There needs to be some kind of "Intentionally Uncooperative" vote kick option

[Mcshiggs]

There is literally no downside to equipping a shield, unlike some other games. There is no damage increase for having just a sword equipped, and you lose the stats you would have gained from your shield, so the argued loss of DPS is counterproductive. So there is literally no argument for this person not using their shield, stun is another thing but the general accepted strategy is to stun eruptions when possible so that you build LB and save the party hassle. But hey, if you guys are okay with people gimping your fight for lawls you won't mind when I come try to main tank in my snowman suit right?

So you would be alright if there was a vote kick if someone was spirit bonding, because they are purposely lowering their stats, or what if you found out your summoner didn't have all 30 points in int, should we have a vote kick option for that too, that damned summoner not having all their stats in the right place to make your life easier?

[Kaze3434]

So you would be alright if there was a vote kick if someone was spirit bonding, because they are purposely lowering their stats, or what if you found out your summoner didn't have all 30 points in int, should we have a vote kick option for that too, that damned summoner not having all their stats in the right place to make your life easier?

you are just dead set on making what this person was doing ok. while most dont like it, they will ignore someone spirit binding, but this case has someone in a place to make things slightly easier on everyone intentionally denying to do that. as with the connect i made to other fights that you chose to think i dont have the capacity to see the difference in, one person not helping the group to avoid or get past something just to get a laugh about it is a dick. to compare this would be similar to someone deciding to get eaten by Refflesia every chance they get because "lol". your failure to see someone holding a group back on purpose is narrow minded. and before its mentioned again, regardless of ifrit ex being immune to stun, that is a different fight to talk about. we are talking about hm.

[Meshico]

So you would be alright if there was a vote kick if someone was spirit bonding, because they are purposely lowering their stats, or what if you found out your summoner didn't have all 30 points in int, should we have a vote kick option for that too, that damned summoner not having all their stats in the right place to make your life easier?

Not having a shield is bad...its like any other class just ommitting any part of their armor/accessories.

I have to give it to you though for your perseverance and not giving up on your ideas, that's about the best part of this post

p.s. I know some will view it as arrogance/stubborn. I choose to see it as I see it.

[Mcshiggs]

you are just dead set on making what this person was doing ok.

So this person chose not stun eruptions, you said we are talking only about this fight, but you are the one that was bringing up other fight, like you brought up turn 6 in your last post, then you say

this would be similar to someone deciding to get eaten by Refflesia every chance they get

but to try to make your point

regardless of ifrit ex being immune to stun, that is a different fight to talk about. we are talking about hm.

so basically we can compare it to other fights when you want to say it's not ok, but when other say that not stunning eruptions isn't a huge deal because you can't on other fights, suddenly that is off limits?
It isn't really so much about what the person did, but the OP coming here to whine about it and wanting a vote kick option for someone not doing a fight the way he wants, when it is common to do the fight with or without stuns. Also if you read the first post, he tried to kick the paladin, and it failed, so more people were ok with what the paladin was doing than weren't.

[ispano]

So this person chose not stun eruptions, you said we are talking only about this fight, but you are the one that was bringing up other fight, like you brought up turn 6 in your last post, then you say

but to try to make your point

so basically we can compare it to other fights when you want to say it's not ok, but when other say that not stunning eruptions isn't a huge deal because you can't on other fights, suddenly that is off limits?
It isn't really so much about what the person did, but the OP coming here to whine about it and wanting a vote kick option for someone not doing a fight the way he wants, when it is common to do the fight with or without stuns. Also if you read the first post, he tried to kick the paladin, and it failed, so more people were ok with what the paladin was doing than weren't.

The two comparisons made by me, the person you responded to, and others, are not the same. So please stop trying to make them seem so. We were comparing to Ifrit EX because it has similar mechanics that cannot be stunned, and were saying people should practice anyhow. The person you responded to, their comparison was likening it to another fight, with completely different mechanics. But the comparison they were making was not about the fight mechanics at all, it was a comparison of a person intentionally doing, or not doing, something that affected the outcome of the fight.

So go through it again, and again, and again and as many more times as you need to get it. My, and other poster's, comparison was on the mechanics of the fight. Kaze's was on a specific player refusing to do something to potentially ease the difficulty or win the fight. Nowhere near the same comparison.

[Mcshiggs]

The person you responded to, their comparison was likening it to another fight, with completely different mechanics. But the comparison they were making was not about the fight mechanics at all, it was a comparison of a person intentionally doing, or not doing, something that affected the outcome of the fight.

Ok, let's compare these two, not stunning eruptions, people have to pay attention and dodge. Getting consumed on T6 gives the boss a stackable damage buff that if stacked high enough can make the damage the boss deals unhealable. I see your point, one thing is easily remedied by people paying attention, the other creates a situation that makes the fight impossible. So basically what you are saying is that having to pay attention and react equates to an impossible fight?

[ispano]

Ok, let's compare these two, not stunning eruptions, people have to pay attention and dodge. Getting consumed on T6 gives the boss a stackable damage buff that if stacked high enough can make the damage the boss deals unhealable. I see your point, one thing is easily remedied by people paying attention, the other creates a situation that makes the fight impossible. So basically what you are saying is that having to pay attention and react equates to an impossible fight?

No, I'm saying don't try to discredit someone with a bunk argument.

Also, you should read the whole post. You know, having to edit everything in after the fact. Not stunning eruptions does not make the fight impossible, and even ignoring that, the OT was in the wrong just for not having a shield equipped.

Also, if you read the OP he doesn't even talk about stunning. But if you ask someone to perform their role, stop gimping themselves, or whatnot(Like the paladin and his shield) and they laugh at you, that's intentionally harming other people's gameplay. The "you beat the fight, even if it was harder or took longer" type argument doesn't fly.

[Mcshiggs]

No, I'm saying don't try to discredit someone with a bunk argument.

Also, you should read the whole post. You know, having to edit everything in after the fact. Not stunning eruptions does not make the fight impossible, and even ignoring that, the OT was in the wrong just for not having a shield equipped.

I read the entire post, I edit for length, or if I see a spelling error or something I made, I haven't edited anything "after the fact," and saying that makes you seem to be grasping at straws. Would it make a difference if the OT had a shield, but didn't have a belt equipped? If it is just for the stats, then that should be the same thing, and that would go back to the whole spiritbonding thing, or when you see all those folks that come in as a caster but with melee jewelry because they need that gear to meet ilvl.

[ispano]

I read the entire post, I edit for length, or if I see a spelling error or something I made, I haven't edited anything "after the fact," and saying that makes you seem to be grasping at straws. Would it make a difference if the OT had a shield, but didn't have a belt equipped? If it is just for the stats, then that should be the same thing, and that would go back to the whole spiritbonding thing, or when you see all those folks that come in as a caster but with melee jewelry because they need that gear to meet ilvl.

Then you missed the last line, which points out the complete differences in the two comparisons. One is about fight mechanics, the other about a player refusing to do something.

[Mcshiggs]

Then you missed the last line, which points out the complete differences in the two comparisons. One is about fight mechanics, the other about a player refusing to do something.

So player X doesn't do what you want when you want, even though the other people in the group are ok with it, so let's kick him because your opinion is more important? Do you kick summoners that don't shadowflare Garuda for the slow, that makes the tank take less damage?