My opinion was the latter part, about it being unnecessary.
Saying it would require retooling of the non-queued party system isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact.
That’s a presumption.
The rest of this is actually an opinion.
How?
Lets say I want to leave. I put up a mutual disband vote. It fails.
So I just…leave anyways.
How did anything change?
Is the implication that a person is forced to stay in the group, and are forced to continue the dungeon?
Please lay this out. With specifics.
5 Likes
Too be fair to OP, some players don’t know the difference (or even that there is one), and use the 2 interchangeably.
My opinion is that isn’t as hard as you make it out to be.
Furthermore you refuse to have an open mind like always.
And you can’t see the future either.
And so is yours as well an opinion.
So, we are back to square one with different opinions.
So would you please explain why a person would stay in the group if the disband vote fails?
An open mind lets us see the short comings you refuse to acknowledge
2 Likes
Stockholm syndrome?
1 Like
Mutual disband would require a majority. That is how it should function in PVE and PVP and would not penalized the majority if their play is disrupted my a minority or a single person. That would cut down on lone individuals being toxic or doing it on purpose if the majority of the players have recourse.
they didn’t ban “toxic elitist leavers”. they banned obvious trolls who joined groups just to deplete keys.
2 Likes
Ok. But how?
If the vote fails, what prevents me from hearthing out and dropping group?
You are refusing to acknowledge this. Why?
1 Like
I’m not making it out to be anything. I’m saying that any system that changes the player’s ability to leave at-will will require some degree of change. I don’t give a damn about your opinion on this because neither of us knows how difficult it would actually be, and I’m not specifying that either. I’m simply acknowledging that fact that some degree of retooling would have to happen because the party system for unqueued content does not support what you’re asking for currently.
I don’t interact with you enough for you to be able to say that, unless you’re drawing a conclusion based upon either going through my post history or making an assumption. Either way, ew.
What?
Me thinking it’s unnecessary is my opinion, yes.
Me saying it will require some degree of modifying the existing party functionality is not an opinion, it’s simply a fact.
1 Like
Why would someone stay in a group if they initiated a vote kick of someone that failed? Sometimes people will put up with and sometimes they will not and leave.
People are allowed to change their mind but at least it was a group decision. A group disband should also be a group decision.
Very easy to process.
You didnt answer my question.
What prevents me from dropping group and hearthing if the vote fails?
You don’t really offer many constructive posts in betas or PTRs and are offer belligerent to others so have that as you will.
And my opinion is that the framework isn’t hard to put in place like you are making it out to be.
Better question: What’s to stop people from trying to force the vote disband to pass?
1 Like
You dont either.
Your entire thing is being anti WoW, and doing stuff like this. Making posts and ignoring glaring issues.
Because
Another presumption, I take it?
I didn’t specify how difficult or easy it would be to modify the party functionality. I simply stated that adding a vote-disband feature to unqueued content would require some retooling. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact.
When the vote fails, you’ll obviously realize that you really didn’t want to quit and will soldier on.
2 Likes
Shenanigans.
I am the most pro WoW player on the forums. But I am anti pro BlizZard chearleading. Apples to oranges.
BlizZard can’t control peer pressure because that is beyond anything any game developer can control. But what they can do it empower groups to have some recourse through a group vote for a disband.
Also, there is the flip side. Needing a majority vote to leave groups now creates a hostage situation which is just as bad as one person disrupting an entire group
1 Like