Curse

=HT=Ingram · Jun 21, 2007, 09:07 PM // 21:07

I agree with comments for a 3 min idle kick out of battle comments. I have seen that work well in other games, and it drastically reduces the leachers....

Add to that a code string that if you get 4 kicks/disconnects you loose access to PvP areas for 1 day. RA, HA, TA, AB, GvG. that will also solve for the other nastiness in PvP that is the quiters.

Both of these have essentially ended all PvP participation from me. most will say thats no loss, and thats ok, most people wouldn't give a second look if I layed decapitated on the ground in Lions Arch. Indeed many would dance and praise that as the best thing ever to happen in the game. so be it...

I will still express my opinion when its nessesary.

Turbo Wombat · Jun 21, 2007, 11:51 PM // 23:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

1) Bad idea. I can get lag spikes where I cant move or press any skill buttons for over 5 minutes at a time, so I should get penalised because either my internet connection or Anets servers bugger up?

And I refer you back to my original post...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbo Wombat

For those who might bring up the old arguments about D/C's and emergencies, I offer these rebuttals:
*You weren't playing, and therefore deserve no reward.
*If it truly was an emergency, chances are it will take longer for you to sort it out than it will take for the punishment timer to hit zero. If you are trying to take care of both at once, it either wasn't an emergency or you have seriously screwed up priorities.
*If you get D/C'd and can't log on again to reconnect, chances are that the punishment timer will hit zero by the time you can reconnect. If you are still on a timer when you reconnect, I'm sure you can find something useful to do in the few remaining minutes of time-out.
*If you left because of a never-ending battle, chances are that you will still get into another match much sooner than if you were to fight it out.

So you freeze up and get booted out of RA for being AFK for 60 seconds. You take another 4 minutes to regain control and have 60 seconds left on your punishment timer. I think you can deal. Anyways, whether or not it was your fault, you most likely left three other people to hang out to dry. You won't be the only one affected if something like this comes to pass. We all will. However, the result will make the game more fun and playable for the general population. I welcome constructive criticism, but someone saying "That's dumb and lame" without offering a reasonable alternative or a way to amend and improve the previous idea is just a waste of bandwidth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

How to fix leeching - Play with a guild group or with your friends.

Though others have covered this pretty well, I am still going to point out that this is an incredibly uninformed opinion. It would be like me saying that you should get a better ISP to fix your lag issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

2) So if you go into RA and get a team of four monks / four mesmers, or if someone else rage quits first, you should be penalised?

You already have been, yet the rage-quitters are still getting away scott-free. I do, however, believe that RA should be a little less random and should have some code incorporated so that you don't wind up facing 3 or 4 of the same profession unless there really are too many to go around. That discussion, though, would probably warrant its own thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

Yesterday I tried a new approach, I would stay for the first full round regardless of whether or not we won. I would leave after winning if the team did not have a monk, giving them the chance to get one, or would leave if our group was clearly losing (e.g. no one using res signets). However, this takes too much time when I am trying to grind 6 more glads for Glad rank 3.

Good for you. That's what courteous players should do. Though I have made a good plenty glad points from monkless teams, if you leave after the round is over, you did your part, the team will get a replacement and no one is getting screwed. As a result, I don't think anyone should be penalized for that. As you can imagine, my previous post was a bit of a rough draft and meant as a starting point to get things moving in the right direction. It's not going to be the end-all solution that will be implemented word-for-word. If you have ideas on how to change my concept in order to better it, or can come up with other practical solutions that may work better than mine, feel free to post it. Cutting someone down who is actually trying to help only makes you look the fool.

P.S. - Guild groups or friends are a good way to get those last few points for your title

ryanryanryan0310 · Jun 22, 2007, 12:54 AM // 00:54

The thing is most people leech at the same time everyday. I see the same names and same guilds leeching. The guild [west] (the other way

) leeches alot and I believe they even own a town..... Ft. Aspenwood is fun and the wait isn't as long as AB. Please fix....kthx

How do they not see this as a problem?
3-5 minutes of AFK, then a kick will work. Maybe bann a few people here and there. Put some kind of fear into them for leeching........

Scary Raebbit · Jun 22, 2007, 01:55 AM // 01:55

Well to give it a little magnitude and exaggeration, let me provide an example of what leeching does to those small-minded people who do not comprehend the problems that people experience:
Let's say, there is a person that[LIST]Takes a spot in your party, which cannot be filled by another

Gains the same experience as you

Gets the same loot (meaning that R9 Elemental Sword you pulled from a chest, that person gets and devalues yours as another has entered the market)

Follows you to EVERY instance, be it PvE or PvP (Free Balth/Glad/Championship Points or Money/Items/Mats etc.)

