Curse

Bryant Again · Jun 26, 2007, 04:53 PM // 16:53

Here's something that probably won't stop em, but it'd be funny: Add a stealth update where being in the starting area in an AB for the whole match will give you 0 faction. It wouldn't stop them, but it sure would be awesome. lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iyra_song

What about monks?

I was gonna say that they could be rewarded for amount of healing done, but I don't know how to properly implement that. How about you only are rewarded faction when you heal damage caused by enemy players? This'll prevent gaining faction for healing a necro buddy who just keeps saccing his life. I still don't think it's a great idea on the whole, though.

Shadows Soul Reaper · Jun 26, 2007, 07:11 PM // 19:11

As i have posted before all we have to do is take names and ss and keep on e-mailing them to Anet in time they get pissed off with all the e-mails they get they are about to do something....

lyra_song · Jun 26, 2007, 07:37 PM // 19:37

I had the idea that you gain points for CAPPING (which is something even a monk can do)....which is harder to create a bot for.

And if you actually create a bot that can capture points, then thats less leeching. ROFL.

Nomen Mendax · Jun 26, 2007, 08:03 PM // 20:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

I'm pretty sure Anet is aware of this issue.

...

One basic idea is to have a way to ban players who go AFK in PvP missions. This is fine and dandy....but its got two huge flaws.

1) Legitimate players AFK as well. Wether it be an emergency, a wireless mouse running out of battery, a bathroom run, the phone, the doorbell, or some other real life situation, REAL NON-LEECHING PLAYERS must sometimes go afk.
2) Leechers dont neccesarily just sit there and AFK. Leech Bots have existed since Prophecies, with Random Arena. They follow a random player, spam skills, and look like a legit part of the team. The fact that some REAL players only use auto-target and dont kite/dodge/get out of AOE/not talk at all, alone makes these bots very similar to bad players. The same botting system can be easily used in AB/Quarry/Aspenwood, rendering this idea useless.

Banning players for anything comes with huge backlash when you get false positives, which are inevitable. Just look at mistaken bans for Bot-farmers.

...

On your first point - Why focus on banning people for this? Instead just make is to that they don't gain anything from leeching - i.e. anyone who is detected as being AFK for long enough gets no points.

This will mean that some people who are AFK for legitimate reasons don't get a reward, but then again, they haven't earned one anyway. So instead of focusing on punishing (i.e. banning) "bad" people ANet would just be saying that a non active player didn't do anything so isn't awarded anything.

On your second point - sure this won't do anything about leech bots, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth doing. Surely its better to do something about some of the leechers instead of doing nothing at all about any of them.

lyra_song · Jun 26, 2007, 08:23 PM // 20:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nomen Mendax

On your first point - Why focus on banning people for this? Instead just make is to that they don't gain anything from leeching - i.e. anyone who is detected as being AFK for long enough gets no points.

This will mean that some people who are AFK for legitimate reasons don't get a reward, but then again, they haven't earned one anyway. So instead of focusing on punishing (i.e. banning) "bad" people ANet would just be saying that a non active player didn't do anything so isn't awarded anything.

On your second point - sure this won't do anything about leech bots, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth doing. Surely its better to do something about some of the leechers instead of doing nothing at all about any of them.

I focused on banning as a solution since that seems to be what people on the first page want, as you might have noticed.

Taking away all rewards for inactive players wont work either, since its based on the same requirement as the banning idea, that idea being that leechers are stationary.

All this will do is cause leechers to use more sophisticated techniques. You can easily program a macro to have a bot just run straight ahead, to their deaths, and that negates the "non-active" requirement.

Nomen Mendax · Jun 26, 2007, 11:26 PM // 23:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

I focused on banning as a solution since that seems to be what people on the first page want, as you might have noticed.

Taking away all rewards for inactive players wont work either, since its based on the same requirement as the banning idea, that idea being that leechers are stationary.

