Curse

Does-it-Matter · Jul 09, 2006, 06:01 PM // 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renegade ++RIP++

It isn't out of context... people going afk is hurting my enjoyment of the game. Therefore it is ruining my gameplayexperience in the same way as bots are ruining the gameplay experience if they are on my team. And last i checked they do denounce botting, therefore the previous one should be denounced as well and be bannable/fixeable but sure as hell be worthy of a supportticket...

Ok, you're grabbing at straws there. Also, non-sequitor. Since when does being AFK become the equivilent of having an independantly controlled program play your character for you?

Quote:

Now to come back to the points you highlight, i would say that someone beating me during pvp is not bannable since its part of their competetive focus and i had fun during the fight.

And if you didn't have fun? If you were losing from the start?

Part of the AFKers competative focus is to gain Faction, actually, that's their entire focus. Do you still want to use your logic here?

Quote:

Next rage quitters: sure are annoying and should be fixed / punished, not banned. Fixed by substituting with a simple hench and not letting the person play the game untill his previous group finished the mission either by failing it or completing it.

Agreed. I actually commented on this a while ago. There is a game out, set in Roman-era Britain. In it, if you Rage Quit, your character is publically crucified for seven days, during which you are temp-banned.

Quote:

monks, whammos, assasins, monsters, idiots is all to bad but in a way have some fixes, ergo availability of henchies not to mention that it is part of gamePLAY and not gameAFK.

And if these idiots have made it into your group (perhaps innocently, perhaps subtely) and its too late to take henchmen?

Also, creating new words to help your point really doesn't work. While I understand what you're trying to express, game play is game play. Since people who go AFK have payed their money for the game, just as you, and ANets official response is that it is not an exploit/against EULA, then technically, that is game play just as well.

Quote:

Drops is part of gameplaymechanics but meh it has been changed partly during the last year, so some peple might consider it a possibility for improvement. Even though for me its simply part of any rpg game.

Perhaps then going AFK is part of any MMO Competative Game? Using your logic.

Quote:

Remainder of the game, i would have no problem with if people found it annoying, in the end its an option that people should be able to customize as being non shown. Default is on though. But in the end it would be the persons choice not anets...

I believe the reason its not optional is actually a legal matter. Something about a law in Taiwan, China, and/or Japan about people neglecting infants, life and eating en mas to play a game. Or at least, that's what I'm told.

---

Personally, I agree with you. I would thoroughly enjoy this game without AFKers. You know, actually playing the mission as it was intended. An 8 vs 8 PvP not a 1-8 vs 1-8 random chance.

Though, I don't believe the "ruining my gameplay expereience" line is going to prove fruitful in this endeavor. Simply put, gameplay expereince is a subjective term. It is different for everyone. Thus they couldn't use it as an end all, be all catch clause to eliminate a style of gameplay.

Kai Nui · Jul 09, 2006, 07:18 PM // 19:18

This is all so very ridiculous... where to start?

Ok, people AFK isn't a bug. It's like saying that a player who wears no armor, weapons, brings no skills or attribute points into a fight is a bug. It's their choice, and the game gives you choices, and that can't be helped. It's trying to take away free will. Maybe you'd like everyone to all be W/Mos with full Gladiator armor and everyone automatically attacks the closest thing to them and can't control their walking. That solves the AFK problem doesn't it? Then again, where's the fun game where you can choose to do stuff? It's lost because you are too much of a pansy to accept that it isn't something wrong with them, there's something wrong with you. If you don't like someone in the party, it's not their problem, it is your problem. You can leave. The kick system is already in place, just in a different form. No one's making you stay there, but as long as you stay, you don't have the right to argue. You started the mission with these human players, and if you don't like them you can go with henchmen, different people, or maybe even bribe the person the leave, and don't be surprised if they take your money and don't leave either.

Gli · Jul 09, 2006, 08:30 PM // 20:30

I haven't been posting on this board for a while before today and I suddenly remember why.

Spoony · Jul 09, 2006, 09:18 PM // 21:18

DoesItMatter, Save people's eyes, don't use so many quotes.

