Tank entitlement vs group entitlement

[Mavrias]

Huh? You're not serious, right? It's the very definition of forcing their style of play on tank. "Play our way or get kicked"

Thankfully the kicked person was a tank, so they can just instant-queue back in, but their actions were petty, immature and irrational. Especially since I guarantee they wasted more time waiting for a tank replacement than they would have saved by mass pulling.

"adapt to this group or dont play with this group, play with someone else"

the group is not obligated to play with the tank. very simple.

"wasted more time waiting for a tank replacement"
>thread was made by the replacement tank who they asked for from their discord.

[van_arn]

"adapt to this group or dont play with this group, play with someone else"

the group is not obligated to play with the tank. very simple.

"wasted more time waiting for a tank replacement"
>thread was made by the replacement tank who they asked for from their discord.

The time to replace a tank is greatly overblown on these forums, and if more people knew this a lot of tanks would take a hit to their ego. I've only had difficulty replacing one of my tanks once, and that was in Castrum Abania. It's often difficult to find replacements for that dungeon at 4am though.

Keep in mind join in progress takes priority over a new group formation, so you're getting priority if you need to replace a tank. That's from each of the roulettes, including mentor roulette.

Everywhere else, don't think twice about initiating a kick if they're causing trouble for a party; especially if you're a healer. You can play the "heal the samurai" minigame instead. Both you and the samurai will love it.

[Greven]

The time to replace a tank is greatly overblown on these forums, and if more people knew this a lot of tanks would take a hit to their ego. I've only had difficulty replacing one of my tanks once, and that was in Castrum Abania. It's often difficult to find replacements for that dungeon at 4am though.

Keep in mind join in progress takes priority over a new group formation, so you're getting priority if you need to replace a tank. That's from each of the roulettes, including mentor roulette.

Everywhere else, don't think twice about initiating a kick if they're causing trouble for a party; especially if you're a healer. You can play the "heal the samurai" minigame instead. Both you and the samurai will love it.

It probably changes from DC to DC because from my experience kicking a tank or an healer most of the times lead to a VERY long wait if ever, sometimes t's just better to drop and start queue again.

You seem to enjoy misuse of "penalty." It's not a penalty to kick an obstinate tank; it is a penalty for the party to keep them around.

Thankfully the will of the group will always win out; it doesn't matter what bleeding heart policies Square puts in place or what they are percieved to implement. If the group decides they want to replace someone, that person will be replaced.

Square could go as far as to disable kicking entirely and you'd just see more people randomly going afk or offline to dodge and cause runs to collapse. You can't force people to want to play with you, and Square can't make that happen either.

The moment one enters duty roulettes they know they could find every kind of player.

That tank was doing his job. They wanted something different and specific, they could've even put up a PF, ask a friend or go tank themselves.
Why they didn't, I wonder? Maybe because there was no tank available.

And I’m very sorry but your answer just spur too much stupidity: people would prefer to go AFK instead of complete the dungeon they queued for in duty roulettes, with a tank doing normal pulls, that would take at worse a few minutes more? Wasting what, like 15 minutes instead of 3. Why?

It just sounds to me that you took it too personal and based that comment on your personal experience which is not the exact same thing happened in this case.

[van_arn]

It probably changes from DC to DC because from my experience kicking a tank or an healer most of the times lead to a VERY long wait if ever, sometimes t's just better to drop and start queue again.

That's fine. Once you kick someone you can leave without a cooldown. If you'd rather not wait for a replacement, then feel free to hop out so the rest of the party can continue without you should they desire.

As for what you consider to be stupidity is the simple fact of the matter: if a party doesn't want an obstinate tank, especially if they're willing to go as far as to initiate a kick, then their will is absolute. That tank is gone.

Square doesn't have the authority to force people to play together.

[Kaedan]

"wasted more time waiting for a tank replacement"
>thread was made by the replacement tank who they asked for from their discord.

Yes, I'm aware. It probably took at least 2-3 minutes to contact the guy on discord and get him logged in and added to the group. Which is about the time they would have saved from mass pulling.

Like I said, petty, immature and irrational people (since they didn't save any time by kicking and replacing... just made themselves look like jerks).

[van_arn]

Yes, I'm aware. It probably took at least 2-3 minutes to contact the guy on discord and get him logged in and added to the group. Which is about the time they would have saved from mass pulling.

Like I said, petty, immature and irrational people (since they didn't save any time by kicking and replacing... just made themselves look like jerks).

Kicking someone isn't about making a run faster; at best it has a neutral effect on completion time since you do often need to wait for a replacement to take a shortcut and regroup with you.

It's simply about the group deciding how they want to spend their time together.