All this will do is cause leechers to use more sophisticated techniques. You can easily program a macro to have a bot just run straight ahead, to their deaths, and that negates the "non-active" requirement.

It seems (not just from this thread) that a fair number of people are very quick to suggest banning as a solution to pretty much anything they don't like (and I'm not referring to you here)!

My thought was that ANet might discourage a reasonable number of leechers doing this. Can the average leecher program a macro for a bot? I have no idea, and I agree that if they can then my suggestion is pretty much a waste of time.

Bryant Again · Jun 26, 2007, 11:33 PM // 23:33

I think it'd be hard to program leeching in an AB, mainly because you don't really need one - roll a monk, accept a random invite, leech your heart away.

I guess you could program it to accept any party invites over 2 people...

byteme! · Jun 27, 2007, 12:54 AM // 00:54

Alot of times I either go get a smoke or a drink before a match. Stupid timer sometimes takes up to 5+ minutes before it'll allow me in. I'll be damned if I ever get banned because I needed a drink. =/

DarkGanni · Jun 27, 2007, 12:59 AM // 00:59

Personally the last patch screwed more honest players than leechers, the points for losing were still good with the old patch and now I barely bother playing ab again thanks to the last "anti-leecher" patch, I think i'll stick to repeatable quests now, good game.

just my 2 pennies

- Ganni

Neo Nugget · Jun 27, 2007, 01:18 AM // 01:18

I mean people can say they had real life things to do that couldnt wait(reasonable)

But you cant really say that as an excuse for using all chat for trade.

Chthon · Jun 27, 2007, 01:55 AM // 01:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

I focused on banning as a solution since that seems to be what people on the first page want, as you might have noticed.

Taking away all rewards for inactive players wont work either, since its based on the same requirement as the banning idea, that idea being that leechers are stationary.

All this will do is cause leechers to use more sophisticated techniques. You can easily program a macro to have a bot just run straight ahead, to their deaths, and that negates the "non-active" requirement.

Most leechers aren't that sophisticated. They don't know how to write a macro themselves. And it's not like most bot writers make their bots publicly available. Sure, you might have a small number of [BS] leecher guilds that might share such a macro among themselves if they had one, but a large proportion of leechers would be stopped by any method that picked them out for being inactive. If scanning for prolonged stationary periods and doing something about it would stop 80% or 90% of leechers, isn't that a pretty good start?

bilateralrope · Jun 27, 2007, 02:28 AM // 02:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

Most leechers aren't that sophisticated. They don't know how to write a macro themselves. And it's not like most bot writers make their bots publicly available. Sure, you might have a small number of [BS] leecher guilds that might share such a macro among themselves if they had one, but a large proportion of leechers would be stopped by any method that picked them out for being inactive. If scanning for prolonged stationary periods and doing something about it would stop 80% or 90% of leechers, isn't that a pretty good start?

Even if the leachers eventually get hold of working leach bots, a temporary stop would be a good thing. I wounder if a bot could be made to play better than the average AB player.

Yawgmoth · Jun 27, 2007, 04:05 AM // 04:05

I actually played AB with a bot in my party which did more than quite a large number of bad players out there - all it did was autofollow me, so it didn't run randomly away and die, but contributed to faster capping of shrines. After kicking it from party after the match (won!) I've seen it was able to form its own party by sending random invites to everyone (very easy to be programmed).

arcanemacabre · Jun 27, 2007, 04:11 AM // 04:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

Most leechers aren't that sophisticated. They don't know how to write a macro themselves. And it's not like most bot writers make their bots publicly available. Sure, you might have a small number of [BS] leecher guilds that might share such a macro among themselves if they had one, but a large proportion of leechers would be stopped by any method that picked them out for being inactive. If scanning for prolonged stationary periods and doing something about it would stop 80% or 90% of leechers, isn't that a pretty good start?

That's a very good point. Any anti-leech measures like that would eliminate a great portion of leechers, leaving it only for bots, which can be banned (since banning leechers isn't a great maneuver).

