Curse

Bus · Jun 15, 2006, 10:06 PM // 22:06

Plz correct me if I'm wrong in assuming this but doesn't less people online = less lag?

And all those lazy morons who don't ever bother logging out add to the people online. I'm proposing to make it so any player who is idle (if no actions at all were made) for a certain period of time gets disconnected, I'm thinking 20 minutes. It'll simply go back to the login screen and say "Disconnected from server, idle too long" This will also discourage players to AFK through missions making their team do it without them. There would also be less districts which is good.

I dont see any problems with this right now except that people would have to spend something like 10 seconds entering their password again, selecting their character and loading.

EDIT: OK, fine this should not apply if you're in a mission/explorable area by yourself or with henchies.

The Great Al · Jun 15, 2006, 11:01 PM // 23:01

signed and double signed

Arkantos · Jun 15, 2006, 11:31 PM // 23:31

/signed. Theres no reason why you should be idle for more then 20 mins.

anonymous · Jun 15, 2006, 11:48 PM // 23:48

i hate to admit that i even played the game but in the 1 and a half months i played runescape *shudder* i hated that if i left my computer i would get disconnected. also i like to leave the game running when im gone for a little so i can see whats happening in guild chat.

/unsigned

Vahn Roi · Jun 15, 2006, 11:53 PM // 23:53

The first reasonable solution I have heard for this.

/Signed

Bahamut44 · Jun 16, 2006, 12:09 AM // 00:09

/signed

Tristan Taylor · Jun 16, 2006, 04:46 AM // 04:46

I cannot condone this, What was said about watching some of the chats while you're away, it's something I will do from time to time, you go to eat but want to know what the guild is talking about so you hit your Hall and let the text fly. Also, what about the poor soul who fights down deep into SF and has something come up, you're saying cause they had to run take care of something they should lose all the progress they've made? Or how about the poor sap that henches a mission and part way through has to answer the phone?

So for this idea I must say.......
/unsigned due to life's unexpected bits-o-fun

I do understand wanting something done about AFK players, but something this broad reaching cannot be the answer, maybe a voting system for in missions, after others say vote out, said person has a little time to say something or be dropped.
EDIT:I finally thought of where I was going with this, the person having to say something or be dropped, could have to write whats in a dialouge box, that could be random, maybe you'd have to give two tries, but anywho, off to prowl Cantha.

BowLad21 · Jun 16, 2006, 04:52 AM // 04:52

Easy solution, but it doesn't take long to make a movement macro. Or just press R. If you judge it on input, no input for 5 minutes=boot, there will be an inventory opener, or just cast spell 1 on self. The real solution would be to act mature, and not retaliate. Just say, Less Fun For Them, More Fun For Me. Have your group aggro over a mob to kill them. But really, a boot will just make a bot.

M C H A M M E R · Jun 16, 2006, 05:13 AM // 05:13

/Notsigned for the same reasons in posts #7 and #8

Undivine · Jun 16, 2006, 05:48 AM // 05:48

To be clear, I'm pretty sure the OP is not talking about AFKers during a mission. After all, most missions can be finished in less than 20 minutes... though it may make AFKers think twice.

This is being idle anywhere, be you in town, guild hall, or what have you, in order to reduce server lag. People who just leave their game on for an hour while standing in an outpost, for example.

Tristan, I see your point, but to be honest, if you have one of life's little bumps and it lasts for more than 20 minutes, you are no longer being much good to your group. I can see being away for 5 minutes or something, but 20? Even if it is a legitimate reason, which is perfectly understandable, that happens, 20 minutes is enough time to be considered not playing the game anymore. I mean, if your house was suddenly set aflame would you say, "AFK; house is on fire"? No, you would stop playing the game entirely. Imagine "BRB; wife is in labour." If I saw that I'd tell them to just log off. They have more important things to deal with. How much is enough? Can you be AFK for 1 hour for a perfectly legitimate reason?

I'd rather he log off, because an AFK can be a strain on people in certain ways, even if it is a legitimate excuse. The gold splits for an extra person, the cutscenes won't be skipped, and if you happen to be someone important, like the person carrying the Urn of St Viktor or perhaps the leader of the group, your absence is causing us problems. Logging off when you have a long AFK is the courteous thing to do.

Although, I could see an arguement that 20 minutes may be too short.

BowLad21 · Jun 16, 2006, 06:04 AM // 06:04

Isn't there already booting, via error=7? but seriously, AFK boot is a bad idea. What if you stand still in a city, reading a book while waiting for your group to pick up 2 monks for THK for....12 minutes? Suddenly, you feel the urge to use the bathroom, diahrra (sp?). You can't type if you have poop in your pants. You run to the bathroom. You return to your computer 8 minutes later, and have lost your group. Accidents happen, boots shouldn't. Also, A-net should be able to hold all the connections they get. They are making the move to a new server base on the 20th. This should reduce lag also, we don't need to hurt the players.

Lady Lozza · Jun 16, 2006, 07:32 AM // 07:32

I fail to see how this could hurt the players. And it is an added layer of security.

/signed

AFK for 20 minutes without even using chat?
Yes, unexpected things do happen, but I always thought it was good manners to log off the game if you think you are going to be gone any longer than 20 mins.

12 mins, need to go to bathroom - BRB folks or /afk or /dance or /attention, something to let the server know you are still around and presto you have another 20 mins.