If the group decides they don't want to wait for the whm that goes afk between every pull, then kick the whm. It doesn't matter why they go afk.
If the group decides they don't want to wait for individual pulls and the tank won't or can't deliver, then kick the tank. It doesn't matter why the tank doesn't deliver.
If the group decides they don't want an extra phase of a boss due to poor damage, or don't want to have trouble with a dps check, then kick the under-performing dps. It doesn't matter why the DPS is less capable than a chocobo companion.

Through voting, the will of the group is absolute; Square takes the decision out of their hands in that vote. This is the most sensible choice, since the alternative requires control over something Square has no authority over: a players' desire to spend time with another in their party.

Square doesn't kick you from your party. The people you were partied with do.

If you want to spend more time partied with people, then bring something to the table. Don't expect a seat with other people just because you breathe oxygen.

[Kaedan]

Kicking someone isn't about making a run faster; at best it has a neutral effect on completion time since you do often need to wait for a replacement to take a shortcut and regroup with you.

It's simply about the group deciding how they want to spend their time together.

If the group decides they don't want to wait for the whm that goes afk between every pull, then kick the whm. It doesn't matter why they go afk.
If the group decides they don't want to wait for individual pulls and the tank won't or can't deliver, then kick the tank. It doesn't matter why the tank doesn't deliver.
If the group decides they don't want an extra phase of a boss due to poor damage, or don't want to have trouble with a dps check, then kick the under-performing dps. It doesn't matter why the DPS is less capable than a chocobo companion.

Umm... the examples you give for the WHM and the DPS are actually valid and acceptable reasons to kick those jobs respectively. The example you give of the tank is not a valid reason. You're attempting to shoehorn a "reason" that doesn't actually exist for purpose of your narrative.

In the WHM case, they are wasting significant amounts of time by going AFK constantly.
In the DPS case, they are wasting significant amounts of time by not completing the content in a timely manner.

But in the case of the tank you bring up, the tank isn't wasting significant time at all. Pulling single groups rather than mass pulling has been proven time and again to not have a significant affect on clear time. At best there is no difference in time, and at worst it's a few minutes slower (kinda like how people who speed 10 miles over the speed limit only gain about 2 minutes on average).

You are completely correct about your healer and dps examples, however.

[van_arn]

Umm... the examples you give for the WHM and the DPS are actually valid and acceptable reasons to kick those jobs respectively. The example you give of the tank is not a valid reason. You're attempting to shoehorn a "reason" that doesn't actually exist for purpose of your narrative.

In the WHM case, they are wasting significant amounts of time by going AFK constantly.
In the DPS case, they are wasting significant amounts of time by not completing the content in a timely manner.

But in the case of the tank you bring up, the tank isn't wasting significant time at all. Pulling single groups rather than mass pulling has been proven time and again to not have a significant affect on clear time. At best there is no difference in time, and at worst it's a few minutes slower (kinda like how people who speed 10 miles over the speed limit only gain about 2 minutes on average).

You are completely correct about your healer and dps examples, however.

Throw out the examples, then.

If two people in the party really hate your glamour -- perhaps they find it offensive -- you are kicked.

If two people recognize your name and want you gone, you are kicked.

If someone blindly clicks yes to a vote kick, you are kicked.

If you get hung up on justifications for this or that, you'll miss the more important fact of the matter: you are kicked, and Square is going to see that as the party didn't want you there. That, in itself, carries more weight than any sort of rule Square can put up on their TOS. They cannot force people to want to play together.

[Kaedan]

If you get hung up on justifications for this or that, you'll miss the more important fact of the matter: you are kicked, and Square is going to see that as the party didn't want you there. That, in itself, carries more weight than any sort of rule Square can put up on their TOS. They cannot force people to want to play together.

If SE determines that the reason for kicking the person is an abusive one, they can and have warned and banned people for abusing the kick system. This "SE doesn't have the right to..." BS is just that. SE has every right if they think it breaks their ToS.

Calling your bluff on that. Any incidence where you've heard of people getting actioned had been down to harassment in chat, not the kick itself.

It's not a bluff. My cousin works for SE's CS. She has told me about quite a few cases where people have been warned/banned for abusing the kick feature (kicking without valid reason), among other reasons people get banned. Kicking without a valid reason is and of itself considered harassment by SE's CS.

[van_arn]

If SE determines that the reason for kicking the person is an abusive one, they can and have warned and banned people for abusing the kick system. This "SE doesn't have the right to..." BS is just that. SE has every right if they think it breaks their ToS.



It's not a bluff. My cousin works for SE's CS. She has told me about quite a few cases where people have been warned/banned for abusing the kick feature (kicking without valid reason), among other reasons people get banned. Kicking without a valid reason is and of itself considered harassment by SE's CS.

If this is true, and I have no reason to believe it is anything more than "my dad works at Nintendo" then it's so rare as to be insignificant compared to the vast majority of cases.