You cannot rid this person unless you perform a mind-numbingly repetitive task X amount of hours every day, and if not this person will return the following Y hours

This person is immune to banning and flagging and constantly follows you by targeting then spacing to make sure you are never out of sight.

There is no feasible way to rid this person, as people have flamed you to hell for trying to fabricate a procedure, and each solution is thrown out.

Many people who know nothing about the predicament you are in criticize you for trying to figure out a solution and say it is a waste of time.

So now what do you do?
You can leave the game, but it would be like another example I would like to bring up:
You bought a car in 2005, which you thought was a great deal and offered options and equipment you desired. There are no payments left, you know the car in and out, and have been accustomed to it. Yet many recalls have plagued the car and you are forced with a decision. Try and sell it for as much as you can (eBaying a GW account), causing you to research new offerings, the hassle of trying to sell, being a called a bad salesperson, going through the stress of waiting for a sale, saving money for a new car, going through the process of payments all over again, and relearning everything in and out (level up your intelligence). That is one option, or you can try to deal with the problems (nerfs, leeching, etc.) that the recalls have shown and take the risk of more coming out. Worse of all, the dealer does not cover any of the expenses, so you must take your time to deal with the inconveniences that you did not cause.

Kind of a tough choice, but that is just putting things in a bigger perspective. Just hope that my little, badly put-together rant can have some effect on the topic.

As you can see, I would like to to see a change to leeching, but not just that. All that idiocy that has been coming up/ever will come up, but you can't have a perfect RPG like that.

Fril Estelin · Jun 22, 2007, 08:20 AM // 08:20

Quote:

The mentality of the population also needs to be such that it sees vices as repulsive and unwanted. When a selfish person decides to join such a society, it will instantly run into a brick wall, because the virtuous people would not tolerate such negative behavior.

As you can see, in such a society there would be lot of discrimination, but not based on nation, color, age or something like that, but on personal qualities. So, when you would see a guy like that one saying "wtf ffs i dont care about your issues, im enjoying my own stuff who cares about you blabla", he would soon be linched so to speak, kicked in the bum and launched out of the countries borders. There would be no need for a rule and regulation, the high sense of morality and virtue of the population would be enough.

I like this point of view, but that's my personal statement. I think I would not allow me to state this kind of "rule" if I was at Anet, because in business promoting moral views may not be the smartest move (well, at least in the short run; you'd probably have to aim at going one small step at a time in order to bring the community to "share" your values).

What if GW then becomes a "morally unacceptable" game because it tries to impose limits and constraints on its players' "thinking"? In other words, you and me agree that GW would be so much more enjoyable for us if people were not GREEDY, and we probably even agree on what it means. But about this other guy in this very far land who does not feel greedy when he's trying to get a lot of money/XP/fame in order to impress his friends? Well you'd have to discuss directly with him, not try to impose your (and mine) views on him via the game.

(actually the discussion on this "beautiful" community you're depicting is more complex, because we stay at a high level of abstraction; in practice, there are a lot more problems, for example there are laws that prevent companies to discriminate their customers, so whatever your philosophy is you'd have to comply with the law ... one can even be much more sneaky and ask you the question: what if the "general population" is greedy and you'r ethe exception?)

Anyway, I know you're suggesting to change people's mind via rules like temp ban. Actually we need to lead by the example (what I personnally try to do, I'm very far from being a "serious" player in terms of hours of play/knowledge of the game but I'm always careful not to be unpolite and I'm definitely not greedy), there is no other way in the long run. Bad behaviour can spread very quickly (if you're robbed, you tend to become angry and may do bad things in turn and so on) while good behaviour takes a lot of efforts to spread. It's easier to destroy than to create!

Servant of Kali · Jun 22, 2007, 11:02 AM // 11:02

Quote:

In other words, you and me agree that GW would be so much more enjoyable for us if people were not GREEDY, and we probably even agree on what it means. But about this other guy in this very far land who does not feel greedy when he's trying to get a lot of money/XP/fame in order to impress his friends?

I bought Prophecies because i liked the ideals GW has set. It's still not perfect, and grind/greed factor increased a lot since then, but it's still better than the other games in the genre. PvP is much better if nothing else, I don't even play PvE anymore. That's why leechers bother me that much, they have no place in PvP because greed and grind are not PvP-related except for Hall of Rank Farming. I don't have hopes that PvE will be the way i like it, and that's ok, it has a wide enough audience. Increasing grind is politics, i like it not but i can choose not to play it.

