Tank dps harrasment

It is just a consequence of having 4 player groups. Other games usually go with 5 person groups with 4 votes, and 3 needed to pass in normal circumstances which makes it a bit more fair and an actual majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vaer

It is just a consequence of having 4 player groups. Other games usually go with 5 person groups with 4 votes, and 3 needed to pass in normal circumstances which makes it a bit more fair and an actual majority.

---

while that's technically true, I can be more technical and say confidently I've been kicked from groups, over the years (started in 2.55), less than maybe 1 of every 100 duty roulettes, which is less than 1% of total runs. And during HW pre-60, I honestly didn't know how rotations worked and remember getting kicked 1-2 times.

the vote kicking isn't perfect, i get it, but i think it's not a huge issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nora_of_Mira

while that's technically true, I can be more technical and say confidently I've been kicked from groups, over the years (started in 2.55), less than maybe 1 of every 100 duty roulettes, which is less than 1% of total runs. And during HW pre-60, I honestly didn't know how rotations worked and remember getting kicked 1-2 times.

the vote kicking isn't perfect, i get it, but i think it's not a huge issue.

---

I was more replying to the 2v2 fairness thing the other posters were talking about not that I think the vote kicking system is a huge issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vaer

It is just a consequence of having 4 player groups. Other games usually go with 5 person groups with 4 votes, and 3 needed to pass in normal circumstances which makes it a bit more fair and an actual majority.

---

Yeah it is a less then ideal situation, but I do think people are arguing semantics when it comes to the whole majority vs minority thing. You are right would be nice if groups were an odd number, might also help with DPS queue times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaivaC

Hence another issue that I have. If DPS themselves are kicking because a tank won't pull more, that's some BS. Now, if the healer is fine with it, if the tank doesn't want to do it simply because they don't want to...then that's a different matter. If they're uncomfortable with large pulls, they don't deserve to be vote-kicked because of a bunch of impatient players. How does that get anything done? If they just don't want to, like I said earlier, that's another matter - and even still, that's highly dependant on how comfortable the tank is, just as it's dependent on healers being comfortable with healing a large pull.

I have vote-kicked a DPS for doing early pulling excessively. But they were given fair warning multiple times and the healer was still learning their role. There's also the issue of a huge chunk (not majority) of DPS littering the DF who do not use any aggro-dumping skills.

---

Doesn't a vote kick require a unanimous (3/4 members or 3/3 voters) vote? As all vote kicks I've seen have been 3/3, it's been hard to check.

My point isn't to say that it's deserved, only that our anecdotal evidence, being polar opposites, certainly doesn't point at any sense of (or against) job security for tanks just by they're being tanks (or any other role's for that matter), and that the disbenefits of kicking someone who refuses to challenge themselves upon request (which I've yet to see made, nor have made myself, without sufficient gear) -- deservedly or not -- can outweigh the disbenefits. I've yet to see anyone be kicked for failing to do something without blatant refusal to meet the requests of the other members, but I've seen plenty of replacements when someone -- generally a tank -- plays the "what you gonna do about it?" card.

It's a matter of whichever 3 players the tank joins. No more, no less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

As someone mentioned before wouldn't it fall under the majority of the voting participants.

---

If it takes only a majority, not unanimous vote, it cannot require a majority decision by the party, because you automatically deny the vote of whomever you target.

It may seem fair enough among 4 complete and non-partisan strangers, but have even one attached person apart from the victim of the vote, and it quickly would feel rigged, or as Zojha said, where first to shoot wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

If it takes only a majority, not unanimous vote, it cannot require a majority decision by the party, because you automatically deny the vote of whomever you target.

It may seem fair enough among 4 complete and non-partisan strangers, but have even one attached person apart from the victim of the vote, and it quickly would feel rigged, or as Zojha said, where first to shoot wins.

---

Within the system we have one person is not considered, so at this point I think we are arguing semantics since being as one persons vote is not considered so between the remaining three the majority is needed for a vote to pass. It is not a perfect system, but nevertheless a majority is still needed for the vote to pass since the person the vote is against does not count towards the equation. They can feel slighted, but does not change the fact that among their remaining three members of the group if the vote passes it means that outside your vote the majority were not pleased with whatever action that lead to the vote in the first place.

I understand that I should not have said that the choice is based off the party as a whole, but that is why I switched over to majority of the voting participants. Since one person is taken out of the vote. So it comes down to the persons peers to make a choice for the collective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

snip

---

In 4-mans, a vote-kick only requires 2 players; in 8-mans, only 4 players need to say yes. I dunno when my quotes starting turning into an advocacy for tanks having role security in an instance, but let me clear this up right now that I have not suggested that at all. The example that's being quoted is just a tank example - I'd have done one for healers and one for DPS if this were the appropriate thread for it. So...does your point still stand if, since you quoted my example (we're sticking with that for now), two DPS say no and want to kick the tank for not pulling wall-to-wall whereas the healer in this situation is admittedly not ready for large pulls.

The more annoying thing, regarding voting majorities, is that in alliance you only need to have group of 5 to have "voting security" against the 19 others, because only one party takes part into the vote kick. I have had such troll groups which destroy the run for the whole alliance and can't be got rid of.