No no no!
Okay lookie here guys.
The host of the game should be able to kick anytime he wants with no vote. But the host should have to put up a vote on Banning.
A kick vote means nothing, the guy can come right back, and you have to restart the whole damned process agian. not to mention the VOTING takes to much time...Thus making a kick vote just as frustrating as not being able to kick at all.
If im gonna vote on a guy, im gonna want his ass banned...
If the guy is trying to nk everyone, ill kick him, if he persists, ill have a ban vote up.
Simple. Cheers
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you.
Completely for this, yes it can be abused but so can anything else. As for making passworded games I don't know why everyone keeps throwing that out. The whole point of this game is multi player, as in to play with other people.
If I had a whole bunch of friends that play it might be an option, but I don't so I have to subject myself to trying to find decent people over the internet. Difficult of course, but they do exist.
Another thing I would like is the ability to mark a host, that way if there is some guy that likes to kick everyone right as the boss is about to die or something you wont wander in to his game twice. Maybe something you can do right after being kicked.
And another idea: make a game creation option and subsequent admin command to allow/restrict the ability to hostile other players.
You do not need to restrict one's ability to go hostile to being at the command of the host. "Agree to duel" is just as good.
Ban/Kick is the only ones I see we need really.
If some jackass comes into my game and ruins it for me I do not see why I should have to leave. The Kick/evict/boot function gets my vote.
Ban seems weird as you ban him from the game, sure it saves a few repeat kickings but it's not like it will stop him from joining another one of your games later and doing the same thing.
Of course it's not like a forum where you can ban someone from going into all of your threads (games), which would be awesome. But I think Kick will be enough.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
Is "agree to duel" officially in the game yet? (not being an ass - just genuinely clueless)
Not that I am aware of.
It's hard to track someone through bnet if you're not mutually friends with the person. So this scenario of inter-game stalking is kind of improbable.
I never actually spoke directly of that, I was more commenting on the fact you have to repeat the ban phase anyway. He would learn his lesson. You ban him from one game he will join another and you ban him again, Repeat. So just having the kick function will do.
Ban is probably better, but I do not recall any games where ban exists, I do not play many which could be part of why I cannot think of one. I have seen a few Kick/boot/evict though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
Whether or not Blizzard will or won't doesn't determine whether a concept is viable or not. It doesn't hurt to offer ideas, and if the only argument against it is that Blizzard won't do it - I'd say then that whatever it is that's being argued for is a pretty decent idea.
That was not my point at all...
What would happen to this "frozen" player? Could they just leave and come back? Would they be unable to leave? Either way it's not a good idea. It doesn't promote cooperative play and you know there would be games where they just freeze people to cause grief.
If they can leave and come back, why not just kick them instead? Same thing.
Too much power. Although I do agree that this kind of rights might be convenient for PvP( Nakers, Towners, etc.), but it can also lead into the host abusing his/her powers. For example, a host and another player are arguing, the player makes a good point, and the host is just a noob - the host bans the other player from the game. Scenarios like the host using the kick command to "persuade" people to do certain things( like killing boss, picking items, whatever). Anyways, you get the point. The host abusing his/her powers, and what exactly is the right time to kick/boot is the main topic.
I'm not too sure about this feature. At first when I read through the first few posts, it made a lot of sense and seemed like a very good feature. Then later on, I realized that this feature would go against non-admins in so many ways.
Regular players who join the game, will probably be fighting along side the admin. They could be doing something similar to "baal run" in D2. Now I know the individual loot system is implemented, but what stops a jerk admin from using those who joined the game to kill mobs that were in the boss' way, then kicking all these players later so he gets to fight the boss himself.
Sure it wouldn't make any sense for an admin to do that if we have individual loot system, but if the monster was something like Uber Diablo (who garauteeds to drop a unique charm), with very powerful waves of mobs that you must defeat before you could fight him (like the waves in the throne of destruction). I doubt every single player will get the unique item that this boss will drop (it ruins the economy.) So the admin will probably use the players who joined to help him kill the waves of mob, then immediately kick all these players so that he gets the boss to himself.
