System to curb Ready Check abuse?

[Zebyxus]

Hi Devs,

It's not even been a couple of days since the Ready Check system went live and already it's being abused to the point where parties are dying because some idiot keeps asking for a ready check every 35 seconds (or so it feels).

Is there a way you can restrict the ready check to party leaders? At least that way we know who is abusing it at the time, as opposed to suspecting every other party member.

[Surian]

I really want this removed already. It's super anoying and it just keeps on comming back and sets focus to it as well.

If you do your vote (reluctantly) and then click it away it shouldn't come back to harass you seconds later.

Simply having someone not click it at all will make it reappear some time later when the list completes, pops back up putting focus on it and if you were typing during it would make 20 windows pop up for fishing, botany, crafting, inventory and if you were in the middle of a word with an R in it you also auto-run straight into the fight...

Rediculous, anoying, needs to be removed.

[SugarBunz]

please do something about ready check!!!!!!! its horrible!!

[ckb]

It's a new toy and people are playing with it. We don't need more restrictions. This is why we have 30 minute lock outs, 15 minute waits to vote dismiss (even when someone logs out on a roulette,) and features like vote kick that get abused. The only thing it needs is a line added that states "Player B begins ready check." That would provide the information needed to initiate a vote kick for harassment. Every time people support a new type of restriction from SE it ends up doing more harm than good because SE puts some ridiculous spin on it. Ask for tools to monitor who does the annoying beahavior so the community can act accordingly (like the people who initiate vote dismiss over and over in duty finder after one wipe.) The features just need more information provided. They don't need to be restricted. It's time to put our big boy pants on and request the information needed to make informed decisions instead of asking for restrictions for everyone because of one or two people.

[Dsync]

Please alter this, I really don't even want to touch Duty Finder any more! I'm in the middle of healing and I get someone spamming that. We need to know who it is who is initiating the checks. I see this as griefing and we should be able to know who to report/kick.

[Camate]

Greetings,

The development team is looking into placing limitations on the use of the ready check feature, as this should not be used during battle. In addition, for patch 2.2 they are also discussing making it so the person who initiated the ready check will have their name displayed.

[Cyrus-Wallace]

Greetings,

The development team is looking into placing limitations on the use of the ready check feature, as this should not be used during battle. In addition, for patch 2.2 they are also discussing making it so the person who initiated the ready check will have their name displayed.

Now, as Cabalabob said, can we do the same with the "vote abandon"?

[Rhiyanna]

Ready Check needs to be disabled in a hotfix until they can fix it in 2.2 or 2.3, whichever, to not be able to be used in combat and show the person who initiated it. They can re-add it back in the live game after they get the fixes done to prevent trolling in CT. CT is now ruined because of this. I don't even want to run it anymore and I am even afraid of queuing up in the Duty Finder, period, because of it. This is ridiculous. It should not even have been released without restricting use in combat and restricting use to only party leaders or at least showing who initiates it.

[Cigaran]

Greetings,

The development team is looking into placing limitations on the use of the ready check feature, as this should not be used during battle. In addition, for patch 2.2 they are also discussing making it so the person who initiated the ready check will have their name displayed.

Hopefully the update to keep this from being used in battle doesn't wait until 2.2. This should never have gotten past QA due to the obvious, abusive nature.

[Luso]

This should never have gotten past QA due to the obvious, abusive nature.

I don't think testing is done with the mindset of an international audience.