Renegade ++RIP++ · Jul 09, 2006, 09:32 PM // 21:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Does-it-Matter

Ok, you're grabbing at straws there. Also, non-sequitor. Since when does being AFK become the equivilent of having an independantly controlled program play your character for you?

since it has the same result, ergo you can't count on that person to be effective due to the random behaviour of pvp places. Meaning a bot can 55 farm without a problem since it is the same exact scheme day in day out but in pvp this is never the case. Even though botters are more usefull in aspenwood seeing that they at least contribute a bit. in the end however everything seems far fetched if you are bullheaded in an opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Does-it-Matter

And if you didn't have fun? If you were losing from the start?

I would still be competing, but at least I would know that the team did everything we could. And the opposition just being better. Not just because we were short on active people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Does-it-Matter

Part of the AFKers competative focus is to gain Faction, actually, that's their entire focus. Do you still want to use your logic here?

actually yes, this would be where the point about bug introduced by ira blink would come in. It is a bug/exploit/oversight in the code to reward people that do not join. Its like rewarding gold trimmed guildcapes to all the people watching the top guilds battle... (so the people in observer mode)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Does-it-Matter

And if these idiots have made it into your group (perhaps innocently, perhaps subtely) and its too late to take henchmen?

you put them on the list of people you'll never join. But the problem with aspenwood (or the places where afk-ing is mostly an issue) is that it is not your decission to whom you want to take. Even though I wouldn't want it any other way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Does-it-Matter

Also, creating new words to help your point really doesn't work. While I understand what you're trying to express, game play is game play. Since people who go AFK have payed their money for the game, just as you, and ANets official response is that it is not an exploit/against EULA, then technically, that is game play just as well.

non native anglosaxian. English is my fourth language.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Does-it-Matter

Perhaps then going AFK is part of any MMO Competative Game? Using your logic.

GW ain't an MMO Besides even if it was, in most proper MMO's afk-ing does get punished by being able to get kicked by the paryleader. Which solves the problem of afk-ing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Does-it-Matter

I believe the reason its not optional is actually a legal matter. Something about a law in Taiwan, China, and/or Japan about people neglecting infants, life and eating en mas to play a game. Or at least, that's what I'm told.

they have been flaunting their streaming technology from day one, so i can't understand why it is that hard to stream a simple inability to disable it to these servers. Not to mention that the base client from gw is not useable in those territories. For example i can only use my game to join the european or american sever but not the taiwan, chinese, korean, japanese or whatever. So in essence it isn't a problem.
---

Quote:

Originally Posted by Does-it-Matter

Though, I don't believe the "ruining my gameplay expereience" line is going to prove fruitful in this endeavor. Simply put, gameplay expereince is a subjective term. It is different for everyone. Thus they couldn't use it as an end all, be all catch clause to eliminate a style of gameplay.

Ah but thats the beaty from it seeing that it is such a clause they can catch anybody they want. And seeing that the collective community finds afk-ing during these missions obnoxious and annoying, it would be my first thought as a company to crack down on this. Letting it drag on will just drive people away from this content which was a big part of the entire faction advertising campaign...

EDIt: you asked for it

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kai Nui

This is all so very ridiculous... where to start?

Ok, people AFK isn't a bug. It's like saying that a player who wears no armor, weapons, brings no skills or attribute points into a fight is a bug. It's their choice, and the game gives you choices, and that can't be helped. It's trying to take away free will. Maybe you'd like everyone to all be W/Mos with full Gladiator armor and everyone automatically attacks the closest thing to them and can't control their walking. That solves the AFK problem doesn't it? Then again, where's the fun game where you can choose to do stuff? It's lost because you are too much of a pansy to accept that it isn't something wrong with them, there's something wrong with you. If you don't like someone in the party, it's not their problem, it is your problem. You can leave. The kick system is already in place, just in a different form. No one's making you stay there, but as long as you stay, you don't have the right to argue. You started the mission with these human players, and if you don't like them you can go with henchmen, different people, or maybe even bribe the person the leave, and don't be surprised if they take your money and don't leave either.