Spazzer · Jun 27, 2007, 05:44 AM // 05:44

It kind of makes sense if you think about it. If all Luxons were leech bots that autojoined immediately, that would make the Kurzick players able to get into games faster. And they'll win bigger, which means more faction for Kurzick players (which is the only side to play on if you want the titles).

All we need to do is come to an ingame understanding on these things and we'll have a nice system for exploiting this new faction update for everyone's benefit.

Gaile Gray · Jun 27, 2007, 06:22 AM // 06:22

We will definitely include these concerns in this week's Community Summary. I can tell you flat out that this isn't a matter of the designers being unaware, or of the designers not caring about the AFK/Leeching matter. You can tell that from the recent update.

I don't have any additional info right now, but will post if it becomes available!

arcanemacabre · Jun 27, 2007, 06:28 AM // 06:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

We will definitely include these concerns in this week's Community Summary. I can tell you flat out that this isn't a matter of the designers being unaware, or of the designers not caring about the AFK/Leeching matter. You can tell that from the recent update.

I don't have any additional info right now, but will post if it becomes available!

What about the matter of increased amount of leavers since the decreased reward for losing? Perhaps if the devs can include some anti-leeching code, the loss reward can return to its former glory?

Omniclasm · Jun 27, 2007, 06:37 AM // 06:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by bilateralrope

Even if the leachers eventually get hold of working leach bots, a temporary stop would be a good thing. I wounder if a bot could be made to play better than the average AB player.

Seeing how popular Dolyak Signet is, and Touchers with Minion spells, I do not think it would take much to overcome the average AB player.

imkey · Jun 27, 2007, 06:52 AM // 06:52

imo, the best way to resolve this is to measure player performance with a complex set of equations... of course this equation shouldn't be revealed

.
players will be rewarded for their "performance" + small bonus for winning team

Each player would be rewarded differently depending on their performance.

for the winning team,
i am seeing performance being up to 80% of the total earned for the ab and the win bonus being 20%.

individuals from the the losing team would just get their "performance" score faction.

of course the performance equation won't be perfect, but it should be general enough to encompass most effective contributions to the winning team

something like..
performance = [effective dmg contributed] + [effective healing done] + [number of points capped] + [dmg prevented] + [conditions inflicted] + [npc kill or assist of someone killing npc] + [interrupts]... and a couple more factors

I probably missed a lot of things in the above equation but it can be tweaked alot(ie a monk that only heals but does it very well should receive full marks].

Basically, the idea is for a way to measure the amount of "Work" someone put into helping their team win.

People should be compensated for how well and hard they played even if their team loses the AB. The idea could even be adjusted so there are discrete thresholds for low perf, med perf, high perf, godly perf.. etc.

This will definitely solve leechers... as the equation should be designed in a way that the leechers only get good returns if they actively contribute to the ab.

Zorgy · Jun 27, 2007, 08:42 AM // 08:42

Thanks Gaile to post a reply & the confirmation that Anet is taking care of this PLAGUE.

I keep track of the worst leechers, by adding them to my friend's list LOL & as soon as they r connected I harass them of personnal messages saying to them that I will RUIN their name....

Today I was again in international district & two of them were there. I warned again the other players by spamming the NAMES in the main channel. But I enter a battle & one of them, the ranger with a bear was there.....still leeching.

The funny thing is that I sent a personnal message to one of the leechers & that he answered me in french, insulting me of course....but I am french....so I told him to stop...that I had informed Anet about their dirty trick.

Few minutes ago one of them came back so I harassed him again...& the guy disconnected straight LOL which means they dont feel so secure

In the meantime I suggest u to keep track of the WORST leechers (not the occasional ones) by saving them as friend.

Thats what I do & each time they connect I HARASS them.

So I can confirm u that this gang of three leechers are not BOTS but retard human beings & that they still operate & still leech.