Tank entitlement vs group entitlement

[Feidam]

I'll keep trying to get an updated response, because this debate is completely endless. This, in order to prevent issues with people removing others from DF that don't align with their playstyle (And that applies for both sides).

I agree this is needed.

[van_arn]

thats not actually a majority.

2/4 players deciding how to play the dungeon is not a majority.

its only a majority if you exclude the person being kicked, which actually doesnt make sense, if the goal is democracy. Its a crappy tool for deciding playstyle since it doesnt solve a situation where half the people are in agreement.

It also means kicking first is the best strategy to make sure you dont get kicked, and get to keep the instance, if you have a deadlock.

party is at 50%? initiate a vote kick before they do, and then you will be 3/4 and the last guy becomes a minority vote.

It's not an absolute majority, but it's a majority of the people that matter: the rest of the party that needs to work with the person in question. The person in question's "defense" is their actions before the vote went up. If you'd like an absolute majority, you can use vote abandon-- but that assigns blame to no one.

And encouraging people to get the first votekick is a blessed thing; it prevents parties where you spend 70% of the run arguing about the very nonsense you see in this thread. Try a first kick sometime, especially at the first scent of an argument. Either it goes through and the person in question is kicked or you get a kick in response because they brought friends. In either case, it's a win: argument is fixed, everyone goes their separate ways, and everyone's free to move on to whatever they'd like to do next without penalty. Especially don't withdraw without trying out a kick, assuming a kick could fix the problem in question.

Sorry no, losing progress in a dungeon because you made a party mad is not a loss of progress. You don't have a duty finder penalty, use the queue time to think about why the party was mad. Maybe even ask yourself what you can do to prevent it in the future, rather than spill indignation and vitriol.

keep promoting kicking in dungeons, and enjoy when it becomes 1 hour queues.

Let's cross that bridge if we ever come to it, hmm? This system has withstood the test of time, and encouraging people to use a safety system in place is infinitely more desirable than to mothball it out of self-righteousness.

Especially when sticking to those principles of self-righteousness can impede your enjoyment of the game.

See also: a full half of the posts in "tales from the duty finder." That thread wouldn't be nearly as long if people stopped with the "suffer through it because maybe they can't read" excuses and just offered a charitable kick.

[Gemina]

keep promoting kicking in dungeons, and enjoy when it becomes 1 hour queues.

With egos the size of his, I have an itchy feeling of who will actually be using those trust NPCs to progress content.

[Hash_Browns]

With egos the size of his, I have an itchy feeling of who will actually be using those trust NPCs to progress content.

To be fair, they will probably preform better then the average Duty Finder player.

[Physic]

It's not an absolute majority, but it's a majority of the people that matter: the rest of the party that needs to work with the person in question. The person in question's "defense" is their actions before the vote went up. If you'd like an absolute majority, you can use vote abandon-- but that assigns blame to no one.

And encouraging people to get the first votekick is a blessed thing; it prevents parties where you spend 70% of the run arguing about the very nonsense you see in this thread. Try a first kick sometime, especially at the first scent of an argument. Either it goes through and the person in question is kicked or you get a kick in response because they brought friends. In either case, it's a win: argument is fixed, everyone goes their separate ways, and everyone's free to move on to whatever they'd like to do next without penalty.

Sorry no, losing progress in a dungeon because you made a party mad is not a loss of progress. You don't have a duty finder penalty, use the queue time to think about why the party was mad.



Let's cross that bridge if we ever come to it, hmm? This system has withstood the test of time, and encouraging people to use a safety system in place is infinitely more desirable than to mothball it out of self-righteousness.

Especially when sticking to those principles of self-righteousness can impede your enjoyment of the game.

See also: a full half of the posts in "tales from the duty finder."

the system works because the vast majority of people dont use it that way.

[van_arn]

With egos the size of his, I have an itchy feeling of who will actually be using those trust NPCs to progress content.

My good friend, leaving the decision up to the party -- and not yourself -- is the death of ego. That's why a votekick should be used more often, rather than the arguments I see.