Just for comparison, i went to check the Age of Conan. I decided not to play it. Why? My personality would simply not fit in there. Let me quote one line from their official website which made me puke: "This sense of status achieved through materialistic gain (let's face it, we're all very vain) is very much present in Age of Conan, as well."
See, that's the example i was talking about - a discrimination based not on race or color or religion, but on personal qualities. Conan and alike games filter people; they are made to attract the vain, which is OK, but it's also made to repulse people like me. In the end, everyone asks himself "is this the game community i want to be a part of". For me, it's a hell no.

Quote:

What if GW then becomes a "morally unacceptable" game because it tries to impose limits and constraints on its players' "thinking"?

Every game imposes limits on its players. The question is how squished do you feel in a game. Do you have a sense of freedom and fun while playing the game, or do you feel forced to do things you don't want to, do you feel under stress or annoyed, agitated; do you feel that the players around you have a personality which definitely conflicts your own, etc. It's a complicated and a bit sensitive topic so im not going to go into details here.

Quote:

for example there are laws that prevent companies to discriminate their customers, so whatever your philosophy is you'd have to comply with the law

Nah, there are no such laws. The laws talk of classical discrimination based on race, color, religion, or something like that. There are a lot of existent discriminations, for instance, age. Discrimination based on personal qualities is not something that i think law would interfere with. Except maybe in America because for something very trivial you get 1mill dollars as a compensation. You could cut yourself with a kitchen knife and sue the company because they did not put a label "Warning, can cut veins with this knife". Anyway, even when you go to more sophisticated places, like some hotels, you can't just walk in dressed in whatever you want. I think you'd get kicked out

Regarding GW, the product itself discriminates customers just by existing.

ANet is free to modify their game within certain boundaries of course. But it goes both ways. For instance, increasing grind in Chapter 2 & 3 was a discrimination for people like me

We were discriminated against because our grindless nature defies the laws of greed, and we feel left out.. and among strangers who mostly care only for their own benefit (see leeching). I can always choose not to buy the game, or not to play it, so the problem is solved.

Quote:

what if the "general population" is greedy and you'r ethe exception?

The general population is greedy and im the exception. The question therefore isn't "what if", but "what now"

Quote:

Anyway, I know you're suggesting to change people's mind via rules like temp ban.

Im not suggesting that at all. Im suggesting removing people whose mindset doesn't match the mindset of those for whom those game areas are made, and who play those game areas. Somehow i don't think ANet had in mind catering to leechers when they designed the game.

As for changing peoples mind, that's not my job. That's the job of Karma, indirectly, and Yogic practice, directly (if they choose to).

Quote:

while good behaviour takes a lot of efforts to spread. It's easier to destroy than to create!

Exactly. Everyone can take a baseball bat and smash the monitor, but come on, if you're so cool go and *create* a monitor. Create a chip.
Good behavior takes a lot of effort, because you have to fight inertia and all the bad habbits. And just a quote for the end of the message: "The scent of flowers does not travel against the wind but the odour of good people travels even against the wind; a good man pervades every place. The perfume of virtue is unsurpassed."

Fril Estelin · Jun 22, 2007, 11:46 AM // 11:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Servant of Kali

Nah, there are no such laws. The laws talk of classical discrimination based on race, color, religion, or something like that. There are a lot of existent discriminations, for instance, age. Discrimination based on personal qualities is not something that i think law would interfere with. Except maybe in America because for something very trivial you get 1mill dollars as a compensation. You could cut yourself with a kitchen knife and sue the company because they did not put a label "Warning, can cut veins with this knife". Anyway, even when you go to more sophisticated places, like some hotels, you can't just walk in dressed in whatever you want. I think you'd get kicked out

There are similar laws in the UK and France, to my knowledge. So there are laws and Anet cannot ignore them. What about people sueing Anet for bad assessment of their "personal qualities"? I'm not a fan of laws but they're here (read this for fun: http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/396 )

Quote:

The general population is greedy and im the exception. The question therefore isn't "what if", but "what now"

I don't think so. Both you and me have different perception of the GW community, so I'm not sure we'll be able to sort this difference out

Quote:

Im not suggesting that at all.

I wanted to write "You're NOT suggesting", sorry!

Quote:

Im suggesting removing people whose mindset doesn't match the mindset of those for whom those game areas are made, and who play those game areas. Somehow i don't think ANet had in mind catering to leechers when they designed the game.

Very slipery slope: would you personnally judge people's mindset based on a few sentences from this forum, or the chat, or a few minutes/hours of gameplay? This is not something that Anet can do, it hasn't been done before because it can't be done by "negative" means (rules, laws).

Quote:

And just a quote for the end of the message: "The scent of flowers does not travel against the wind but the odour of good people travels even against the wind; a good man pervades every place. The perfume of virtue is unsurpassed."

