hard dungeon like Arah, and then they complete it. Just because they get to the end, said player then kicks all other party members, and then sells the open spots for dungeon completion. This is a situation that the voting kick system would usually protect players against to a degree, but now that you give all the power to one person, you are at the mercy of their whims, whether their decisions to kick you are justified or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > I've also had situations in group content where people have voted to kick for silly reasons. Like if a person makes one honest mistake, and one party member overreacts and votes to kick. No-one else in the party believes the mistake was severe enough to warrant a kick and so the vote doesn't go through, but if that one person was the party leader, said player would have been removed and the rest of the party might have become disgruntled. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I'm not sure why you label people who join parties as being lazy. It's common sense to join a party before making a new one, because if no-one joined and everyone created, parties would never be filled. If we went by that logic, that if people want their way they should create their own parties, and every player followed that logic and treated the idea of joining a made party as a stigma, then nothing would ever get done. > > > > > > > > > > > > In the end, there is already a solution for people like you, who want a party that adheres to specific parameters that suit your needs. Play in organized groups. > > > > > > > > > > So why do we have squad leader system with omnipotential power? > > > > > > > > Probably because the party system only supports up to five players, and using squads for raids was the most simple solution they could think of to amend that? > > > > > > That's not my question. You try to rationalize why party leader system is bad while we already have squad leader with omni power in game and looks like no doom and gloom happened. > > > > Perhaps you should have elaborated on your question if you wanted a more specific answer. > > > > In any case, what is your point? I merely gave my opinion on why I believe one system is better than another. I cannot account for why both systems exist in the game in some form or another, that would be up to the devs to do if they so wished. I'm not sure what that has to do with my opinion though. > > My point is the system is in game already but for whatever reason it is allowed only to commanders to own their squad while people playing 5-man instances are refused this feature. Well, I think I know the possible reasons why that happened specifically. You have to remember that originally, squads were only used for open world content, or WvW. Because of that, it was inconsequential if squad commanders could kick players, because kicking a playing from a squad in an open world event or WvW does not prevent them from participating in content, nor does it invalidate their participation up to that point. In addition to that, even if you weren't in a squad, you could still see the commander tag and still follow the squad. In other words, the system could not be abused by squad leaders in any meaningful way. When raids were introduced, there might have been issues adapting the current party system to work with raids. Squads were probably seen as the convenient solution and so Raids were implemented with squads (even though at first, this caused a lot of issues with forming raid groups). The deviations from the neutrality of the party system might have simply been a design oversight, or perhaps the devs felt the nature of raids and their higher difficulty scale justified the different mechanics from other content. In either case, the lack of a party leader system for normal parties was obviously an intentional design, irrespective of whether or not the squad system for Raids in particular contradicts that design. Whether that deviation is an oversight or an intentional design choice is not something I can answer myself, I can only guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoNS.3261 Posted November 28, 2017 Author Share Posted November 28, 2017 > @Lunarlife.5128 said: > Just as a note to future people, if you're going to do a survey please try to move bias. > "For Sure" instead of "Yes" when "No" is involved has a lot more effect then simply, "Yes". > > It would make sense that people who you've blocked are ignored when you're searching for groups and vice versa. you do know i voted no right, fucked up on the vote but i corrected myself on another post or did you just not read ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharterforGw.3149 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 I meant to vote yes, but I misread the title at first. "Should blocked players not be allowed to join your party / squad ?" is what I read... Why I say is that they should be able to join, is that it's your choice to block the person, not the other people in the group, why should your decision impact their decision of having someone join the group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnfall.9573 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > It’s an interesting question, but it might cause trouble in squads. Someone might be blocked by one person in a group of up to 50 for whatever reason. Should they be stopped from joining because of some old, possibly trivial block? At best, only party blocks imo this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry.5713 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 I am usually all for systems such as this one. However, there are some issues with using the current block system. Don't forget how often people insult you for whatever reason in PvP or WvW (usually after a loss) and then block you quickly to stop you from replying. You'd be locked from joining any party or squad that they are part of without having done anything to deserve that treatment. Other than that, I am all for the freedom to exclude anyone you do not want to group