First of all let me simply state that you had no choice whatsoever in the choosing of the people in your group which you had known if you had either played aspenwood or read even part of the posts.

Secondly, it isn't in my nature to leave people hanging out to dry just because 1 person isn't willing to go the extra mile with us together. But does it annoy me: you bet ya.

Thirdly, seeing as these missions are unhenchable another point in your unfounded rhetoric gets obliterated into little shards. Just wished it were ectos, at least i would have gotten something for my effort except civilising someone who didn't even bother reading any posts instead came forward with a complete and utter blanket statement.

And fourthly because of the nature of these missions leaving also has a tendency to reward the opponents for not doing anything and heck even the afk-er sinc ehe will still get some faction even if it is only 80. It is still better then our 0. Not to mention that leaving will not guarantee yourself to not end up with another afk-er.

dargon · Jul 09, 2006, 10:58 PM // 22:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowStorm

You're right. It's not a bug. But the OP is right too. It IS an exploit. By the definition, this is an exploit that allows a player to get unlimited gain (faction) without having to do anything at all. (except press a mouse button once every few minutes.)

It does need to be addressed. Either by removing the exploit: making it so that players get no reward unless they actually do something, or by banning those that take advantage of the exploit (It's not like A-Net hasn't banned exploiters before.)

Please define doing something. Attacking? Monks spec'd for healing try to avoid that. Dropping a spirit? Well that just makes it two button clicks. Moving? Again 2 button clicks instead of 1.

arcanemacabre · Jul 09, 2006, 11:31 PM // 23:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renegade ++RIP++

actually yes, this would be where the point about bug introduced by ira blink would come in. It is a bug/exploit/oversight in the code to reward people that do not join. Its like rewarding gold trimmed guildcapes to all the people watching the top guilds battle... (so the people in observer mode)

Yeah, that would also be like rewarding all the PvE'ers access to FoW and UW for what the PvP'ers did in HoH.

Oh, wait...

Gli · Jul 10, 2006, 12:16 AM // 00:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

No, the AFK issue is infinitely more important. Not dealing with it, heck, even coming out with a statement that it's not a support issue, that's silent consent, that's sending a message that it's OK to ruin other people's enjoyment. That's not a message you want to send.

And actually, if that IS their stance, I'll be doing some AFK faction farming of my own soon.

Wow, this is kinda neat. I've tried a bit of leeching earlier and I ended up with almost 2,000 Kurzick faction. I wasn't really AFK, I just stood there chatting with guildies. What a great way to enjoy the game.

One thing that bothered me a bit was all the rude people cussing me out all the time. They got pretty nasty at times. I'm considering filing a few reports for unacceptable behaviour.

Undivine · Jul 10, 2006, 12:30 AM // 00:30

First of all, if people would just take the time to actually read the details on the kick system proposal, the "potential exploits" that come from it are not only unlikely but utterly fruitless. Does anyone know of any other online game that has leechers? I don't recall any, and that's because all the games I have play had a kick system.

Secondly, leechers are a severe problem. It is not a bug by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a problem that should be dealt with. It doesn't just cripple my gameplay experience, it hurts the community.

On several occasions I tried Fort Aspenwood and eventually the leechers were so much that everyone who wanted to actually play Aspenwood, left the Aspenwood outpost because they couldn't have a fair game; meaning the outpost was completely empty except for the leechers. Nobody was playing then, and anyone on the Luxon side who wanted a game wouldn't get one due to a lack of competitors.

In many cases enough leechers mean a guaranteed loss. Even if it doesn't, some people see it that way and then leave the game, making it a guaranteed loss.

And it isn't just the competitive missions. There are plenty of leechers in regular missions, even sometimes in PvP. Enough leechers can degrade the game so much that people stop playing, even stop purchasing future products.

There is also the sheer audacity of leechers.

When we yelled at that guy he just went on to make fun of us and tell us that we "can't do shit about leechers." He was completely right, and that helplessness is unbearably frustrating. To his credit, he ended up not leeching and actually helping us, though he was a bit of a jerk to everyone.