Personally I'm more in favour of stretching it out to half an hour, but that won't catch anyone napping in missions nor even add a little pressure to them. Having said that of course I think perhaps another approach is needed to afk-mission-m****s.

EDIT: And a nice bright warning if you trigger this function.
"You have been AFK for xx minutes, you will be disconnected in x minutes if the server detects no activity."

Nanii · Jun 16, 2006, 07:37 AM // 07:37

/unsigned, this is WHY we got the status changes you see when pressing N,stop being funny and come with these silly jokes..

If anet ever sees this comment, well dont disconnect those who are AFK, becouse, thats why we got the status change. If people want to go afk, go afk, change status or dont change.

Up to the PEOPLE.

¤#¤%(#("

If the player is away more than 20 min, set AUTOMATIC to away, do not disconnect the player. Reasons: Someone might write, and you got local and trade shut down to see that when getting back.

Think about it guys.. anet has changed alot for us, and still these silly "change this change that" threads show up.. I have made ONE thread about an auction house.. and thats all.
This is still guild wars, not some random internet rpg where the server needs to disconnect you for being afk. I bet 1 million the gw servers can handle that, or else, how can they handle the 1 million (and over) bots that are running around?... I would suggest better connection for those who think its the players afk'ness that makes it lag.. I never experience ANY lag becouse of that reason...

Im still trying to get to the point where those who makes these threads need to think about what Anet has done so far, why, and what would happen if it changed. And also think about why you bought the game, was it to play it, or to play it so that one can find out what needs to be changed for your satisfaction..

And then, go ahead post a thread, but dont over do it...
If anet needs a change, if THEY think its needed. Let them post the threads and let us answer what we think about that. If i would to work at anet.. I would not patch a game becouse one player starts a thread and comes with for example a silly idea like "Please make it easier, or I wont play, dont you all agree" kind of thread..

That.. would be all... ALMOST

EDIT
I would like to add on behalf of LBS running academy and other services.
What if you are getting a Worldtour (takes about 4-7h according to sources)
And you want to go afk, which you can. And then you go..

Im not going to say more there, I think most people can figure out where Im trying to get.
Not everyone has a cat at home, or someone else that has the urge to move the mouse around just so that a game, in which you are set to AWAY on has to disconnect you if you are afk 20 min... come on. Guild wars. Not a random game.

Why then have "Do Not Disturb, Offline, away" status?..

That.. would be it.

Lady Lozza · Jun 16, 2006, 08:40 AM // 08:40

Nanii, too many people online does indeed cause lag in the towns. This is because both the server and your computer has to constantly update the position and status of each and every individual in the outpost. Simply because you have never been kicked because of this does not mean that NO ONE has. In fact it seems I am one of the first kicked when the server starts to get busy because I'm so far away from the server and the messages to it can easily get lost of diverted when lots of players start playing consequently triggering the server timeout. I'm running a DSL connection, which is by no means slow.

I honestly don't understand the need to be afk for more than half-an-hour, with the SOLE exception of running. Simply put, there is no reason NOT to kick those who are genuienly afk, and every reason to do so.
Why should those who camp their characters in a certain region, for whatever reason: ie suspect Gaile is coming for a chat, have a monk and just want to annoy the mission goers by not responding to any of their pms, have any right to stay connected to the server? People can and do err7 because of this.

GW is growing, there is little doubt about that. The lag issues are only going to get worse as it continues. Booting afk players is a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem and while I think that the specifics of this thread could use a lot of work, I see it as a reasonable alternative that Anet might want to look into.

Finally, Anet relies on FanSites like this for feedback. While I'm sure they do not appreciate the "zomg you promised us an aution house, I'm not going to play GW anymore" threads, there are some topics around that actually present interesting ideas that might be worth investigating.

RTSFirebat · Jun 16, 2006, 09:11 AM // 09:11

I see no issues with this, far as I see it if you wish to go "AFK" then long as the player uses the "AFK" command, and if the game doesn't already puts them in "Away" in friend list it should be fine.

AFK people in towns = lag and takes up space for other people.

Really before this could be added the AFK command needs to be vastly improved first.

I have a old thread about improving the AKF command, let me try and dig it up.

TheMadKingGeorge · Jun 16, 2006, 09:17 AM // 09:17

not signed i didnt even read it only title

RTSFirebat · Jun 16, 2006, 09:20 AM // 09:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMadKingGeorge

not signed i didnt even read it only title

You have no right to sign or nosign it then, least give it a read.

odly · Jun 16, 2006, 09:21 AM // 09:21

I cannot agree with this proposition.

I am one of those players who has a real live that will interupt me often.
(Kids, wife, work, ... all might need me in a moments notice)
So I play missions with henchies and when real live needs me I find a save spot, go AFK and leave the game running.

After an hour or so I come back and continue.
During this time my status will show 'Away', although I might forget to do this If I'm in a hurry.

If I get disconnected after 20 min I'll have to start over.

Some of the longer missions might pose a real problem for me to complete if I couldn't do this.

I would propose that these statusses (Logged off, Away, Busy, ...) could be made visible in towns.

RTSFirebat · Jun 16, 2006, 09:31 AM // 09:31

I don't think it was talking about people in Explorable Instances or Missions being disconnected, only people in towns.

Lady Lozza · Jun 16, 2006, 09:34 AM // 09:34

From my point of view, only towns would be best. It would also mean that running wouldn't be a problem.

Of course this wouldn't cope with the "freeloaders" but then, as I said previously, I think other measures are needed.