with and even more so for an automated system which allows you to set hard requirements or an ingame barrier such as the blocking system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoNS.3261 Posted November 28, 2017 Author Share Posted November 28, 2017 > @CharterforGw.3149 said: > I meant to vote yes, but I misread the title at first. > "Should blocked players not be allowed to join your party / squad ?" is what I read... > > Why I say is that they should be able to join, is that it's your choice to block the person, not the other people in the group, why should your decision impact their decision of having someone join the group? because maybe the person who is on your block list who join is bad cant play or rude, why would you waste time with such a player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarshallLaw.9260 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Personally I would be interested in seeing an "avoid" function implemented primarily for PVP match-ups - more specifically ranked. I've had occasions where I have had a bad match which I was certain was caused by the actions of 1 player and then ended up with the same player 2-3 times in a row for the following matches. I know some will comment that you cant be so quick to judge, however I am confident in my decision if I do not like to play with another player. I would be more than happy to wait a slightly longer time for the que to pop as long as there is a guarantee that my "block/avoid" listed don't end up in my team (obviously I'd be fine for them to be on the opposing team). I am aware that the standard practice is to wait longer before applying to match que but it is not a reliable method. In addition, perhaps make this a 14/28 day duration after which the block expires and limit list size to a reasonable number(e.g. 20) tldr: requesting avoid function for pvp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharterforGw.3149 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 > @MarkoNS.3261 said: > > @CharterforGw.3149 said: > > I meant to vote yes, but I misread the title at first. > > "Should blocked players not be allowed to join your party / squad ?" is what I read... > > > > Why I say is that they should be able to join, is that it's your choice to block the person, not the other people in the group, why should your decision impact their decision of having someone join the group? > > because maybe the person who is on your block list who join is bad cant play or rude, why would you waste time with such a player. Why should I believe this random person that blocked him? What if it's a friend of mine? "who join is bad" this part makes you yourself look rude. because someone isn't as good at the game he shouldn't be allowed to join a group you happen to be in. Maybe another person in the group would be happy to teach that person the ropes of the game. NOBODY should be able to block people from a group purely based on their own reasons. If someone joins a group (in any MMO) and another person in the group says we should kick him/her. I will not agree to it, I have not seen either of them before, so why should I believe one person over the other. If during the group content it turns out that a person is terrible or bad and doesn't want to learn and becomes agressive towards the rest sure. If someone is bad at the game, but listens to advice, I'd be happy to do the group content with that person, It's a great way to make friends in MMO's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoNS.3261 Posted November 28, 2017 Author Share Posted November 28, 2017 > @CharterforGw.3149 said: > > @MarkoNS.3261 said: > > > @CharterforGw.3149 said: > > > I meant to vote yes, but I misread the title at first. > > > "Should blocked players not be allowed to join your party / squad ?" is what I read... > > > > > > Why I say is that they should be able to join, is that it's your choice to block the person, not the other people in the group, why should your decision impact their decision of having someone join the group? > > > > because maybe the person who is on your block list who join is bad cant play or rude, why would you waste time with such a player. > > Why should I believe this random person that blocked him? > What if it's a friend of mine? > "who join is bad" this part makes you yourself look rude. because someone isn't as good at the game he shouldn't be allowed to join a group you happen to be in. Maybe another person in the group would be happy to teach that person the ropes of the game. > > NOBODY should be able to block people from a group purely based on their own reasons. > If someone joins a group (in any MMO) and another person in the group says we should kick him/her. I will not agree to it, I have not seen either of them before, so why should I believe one person over the other. > If during the group content it turns out that a person is terrible or bad and doesn't want to learn and becomes agressive towards the rest sure. > If someone is bad at the game, but listens to advice, I'd be happy to do the group content with that person, It's a great way to make friends in MMO's. and should we teach players on every daily fractal run ? no if i ask for 100+ essences and someone who is not performing well joins or is messing up my first instinct is not hey im going to teach this guy no ! kick him and replace him so he can stop wasting my time and he can practice on his own time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarshallLaw.9260 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 > > > @CharterforGw.3149 said: > If during the group content it turns out that a person is terrible or bad and doesn't want to learn and becomes agressive towards the rest sure. If one of the three people in my party has someone I don't know blocked I'll go with their view. With all due respect, I don't want to waste time finding out if this player is going to be a hindrance. You have to consider that there is **some** content like dailies or some fractals which some players run for farming and just want a solid party. I