Love the quote, but if you're in the "wrong" mindset you won't get it.

End of off-topic

Servant of Kali · Jun 22, 2007, 01:34 PM // 13:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

There are similar laws in the UK and France, to my knowledge. So there are laws and Anet cannot ignore them. What about people sueing Anet for bad assessment of their "personal qualities"? I'm not a fan of laws but they're here

What exact laws are there in UK and France? Copy paste?

You can't sue ANet for "bad assessment" because ANet doesn't do personal assessment. ANet makes a product which they sell on the market. The qualities of a product are aimed at a certain group of people, who might be attracted by the product and what is has to offer. I don't see at which point here ANet is doing the assessment of personal qualities, nor do they have to. That is done indirectly, by making a product oriented towards a certain group of people (and each group of people has different qualities, otherwise they would be the same group of people).

Quote:

I don't think so. Both you and me have different perception of the GW community, so I'm not sure we'll be able to sort this difference out

It's easy. You can even make an exact percentage out of it. Just do a poll here: "Do you think everyone in the game should have FoW armor for free, if they want to?". People who voted "no, you should earn it" are greedy and selfish. People who vote "i don't mind if others have it as long as i can choose the fashion design of my own characters" are unselfish and not greedy, and their sense of "fun" is not based on putting themselves above the others in egoistic way saying "look at me, i have FoW, therefore im cool and you're not".

Why is this a perfect example? Because in real world, one needs to work for stuff, not everyone can have everything here. Therefore it is not possible to "will" that everyone has the best stuff, since that doesnt work like that on this plane.
GW, on the other hand, is another matter. You paid for the game, for content. Everyone can have the best stuff, instantly, and that's not a matter of possibility but of wanting and willing. A non greedy player will be able to have fun in GW world without putting himself directly over the others (in such a way). He will PvP for fun (sure he can pvp for ranks too), and he can do PvE for fun, smacking monsters, doing missions, trying to break the records like timing, HM mode, challenge missions etc.
These 2 mentalities can be seen in a comparison of Bill Gates and someone who simply dresses up in expensive suits and has an expensive car. Bill Gates dresses up in jeans and shirts; quite unimpressive. But some guy whose abilities are far below that of Gates, needs to dress up in expensive suits to make up for the lack of abilities. Gates on the other hand does not need such outwardly displays of power. Why? Because his achievements speak for themselves. Even if he dresses up in something cool, it's because he likes it and feels comfortable in it. Not because everyone else will think "wow im cool, look at me i have FoW armor".

Quote:

Very slipery slope: would you personnally judge people's mindset based on a few sentences from this forum, or the chat, or a few minutes/hours of gameplay? This is not something that Anet can do, it hasn't been done before because it can't be done by "negative" means (rules, laws).

I never said ANet nees to judge anyones mindset. They are selling a product and should only react on bad actions done by others, which harm other customers. It's quite a simple rule of economy. Let's say you're owner of pools and people have to pay entrance to swim a bit and enjoy the water. Let's say that a small group of people pay entrance as everyone else, but instead of swimming around they sprinkle people with water, put a foot in front of them so they fall over, push people in the pool etc. Now, you have two choices, you can let this go on, which means you satisfy that minority, but everyone else leaves, or you can kick/discipline the minority, at which such minority might still enjoy the pool the way it's meant to be enjoyed.

As for judging someones mindset, everyone does that, more or less. It was enough to see for me what that one guy wrote in this thread, to decide that i wouldnt want him near me IRL. If i had more authority, i would be tempted to roleplay Judge Dredd: "I am the law! Put down your weapons and prepare to be judged."

Orinn · Jun 28, 2007, 08:21 AM // 08:21

I'm still going to push for a personal ban. An easy thing: if someone is on your ignore list, they will never be placed with you as part of a random party. People fall off the ignore list after a set amount of time, probably a few weeks, and unless you re-ignore them, you will then have them available as teammates again.

What happens when everyone starts ignoring the leechers? They stop getting teams, while everyone that's actually playing gets to go on, play, and not worry about them. Lowering the rewards for the losers actually encourages leeching, because the leechers don't CARE if they win or lose: they get something anyway. Reducing the faction gain to 0 for losing? Same thing: as long as they get faction every few games, they'll just keep leeching. It will slow their progress, but it won't stop them.

making sure they can't enter matches to begin with will stop them, and I think that allowing each player to decide taht they don't want to deal with certain people, can definitely improve the experience. We'd probably need bigger ignore lists, though.

To really deal with the problem, ANet could do a search, and every week, look at the top names on the ignore list. Then run down the logs, and see if those people's actions are consistent with leeching. If so, ban them from the arenas for a time, or permanently after repeated violations.