Anonymous kicking in LSes: Please fix this.

[Misi]

Woosh. ;-;

[Ravenmore]

Ignorant players find ways around a system that could use improvements on a game. Wether it is a social aspect or a gameplay aspect. This game's LS system is NOT PERFECT.

Ignorant players are players who don't shut up and listen to how situations occur and how they can fix it.
Your solutions are flawed.

The OP's solution is simple and yet, very efficient for Leaders to take control on their Linkshells without someone having the ability to manipulate and destroy it. Your blind if you cannot SEE this fact.

It is NOT my opinion.
It is a Fact that this can be used to help prevent situations like these so LS leaders don't have to suffer or make others suffer for some random /anon idiot who wants to make the Shell go to a breaking point.

Yes the system is flawed but there are much bigger problems with the game then something that a GM can take care of if all else fails. That is why we don't want the devs to waste time on this.

[Unleashhell]

Actually this idea is Not bad at all... =)
But I'm not so sure about the LS part.

When someone enters a LS, I don't think the game should present who logged into LS and who left LS mainly because it can create problems... At least I think it can.

BUT,

A feature to let you know who logged into FFXI and logged out on "Friends list" sounds like a bad ass idea.

I Play on xbox360 and I got a lot of friends who play online on FFXI, so when Im playing ffxi and a friend logs on the xbox, the xbox tells me my friend logged on FFXI or HaloReach or "insert game name".
If its a friend im waiting for to log on, I jump on chat with him instantly.
I don't have to keep spamming "Friends list" to see if he logged on or not.

This feature on xbox can be triggered ON/OFF.
So its good if people want to use it, but if people don't they can trigger it off.

Not all my friends on FFXI are on xbox, most are on PC or PS2/PS3 so having this as an FFXI friends list feature does seem to improve the "Social community" aspect of the game.

But I'm not so sure on the LS part. Mainly because people who log on the LS at 98% of the time they say "Hello" or something and if this was added to LS feature, there can be a possibility of a LAGG issue so I don't see it being useful for that. Unless you have another solution maybe?

Well yeah that's why I mentioned there being a chat filter to toggle it on or off. Granted most people say Hello when they enter a linkshell but it was just a thought. I'm just trying to see if there is a medium or sorts everyone this post would like.

[Arlan]

Yes the system is flawed but there are much bigger problems with the game then something that a GM can take care of if all else fails. That is why we don't want the devs to waste time on this.

That is not for us to decide which the devs should work on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd.
All the OP is doing is trying to present an easy solution to the flawed system, that is all.
It is up to SE to decide when to do the changes and when not to.

If you agree it is flawed then I don't see why not promote it.
You are right 100% that there are MUCH BIGGER PROBLEMS with the game at the moment.
But this is one problem that GMs actually do not deal with because I can tell you, "I been there, done that"

[Arlan]

Well yeah that's why I mentioned there being a chat filter to toggle it on or off. Granted most people say Hello when they enter a linkshell but it was just a thought.

Ya I think I must of missed that.
Ya I think that idea is pretty legit if it has an ON/OFF feature for it.

I'd like to know who logs on and logs off on my friends list mainly but LS I guess can be fine.
As long as Chat filters are there for it to be able control the lag that is. lol =)

[Arlan]

Woosh. ;-;

I know right? ^^ *liked*

[Zagen]

That is not for us to decide which the devs should work on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd.
All the OP is doing is trying to present an easy solution to the flawed system, that is all.
It is up to SE to decide when to do the changes and when not to.

The solution is flawed as well.

How about this scenario I join a shell with a few friends (neglecting to mention we're all friends already) just to break up a linkshell after a few days/weeks go by I remove/drop the LS pearl and my friends all do the same, and we all tell the leader that X Sackholder kicked us, or we tell the leader a few Sackholders kicked us. Now the leader has to decide who to believe and it becomes a s/he said s/he said game.

So how did this solution prevent the risk of the linkshell breaking up because the leader doesn't know who to trust?

[Unleashhell]

I posted a separate new forum post with the idea mentioned. See if I get any feedback.

[Raxiaz]

The solution is flawed as well.

How about this scenario I join a shell with a few friends (neglecting to mention we're all friends already) just to break up a linkshell after a few days/weeks go by I remove/drop the LS pearl and my friends all do the same, and we all tell the leader that X Sackholder kicked us, or we tell the leader a few Sackholders kicked us. Now the leader has to decide who to believe and it becomes a s/he said s/he said game.

So how did this solution prevent the risk of the linkshell breaking up because the leader doesn't know who to trust?

Take a picture of the log containing the boot text. If you're on PS2/360, play on PC. Or simply allow LS leaders to review a history of sackholder activity. Your scenario can't even happen if only sackholders and the LS leader can see sackholder activity.

You're saying we should prefer the outcomes we have in the current system wherein LS members are inclined not to enjoy the game because the negative outcomes that the solution has consists of "s/he said s/he said" tendencies? Again, now, it's up to the LS leader to make a decision. Your own scenario only empowers the LS leader more, giving them even more responsibility over the LS than before.

[Zagen]

Take a picture of the log containing the boot text. If you're on PS2/360, play on PC. Or simply allow LS leaders to review a history of sackholder activity. Your scenario can't even happen if only sackholders and the LS leader can see sackholder activity.

None of that is in your OP:

So I would like to suggest that the name of the person who kicked someone from the LS be displayed to who was kicked, so that the problem could be rectified.

Thank you for your time.

Suggestion redux:
Allow for member removal by the LS Holder even if a member isn't actively on the LS (online or offline).

So now your solution requires the accuser to screen shot the chat log to prove it and if you're playing on a console they should switch to PC?

And now would require sending chat logs to the sack/shell holder(s)?

Your solution for something that as I said before happens (from this topic to 2 people if I'm not mistaken) very rarely at best isn't going to change anything in the way a linkshell succeeds or fails.

Edit: BTW on the screenshot as proof thing there are 2 flaws, 1) Photoshop. 2) Chat logs can be altered live on a PC.