would say being rejected from larger groups like squads is probably too far however, but parties definitely fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinVII.1647 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Yes. People on that are blocked are blocked for a reason. The game system should respect that the player wants to hold another player accountable for their actions. That said, for squads and parties, only the commander's or party leader's block list should factor into the invite denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharterforGw.3149 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 > @MarkoNS.3261 said: > > @CharterforGw.3149 said: > > > @MarkoNS.3261 said: > > > > @CharterforGw.3149 said: > > > > I meant to vote yes, but I misread the title at first. > > > > "Should blocked players not be allowed to join your party / squad ?" is what I read... > > > > > > > > Why I say is that they should be able to join, is that it's your choice to block the person, not the other people in the group, why should your decision impact their decision of having someone join the group? > > > > > > because maybe the person who is on your block list who join is bad cant play or rude, why would you waste time with such a player. > > > > Why should I believe this random person that blocked him? > > What if it's a friend of mine? > > "who join is bad" this part makes you yourself look rude. because someone isn't as good at the game he shouldn't be allowed to join a group you happen to be in. Maybe another person in the group would be happy to teach that person the ropes of the game. > > > > NOBODY should be able to block people from a group purely based on their own reasons. > > If someone joins a group (in any MMO) and another person in the group says we should kick him/her. I will not agree to it, I have not seen either of them before, so why should I believe one person over the other. > > If during the group content it turns out that a person is terrible or bad and doesn't want to learn and becomes agressive towards the rest sure. > > If someone is bad at the game, but listens to advice, I'd be happy to do the group content with that person, It's a great way to make friends in MMO's. > > and should we teach players on every daily fractal run ? no if i ask for 100+ essences and someone who is not performing well joins or is messing up my first instinct is not hey im going to teach this guy no ! kick him and replace him so he can stop wasting my time and he can practice on his own time. This has nothing to do with your suggestion of stopping people you block from being able to join your group. what you are saying here you can already do by vote. Also, the thing of bad/new players is my take on doing group content. I wouldn't want to have a player unable to join a group I make because one of the people in my group blocked that specific player. You are talking about fractals, yet your "solution" affects all group content, aswell as other people that don't think the way you do who do daily fractals frequently. It blocks people from playing the game if for example a guild decides to have a majority of players block a new guild member after having been "bad" at the game. now that new player can't join any kind of group content where one of those ex-guild members of his are a part of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoNS.3261 Posted November 28, 2017 Author Share Posted November 28, 2017 > @CharterforGw.3149 said: > > @MarkoNS.3261 said: > > > @CharterforGw.3149 said: > > > > @MarkoNS.3261 said: > > > > > @CharterforGw.3149 said: > > > > > I meant to vote yes, but I misread the title at first. > > > > > "Should blocked players not be allowed to join your party / squad ?" is what I read... > > > > > > > > > > Why I say is that they should be able to join, is that it's your choice to block the person, not the other people in the group, why should your decision impact their decision of having someone join the group? > > > > > > > > because maybe the person who is on your block list who join is bad cant play or rude, why would you waste time with such a player. > > > > > > Why should I believe this random person that blocked him? > > > What if it's a friend of mine? > > > "who join is bad" this part makes you yourself look rude. because someone isn't as good at the game he shouldn't be allowed to join a group you happen to be in. Maybe another person in the group would be happy to teach that person the ropes of the game. > > > > > > NOBODY should be able to block people from a group purely based on their own reasons. > > > If someone joins a group (in any MMO) and another person in the group says we should kick him/her. I will not agree to it, I have not seen either of them before, so why should I believe one person over the other. > > > If during the group content it turns out that a person is terrible or bad and doesn't want to learn and becomes agressive towards the rest sure. > > > If someone is bad at the game, but listens to advice, I'd be happy to do the group content with that person, It's a great way to make friends in MMO's. > > > > and should we teach players on every daily fractal run ? no if i ask for 100+ essences and someone who is not performing well joins or is messing up my first instinct is not hey im going to teach this guy no ! kick him and replace him so he can stop wasting my time and he can practice on his own time. > > This has nothing to do with your suggestion of stopping people you block from being able to join your group. what you are saying here you can already do by vote. > Also, the thing of bad/new players is my take on doing group content. I wouldn't want to have a player unable to join a group I make because one of the people in my group blocked that specific player. > > You are talking about fractals, yet your "solution" affects all group content, aswell as other people that don't think the way you do who do daily fractals frequently. > It blocks people from playing the game if for example a guild decides to have a majority of players block a new