I think that a vote could be held to kick a player.
Then you get unfair kicks as well. There are many scenarios. You could get an admin with 2 friends, kicking others after they killed the mobs standing in the way of the boss. Usually, the other players don't care if one or 2 people are kicked (a lot of people, at least me prefer to stay out of voting for these kinda things if I don't know why theres even a vote kick), but when they realize they're all being kicked, the odds stack against them (in terms of numbers).
And what stops a vote kick spam? Unless this feature is only available to admins (which would cause bias situation), I can't see why others cannot spam the vote kick feature. If there was a long "cool down" after you used the vote kick feature (say 5 minutes), then well.....lets say not everybody cares about voting, and real jerks have 5 good minutes to do whatever the hell they want to the room (5 mins is more than enough).
Every body is doing good thinking of scenarios about the kick/ban position.
But in probability, its not likely that some of the events that are dramt up will take place often.
If a game is good, and people are having a good time killing, coming up to bosses, its highly unlikely that the host will just kick you just to get the drops.
People will become savi with the kick/ban options...
A vote kick = not needed. (Takes to much time)
A vote Ban = Is needed (for profane and intollerable people.)
I doubt that everyone will have a problem with this system.
And for the people that abuse these rights, most likely wont make many friends, and will get banned immediatly upon entering a game (the previous victim being the host).
We need a kick/ban system, and it needs to be simple.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you.
Any type of booting system will lead to abuse imo.
No booting system also allows abuse. The purpose of the booting system is to add punishment for abuse, any punishment system can be abused but you cant throw them out because of that.
Nice, so the next time i'll join a duel game and rape everyone they can kick my ass out of it?
This is not CS, it's Diablo, thank you.
kicks can be intelligent, to avoid things like this. in americas army if you try to kick someone for ROE (rules of engagement violations) and they havent killed/hurt someone on your team it says quite plainly ''that player has no ROE'' and thus cannot be kicked
kicks can be intelligent, to avoid things like this. in americas army if you try to kick someone for ROE (rules of engagement violations) and they havent killed/hurt someone on your team it says quite plainly ''that player has no ROE'' and thus cannot be kicked
Great.... That won't work in Diablo, worthless feature is worthless.
Great.... That won't work in Diablo, worthless feature is worthless.
if someone is naked the game knows theyre naked because there body is on the ground correct? so if a hostile player to them kills them while theyre naked they would then be candidates for a vote kick for nking... very simple
Ofcourse there will be a Kick/Ban feature, why would there not be ? Blizzard already noted that servers will be hosted by players, and so far it looks to be exactly like TQ's Multiplayer whereas it holds anywhere from 1-6 players that can join at anytime and pick up where they left off in their single player campaign. Not having a Ban/Kick would only be for personal reasons Blizzard would have to share.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Okay lookie here guys.
The host of the game should be able to kick anytime he wants with no vote. But the host should have to put up a vote on Banning.
A kick vote means nothing, the guy can come right back, and you have to restart the whole damned process agian. not to mention the VOTING takes to much time...Thus making a kick vote just as frustrating as not being able to kick at all.
If im gonna vote on a guy, im gonna want his ass banned...
If the guy is trying to nk everyone, ill kick him, if he persists, ill have a ban vote up.
Simple. Cheers
Battle not with monsters
lest ye become a monster
and if you gaze into the abyss
the abyss gazes into you.
If I had a whole bunch of friends that play it might be an option, but I don't so I have to subject myself to trying to find decent people over the internet. Difficult of course, but they do exist.
Another thing I would like is the ability to mark a host, that way if there is some guy that likes to kick everyone right as the boss is about to die or something you wont wander in to his game twice. Maybe something you can do right after being kicked.
I geuss we shall see what blizzard does with this issue.
Hopefully something is dont other than what D2 had.
Cheers.
Battle not with monsters
lest ye become a monster
and if you gaze into the abyss
the abyss gazes into you.