So leechers are a problem. But no, they're not a bug.

By the way, I'm debating whether this thread should even be in this forum in the first place. This isn't exactly a suggestion. The only suggestion is the kick system; a rehash of other threads.

Kai Nui · Jul 10, 2006, 04:38 AM // 04:38

Unfortunately a kick system wouldn't work as I would always be the leader and kick anyone who didn't pay me 100 gp at the completion of every quest in the fissure of woe.

Does-it-Matter · Jul 10, 2006, 05:18 AM // 05:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renegade ++RIP++

since it has the same result, ergo you can't count on that person to be effective due to the random behaviour of pvp places. Meaning a bot can 55 farm without a problem since it is the same exact scheme day in day out but in pvp this is never the case. Even though botters are more usefull in aspenwood seeing that they at least contribute a bit. in the end however everything seems far fetched if you are bullheaded in an opinion.

Ok, here's the thing. You are looking at this from a gameplay issue. But for it to be considered a bug/exploit, it needs to be a technical issue.

From a technical view. A person that buys the game, and clicks "start mission" then walks away from the computer is not doing anything that wasn't originally intended during design/programming.

If, however, you have a computer program play for you, in which the game is played without your imput, you are exploiting the game. And as a side note, the reason botting gets a lot of attention is due to the fact they Ebay the gold.

Choosing to play the game (either by moving your character, or telling it to remain in place) is still playing the game, doing or using nothing that wasn't already planned/programmed.

From a game play point of view, its a horrible abuse and unfair to the players. Its a loophole that needs to be changed, but beyond that a programmer wouldn't have to scroll through code to find out what went wrong.

Quote:

I would still be competing, but at least I would know that the team did everything we could. And the opposition just being better. Not just because we were short on active people.

And if someone on the team decides to over-aggro, or not play his character properly, thus sabatoging the team, is that playing his game he bought, or an exploit/bug?

Quote:

actually yes, this would be where the point about bug introduced by ira blink would come in. It is a bug/exploit/oversight in the code to reward people that do not join. Its like rewarding gold trimmed guildcapes to all the people watching the top guilds battle... (so the people in observer mode)

I'm not entirely sure where you're going with that. As how I replied to it, was coinciding with your logic, so I'm not entirely following your analogy.

An observer can't affect the outcome of a guild battle, an AFKer can.

Quote:

you put them on the list of people you'll never join. But the problem with aspenwood (or the places where afk-ing is mostly an issue) is that it is not your decission to whom you want to take. Even though I wouldn't want it any other way.

So what do you do, if you're in a group, in which the party leader takes someone whom you don't want? I've seen it happen enough times not to call it random chance.

Quote:

non native anglosaxian. English is my fourth language.

I just have to say, that's very impressive. I can speak three, and write two-ish, so you have my respect for that!

Quote:

GW ain't an MMO Besides even if it was, in most proper MMO's afk-ing does get punished by being able to get kicked by the paryleader. Which solves the problem of afk-ing.

Guild Wars isn't played online by a massive amount of players?

Quote:

they have been flaunting their streaming technology from day one, so i can't understand why it is that hard to stream a simple inability to disable it to these servers. Not to mention that the base client from gw is not useable in those territories. For example i can only use my game to join the european or american sever but not the taiwan, chinese, korean, japanese or whatever. So in essence it isn't a problem.

I have to agree with you. I'm not a part of ANet so I can't guess as to their reasons, but if what you say is possible, I don't see why not.

---

Quote:

Ah but thats the beaty from it seeing that it is such a clause they can catch anybody they want. And seeing that the collective community finds afk-ing during these missions obnoxious and annoying, it would be my first thought as a company to crack down on this. Letting it drag on will just drive people away from this content which was a big part of the entire faction advertising campaign...

Well, they really don't need that in there. It is their game, run on a private server. They can dictate things as they decide so long as what they deliver is what they advertise.