guild member after having been "bad" at the game. now that new player can't join any kind of group content where one of those ex-guild members of his are a part of. > so what how is that my problem? he can make his own party or get a group of friends and clear content he doesnt need to join mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsegames.3916 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Gonna go with maybe here. If we have something as "party leader" in the future, and you are the leader, i think its fair for not having the "persona non grata" blocked from your party. But if they join a party just as you do, nothing to do there. There was a person also saying about a "avoid" option, sounds interesting, but we never know what a good idea in theory goes in reality, have to think a litle on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robban.1256 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 I voted wrong but yes they should be able to join Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 After thinking about this, there is no way anet will ever implement this. Game is aging, players are leaving, they wont make it even harder to find groups at this point. I agree with the idea, but it's not gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharterforGw.3149 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 > @MarkoNS.3261 said: > > @CharterforGw.3149 said: > > > @MarkoNS.3261 said: > > > > @CharterforGw.3149 said: > > > > > @MarkoNS.3261 said: > > > > > > @CharterforGw.3149 said: > > > > > > I meant to vote yes, but I misread the title at first. > > > > > > "Should blocked players not be allowed to join your party / squad ?" is what I read... > > > > > > > > > > > > Why I say is that they should be able to join, is that it's your choice to block the person, not the other people in the group, why should your decision impact their decision of having someone join the group? > > > > > > > > > > because maybe the person who is on your block list who join is bad cant play or rude, why would you waste time with such a player. > > > > > > > > Why should I believe this random person that blocked him? > > > > What if it's a friend of mine? > > > > "who join is bad" this part makes you yourself look rude. because someone isn't as good at the game he shouldn't be allowed to join a group you happen to be in. Maybe another person in the group would be happy to teach that person the ropes of the game. > > > > > > > > NOBODY should be able to block people from a group purely based on their own reasons. > > > > If someone joins a group (in any MMO) and another person in the group says we should kick him/her. I will not agree to it, I have not seen either of them before, so why should I believe one person over the other. > > > > If during the group content it turns out that a person is terrible or bad and doesn't want to learn and becomes agressive towards the rest sure. > > > > If someone is bad at the game, but listens to advice, I'd be happy to do the group content with that person, It's a great way to make friends in MMO's. > > > > > > and should we teach players on every daily fractal run ? no if i ask for 100+ essences and someone who is not performing well joins or is messing up my first instinct is not hey im going to teach this guy no ! kick him and replace him so he can stop wasting my time and he can practice on his own time. > > > > This has nothing to do with your suggestion of stopping people you block from being able to join your group. what you are saying here you can already do by vote. > > Also, the thing of bad/new players is my take on doing group content. I wouldn't want to have a player unable to join a group I make because one of the people in my group blocked that specific player. > > > > You are talking about fractals, yet your "solution" affects all group content, aswell as other people that don't think the way you do who do daily fractals frequently. > > It blocks people from playing the game if for example a guild decides to have a majority of players block a new guild member after having been "bad" at the game. now that new player can't join any kind of group content where one of those ex-guild members of his are a part of. > > > > so what how is that my problem? he can make his own party or get a group of friends and clear content he doesnt need to join mine. But your solution isn't about your specific case, it affects many people in different situations. not being able to join a commanders group because one of the members in the group has blocked you is one example that I can mention. If you want a solution for your specific problem come up with something else than what you have now. i can understand your frustration, when they join your group. but what if you are in someone elses group and the person you have blocked isn't able to join because of you, but it's a friend of the group leader, should they be able to kick you so he can join, would you leave voluntarily? it would cause a lot of problems. you'd have to find a another group or create a new one. i do want to make clear, I'm not against a block that prevents people from rejoining a group after being kicked out of that specific group, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamy Lu.3865 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 I believe that there are two different cases: 1) Player kicked off (squad or party) and 2) Player blocked. However, in both cases, my vote is the same: No. For the rest of my post, I cover both cases under "blocked player". I simply believe that a "blocked player" can cover by far too many different cases, because it is based on personal criteria. From there, who can decide if a reason is valid enough - or not - to forbid this player access to an activity? Who will verify that the blocking was not fake, like for example if the player has not done anything wrong, but he got blocked due to a personal revenge? I exaggerate now probably, but this is just to explain why I believe that it is not possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now