Try a votekick the next time you see someone pulling out the "you don't pay my sub," especially if you aren't the one offering advice. It's up to you if you go for the catcher or the pitcher. That'll short-circuit a guaranteed argument every time.

the system works because the vast majority of people dont use it that way.

*shrug* Theoretical. I'd say more should try it and see how it improves their experience. After all, loot lockout was added due to abuse of the system, so if Square decides there's abuse of the system they can correct the abuse at a later date. Their lack of updates to the system might as well be an official statement that they're perfectly content with the system as designed, and how it is being used. By all.

[Gemina]

Not to nitpick, but it actually is a majority. If someone moves to vote dismiss someone, it falls on the remaining 2 people to vote. The person putting forth the dismissal is obviously a yes, which means that if at least one other person says yes, you now have a majority of 2/3.

Same goes in 8 mans. 4/7 is a majority, just as 50.<infinite zeros>1% is a majority. The system is designed so that a tie never occurs.

As was pointed out previously, this is not a majority because the person being voted to be dismissed is being excluded. However, we can assume that this player would not vote for him/herself to be dismissed. In a typical system of law, a person being sanctioned to be dismissed would be allowed to vote for themselves and a tie is not a rule of majority. This means that if it comes to that, the ruling cannot go in favor of the proposed. It's simply set up so ties cannot happen. But if I want to be someone of a word that voices what SE says goes, then you are correct: 2/3 is the majority. That doesn't mean I think it's fair though.

[Mavrias]

What are you even talking about? Don't use arguments such as, "if you can't use basic reading comprehension" if you, yourself are incapable of such. You stated that the kick feature is a tool to remove a party member via majority rule, and asked you to provide something that validates this as anything more than just your opinion. You were unable to do so. I'm not cherrypicking. I'm providing sources and facts. A GM's inability to act does not prove that this system is being used as intended.

You basically came here and said the cure for having anxiety as a tank is to not tank at all. At least not for randoms. This couldn't be more dismissive of the issue at hand. You then come back and say that you are not saying that anyone has more or less right to use the duty finder. If I'm confused, then it might have something to do with your contradictive statements and not my inability to comprehend them.

If your whole stance is if the party doesn't want to play with you, they don't have to; then that's fine. I have no quarrel with that or with you. I completely understand that this is your opinion. And for the record, I didn't bring up big pulls and healer DPS because you stated them yourself, but because they are the crux of the expectations in these discussions. I should not have put them in the same response to you. That was not necessary and for that I do apologize.

my responses to you were not the first time ive posted in this thread by a long shot. my main point has been its better to split up if the fact the two parties arent having a good time with each other than to forge on together miserably.

re: my post about tanxiety. it was not that you cannot use the duty finder if you are uncomfortable. merely that if it causes you so much stress that it impacts your experience negatively, you shouldnt. video games are for enjoyment. sometimes stress is good. sometimes its not. if youre not having fun doing whatever role youre doing, dont do it.

[Fyce]

With egos the size of his, I have an itchy feeling of who will actually be using those trust NPCs to progress content.

I'd gladly argue that the people with the biggest ego are the tanks who think they should be allowed to have the entitlement and privilegdes to be drama queens and divas while the world has to bow to their wishes because they think they are special snowflakes. As well as the people supporting that idea even if they aren't tank themselves.

[Mavrias]

the latest law is going to be the one you hold people to. They say that compelling a playstyle is bad now. Thats the new rule.

And its not a case of lets go our seperate ways, its a case of you lose your progress and i keep my progress. If they cloned the instance on kick, it would be as you say, no big deal. But this is two players being able to control the dungeon, and punish players, just because they fired off vote kick first.

those two "laws" are not mutually exclusive.

being kicked is not a punishment. stop taking it so personally. your progress is not lost, you can queue again with zero time penalty unlike if you chose to leave the instance.

the one time i got kicked as when i first started healing at level cap. i accidentally let the tank die, he said he was gonna kick me, and then he did. you know what i did in response? i just requeued.