Group Boot Vote

[MoarPewPew]

As I see it the booting people from dungeons is a odd system.

Instead of having the host having the ability to boot any one they like there should be a voting system.

#1 Only the host can initiate the group vote.

#2 A message will appear across all the player screens execpt the person designated to be booted.

#3 the message will say... "<Insert players name> has been consider to be removed from this dungeon for <insert reason>

#4 Players are given a set amount of to vote, by typing

/y For yes to boot

Or

/n For no do not boot

After the set time or until all votes are given the player is booted if there are more yes than no.

The message will appear to the booted player so they no what they did or did not do.

If the player gets more no's the player stays and can not be asked to leave the dungeon again.

Only one group boot can be initiated per campain.

This will let group members see who they want in there groups and if they believe the host reason is valid to kick they can.


This also will elminate reason such as. "jfhsshdj"


Will take suggestions and questions.

[setec]

+1

I like it.

[Arterra]

I wonder what will happen if a group at ao3 quickly fills with lv37's...

[MoarPewPew]

I wonder what will happen if a group at ao3 quickly fills with lv37's...

That is why the group picks the person who gets the boot. But I do see your concern with having lower levels having the power too.

If you want to suggest level requirements for campaigns be my guest but, I doubt the new players will be thrilled with at idea.

This idea I made is to help make joining lobbies appealing, while making then aware that they will be booted for a legit reason rather than... Sjdhdh <player booted>

[Snakespeare]

Interesting idea, but ...

Most boot abuse is done by people who use it to try to create their ideal party. That is not the intent of the boot at all! The solution is to go after the cause. Boot would be far less abused if people could say what sort of players they want in their games and what their intentions are. Defaults would be nul, but one should be able to set min level, pro or con rushing, and even indicate if they need a mage or a tank. So, if you don't want anyone lower than 45 joining your AO3 game, if you set the min level to 45, they simply can't.

Give people a better way to create their ideal party, and they won't fell compelled to abuse the boot.

[Snakespeare]

I doubt the new players will be thrilled with at idea.

New players need to learn something about "threat levels". Next to every targeted opponent's life meter is a circle. If that circle is red, the XP is gained at 2X. Players who want to get that 2X often try to play way far above their level. But seriously, you can get the red threat level bubble by fighting opponents who are just a few levels above you. For instance, if you are level 22, you can still get red threat level opponents in Fathom. In addition, they drop items for levels 24 and 25. So, you see? You get items you can use and THE SAME XP. So, there is NO reason to level a 22 in AO3. In fact, even a level 42 has red threat indicators in AO2, and is NOT ABLE to damage the hallways mummies in AO3, so he is a burden, taking up space that a level 46 or 47, say, should have, and he does not belong in AO3.

I saw a level 22 and a level 37 and a level 42 in AO3 this morning.

[MoarPewPew]

I must say that is a good idea too snakespeare.

It would be great if both idea were implemented.

If a player joining there group was the right level after the host set the level filter, the host then could use the system that I suggested in my first post. Thes idea can compensate each other :)

Can I add this idea of yours to this thread?

(The first post)

[MoarPewPew]

New players need to learn something about "threat levels". Next to every targeted opponent's life meter is a circle. If that circle is red, the XP is gained at 2X. Players who want to get that 2X often try to play way far above their level. But seriously, you can get the red threat level bubble by fighting opponents who are just a few levels above you. For instance, if you are level 22, you can still get red threat level opponents in Fathom. In addition, they drop items for levels 24 and 25. So, you see? You get items you can use and THE SAME XP. So, there is NO reason to level a 22 in AO3. In fact, even a level 42 has red threat indicators in AO2, and is NOT ABLE to damage the hallways mummies in AO3, so he is a burden, taking up space that a level 46 or 47, say, should have, and he does not belong in AO3.

I saw a level 22 and a level 37 and a level 42 in AO3 this morning.

My next suggestion thread was going to be regarding threat levels.

I wanted to make a thread on different ways to get classes to keep aggro better, since there are hybrids in the game I was thinking of allowing a player to turn on a buff to increase threat generated.. And heals reduce threat generated but I have yet to make this post.

I'm just want to suggest ideas to appeal all class and I actually do like people find flaws in my ideas. People making suggestions help and idea to be more refined and not have gaps in it.

[SoShaan]

I hate getting booted.. Its simply disrespectful, especially when I push quick play, I just want a quick game. I spawn in, before I can even ask if its ok to stay. "Booted for reason:."

Then the system forces you to spawn into town. So my quick play has turned into 5mins of menu jumping. After I /t the booter my opinion of him and his booting me. 10 mins has passed.
Worse is when you get invite from a friend, leave your current game cause you want to back your friends up. Spawn in, booted... Your friend isnt host. Then I have ask /t my friend whats his problem? They reply "What?You got booted? I though you left"

Doent need a system for anything.. Just ask players to leave, if they dont. Then PUNT them out with my blessing, but display across every party members screen the boot message. So your friends can see they just invited you and you got booted by another.

[KingFu]

I don't like this idea, except for a few reasons reasons.

1) I don't think booting should be a hassle, ot should be a quick and easy thing to do.

2) If the game maker has 2 friends join, both, let's say, level 27, then the owner has a problem.

3) What happens if the votes tie?

4) A lot of people like to farm with a certain group of friends, if someone joins, whether it be a friend of someone who already joined, or a random person, then it will become difficult to get the party the players want.

5) If 2 random people join, you can only boot one, so, you're in trouble.


Overall, I think this idea would be a hassle, and would allow a lot of people at level 30 or so to join an ao3 game as a group of friends of 3 making the majority rule for them to stay.

[MoarPewPew]

I hear you but, snakespeare idea of be able to set a minimum level to join would be a great idea to go along with this. But that's my opinion.

[Bludd]

Why not make it really simple and make it so when host boots at leats two people have to appove of the boot?

[smoae]

Eh I don't like this a much as your other ideas it'd be a hassle fr everyone in a group to stop playing and vote on a boot.

[Melange]

I think it's part of a solution, but doesn't really address the causes, only some abuse.

I think there needs to be proper names for games. Make a little pre join lobby screen which let's the host specify who they want and describe the sort of play expected. Eg corners, rush, relaxed chatting, level x+ only, pures only, 2 of each class.
Show stats of who is already in game.
Could also display the hosts boot statistics, boots in the last week. That way people can choose to just boycott excessive booters (we know there are a minority responsible for most of the unjustified booting) depriving them of whatever kick they get out of it.

Quick join games can be host free, the vote boot could be used there.