Other than that, I believe, as I said before, that the specific wording chossen as well as its position within the EULA is for legal matters pertaining to online harassment/abuse of a non-ingame matter.

Gli · Jul 10, 2006, 06:37 AM // 06:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Does-it-Matter

Ok, here's the thing. You are looking at this from a gameplay issue. But for it to be considered a bug/exploit, it needs to be a technical issue.

From a technical view. A person that buys the game, and clicks "start mission" then walks away from the computer is not doing anything that wasn't originally intended during design/programming.

If, however, you have a computer program play for you, in which the game is played without your imput, you are exploiting the game. And as a side note, the reason botting gets a lot of attention is due to the fact they Ebay the gold.

Choosing to play the game (either by moving your character, or telling it to remain in place) is still playing the game, doing or using nothing that wasn't already planned/programmed.

From a game play point of view, its a horrible abuse and unfair to the players. Its a loophole that needs to be changed, but beyond that a programmer wouldn't have to scroll through code to find out what went wrong.

You're right, it's not a bug, it's a design flaw, which is much much worse, because we all know ANet does fix bugs but hardly ever touches design flaws.

Anyway, I already made over 6k faction leeching at Fort Aspenwood. One thing that's pretty funny about it is that people on this forum bend themselves out of shape to confuse the issue with useless rhetoric, while everyone in-game quite unanimously agrees that it's crap, and something should be done about it. Something conclusive.

TheLordOfBlah · Jul 10, 2006, 08:09 AM // 08:09

There is no BUG considering the system works if you dont get bad players. Here lies the problem: the way its set up isnt bugged, however it allows people to get faction from doing nothing. Theres not much that can be done about it.

Your definitions are flawed and I'm doubting those are the definitions you got, rather they are definitions you mangled into a specific scenario pertaining to Guild Wars.

AFKing is not equal to an expliot

Satai Katalya · Jul 11, 2006, 02:21 PM // 14:21

imho there should be a vote to kick function during alliance battles (say team vote) it would therefore get leechers booted through our vigilance. Having that threat (and gaining so many kicks) would build up and ban accounts like the strikes for exploits. Personally I take screenies of leechers and send them to support anyways (getting the usual crap back). Something needs to be done about this.

Duncan Idaho · Jul 12, 2006, 03:27 PM // 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogmar

Well technically she's right, it has nothing to do with the game's construction.

Wrong ... It HAS to do with the game's construction, since you only have to push the 'Begin'. And it is VERY easy to build a soft (in C/C++ it needs less than 10 coding lines) that put your mouse on one specific place in your screen (let's say where the very button is), then activate left click. And there you are.

You don't need to be in front of your computer to leech in Aspenwood, you can do it while sleeping.

The only thing that IMO will happen in that within months, Aspenwood will be filled by afk kurzicks, because all the non leechers will be bored with the growing number of leechers.

Ira Blinks · Jul 12, 2006, 03:48 PM // 15:48

ok people, I dont even know how to make this more clear...
If system allows malicious use, that system IS broken.

You don't launch e-commerce site without security layer... you just don't! You can not say that system is working fine just because nobody is trying to break it, because there will be always someone trying to break it... ALWAYS.
You can not say "oh we gonna launch this system and throw sql-injection proof as an addon later". You can not go and tell that client that stolen credit card numbers is not a software fault, but rather bad people.

This is BS, my dear friends. System that allows to use itself against itself or other users IS broken, period.

twicky_kid · Jul 12, 2006, 03:51 PM // 15:51

Until we are able to report people for leeching and Anet do something about it nothing will change.

Even with a kick system it won't help you. You kick that's 1 less person in your party. That means the AB and mission is probly going to fail. To stop leeching it has to be stopped before they even enter.

I think we should be able to report but its going to be hard to prove and Anet doesn't want to deal with that.

raven66z0r · Jul 14, 2006, 04:24 AM // 04:24

People need to be tagged. So lets say 30 or so people "marked" this individual for leeching he will be "marked" with a leecher symbol of some sort(whatever).
making him more noticable to partys in towns/pvp areas.

just an idea but its realistic and would work.