You do not need to restrict one's ability to go hostile to being at the command of the host. "Agree to duel" is just as good.
If some jackass comes into my game and ruins it for me I do not see why I should have to leave. The Kick/evict/boot function gets my vote.
Ban seems weird as you ban him from the game, sure it saves a few repeat kickings but it's not like it will stop him from joining another one of your games later and doing the same thing.
Of course it's not like a forum where you can ban someone from going into all of your threads (games), which would be awesome. But I think Kick will be enough.
Not that I am aware of.
I never actually spoke directly of that, I was more commenting on the fact you have to repeat the ban phase anyway. He would learn his lesson. You ban him from one game he will join another and you ban him again, Repeat. So just having the kick function will do.
Ban is probably better, but I do not recall any games where ban exists, I do not play many which could be part of why I cannot think of one. I have seen a few Kick/boot/evict though.
I guess the others are viable but we won't see a freeze function.
Ban/kick is pretty high up there in likely hood though I think.
That was not my point at all...
What would happen to this "frozen" player? Could they just leave and come back? Would they be unable to leave? Either way it's not a good idea. It doesn't promote cooperative play and you know there would be games where they just freeze people to cause grief.
If they can leave and come back, why not just kick them instead? Same thing.
Regular players who join the game, will probably be fighting along side the admin. They could be doing something similar to "baal run" in D2. Now I know the individual loot system is implemented, but what stops a jerk admin from using those who joined the game to kill mobs that were in the boss' way, then kicking all these players later so he gets to fight the boss himself.
Sure it wouldn't make any sense for an admin to do that if we have individual loot system, but if the monster was something like Uber Diablo (who garauteeds to drop a unique charm), with very powerful waves of mobs that you must defeat before you could fight him (like the waves in the throne of destruction). I doubt every single player will get the unique item that this boss will drop (it ruins the economy.) So the admin will probably use the players who joined to help him kill the waves of mob, then immediately kick all these players so that he gets the boss to himself.
Blizzard
Valve
:thumbsup:
I think that a vote could be held to kick a player.
Then you get unfair kicks as well. There are many scenarios. You could get an admin with 2 friends, kicking others after they killed the mobs standing in the way of the boss. Usually, the other players don't care if one or 2 people are kicked (a lot of people, at least me prefer to stay out of voting for these kinda things if I don't know why theres even a vote kick), but when they realize they're all being kicked, the odds stack against them (in terms of numbers).
And what stops a vote kick spam? Unless this feature is only available to admins (which would cause bias situation), I can't see why others cannot spam the vote kick feature. If there was a long "cool down" after you used the vote kick feature (say 5 minutes), then well.....lets say not everybody cares about voting, and real jerks have 5 good minutes to do whatever the hell they want to the room (5 mins is more than enough).
Blizzard
Valve
:thumbsup:
But in probability, its not likely that some of the events that are dramt up will take place often.
If a game is good, and people are having a good time killing, coming up to bosses, its highly unlikely that the host will just kick you just to get the drops.
People will become savi with the kick/ban options...
A vote kick = not needed. (Takes to much time)
A vote Ban = Is needed (for profane and intollerable people.)
I doubt that everyone will have a problem with this system.
And for the people that abuse these rights, most likely wont make many friends, and will get banned immediatly upon entering a game (the previous victim being the host).
We need a kick/ban system, and it needs to be simple.
Battle not with monsters
lest ye become a monster
and if you gaze into the abyss
the abyss gazes into you.
No booting system also allows abuse. The purpose of the booting system is to add punishment for abuse, any punishment system can be abused but you cant throw them out because of that.
kicks can be intelligent, to avoid things like this. in americas army if you try to kick someone for ROE (rules of engagement violations) and they havent killed/hurt someone on your team it says quite plainly ''that player has no ROE'' and thus cannot be kicked
Great.... That won't work in Diablo, worthless feature is worthless.
if someone is naked the game knows theyre naked because there body is on the ground correct? so if a hostile player to them kills them while theyre naked they would then be candidates for a vote kick for nking... very simple