Curse

Yorrix · Jun 27, 2005, 11:08 AM // 11:08

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this I'm afraid. If I'm AFK, I tend to go to the side somewhere and sit down; and I am not alone in that.

I know last night I was in Lion's Arch and several people tried to join the group of three of us who had just arrived there. They weren't added. Those people probably thought we were AFK, but we weren't. The three of us were chatting about the fun mission we had just played, but didn't wish to proceed any further with questing or anything due to time.

So, why hang around in a group I bet is the next question; why not disband? It's easier talking in our group. Why talk, why not just get on with it? Guild Wars is a game, made for amusement (barring things banned in the EULA of course). If we find chatting amusing, and helpful; an activity that helps in the 'GW comunity'; what is wrong with that? After all, we didn't advertise our party, people just requested to join.

Other than that people don't have to add you to groups. I had a request previously to add only people of a certain level to our party, due to the nature of our mission, hence I tried to vet people with the party first before adding them.

So, in short, I don't think the time-out thing will work, though I can appreaciate the frustration other players may have. Instead, how about a party time-out feature? A way of telling whether a party is active or not? That way I could flag up the party as inactive, and people can avoid it whilst we chat. It doesn't stop problems from people not being picked, or people just plain forgetting to set it, but I think that, in the long run, it's a better method for achieving the result. just something like a grey colour, rather than the deep blue, would work.

PieXags · Jun 27, 2005, 11:14 AM // 11:14

Yeah I'm against this as well. I don't know what you're talking about having only 10 out of like 40 people not afk. I always see the majority of the population in every sitting moving around, those that aren't could be trading, talking with friends, watching the trade channel to see if they want something, etc. I sit in towns for hours on end while talking to people and/or researching a build or something. I never get added to a group or anything anyways.

Silmor · Jun 27, 2005, 11:20 AM // 11:20

If they're trading, talking with friends or doing just about anything that involves sending packets to ArenaNet, that means they're not being entirely idle. The idling the OP is talking about is no interaction whatsoever with the client, which could only be achieved by sitting on your hands staring at the screen for over 30 minutes (who does this?), or by actually leaving the computer (the situation mentioned where you're in a group taking an agreed thirty-plus minute break is a valid concern against this suggestion though I think).

Numa Pompilius · Jun 27, 2005, 11:26 AM // 11:26

I'm strongly against.

The point of towns isn't just to help YOU pick up a group, it's also about letting OTHER people meet up. I don't answer LFG requests because I'VE GOT ONE, but I'm not AFK. I'm simply waiting for my teammates to turn up. And in instances me and my team have on a few occasions said "OK lets leave the avatars where they are, and we'll pick up playing here again at 7 tomorrow".

We've all got broadband, you know. We're always online.

Plus that kicking players who've not moved for x minutes wouldn't make it easier for you to find a PUG anyway.

In fact, I can see no point of kicking players for inactivity at all, either in towns or in instances.

What is needed, though, is a votekick function in instances.

Yorrix · Jun 27, 2005, 11:34 AM // 11:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silmor

If they're trading, talking with friends or doing just about anything that involves sending packets to ArenaNet, that means they're not being entirely idle. The idling the OP is talking about is no interaction whatsoever with the client, which could only be achieved by sitting on your hands staring at the screen for over 30 minutes (who does this?), or by actually leaving the computer (the situation mentioned where you're in a group taking an agreed thirty-plus minute break is a valid concern against this suggestion though I think).

This maybe what he says, but I'm not sure that is what he means. I think it is more an assumption for his point, rather than the actual point itself.

Forgive me if I am wrong but what I understood the point to be was:

Quote:

I get fed up trying to find a team in towns. Everyone doesn’t accept me/join <assumption>because they are afk</assumption>. Therefore, other than frustraiting me, they are wasting data flow to ANet. This leads to the conclusion that they should have a 30 minute boot-off.

As I say, forgive me, I may be wrong, but that is how I read it. What I, and I think PieXags, were trying to put foward is this. Towns, much like most in real life, serve more than one purpose. People are travelling about serving their own agendas; from socialising to buying much needed supplies.

Actually, to this point, some people 'loiter' in town. Furthermore, the police usually disperse them for being a hassel. I'll just leave that as an interesting parallel.

squiros · Jun 27, 2005, 11:54 AM // 11:54

I think the real problem is finding a group - not dictating AFK or assigning districts. A simple solution would be to implement /lfg commands that are cross district (see http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=25481 ). It could even be transparent to the user.

Shadow_Avenger · Jun 27, 2005, 12:16 PM // 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiros

I think the real problem is finding a group - not dictating AFK or assigning districts. A simple solution would be to implement /lfg commands that are cross district (see http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=25481 ). It could even be transparent to the user.

Nice idea, but not everyone would use, having the game automatically do these things is best, if the game auto set afk on players away for 2 mins and then on movement took it off would be a good system but leaving it to players, just gives more option, it doesn't deal with the topic 1/2 as effectively.

Shadow_Avenger · Jun 27, 2005, 12:24 PM // 12:24

Quote:

As I say, forgive me, I may be wrong, but that is how I read it. What I, and I think PieXags, were trying to put foward is this. Towns, much like most in real life, serve more than one purpose. People are travelling about serving their own agendas; from socialising to buying much needed supplies.

Thats fine, if you are actually using the chat then you are not afk, just because you aint moving doesn't mean you are AFK.
In my mind I saw it as removing AFK people to a seperate instance in the towns. I.e. the game monitors your bandwidth / signals (which it does) if no signals that are either chat or movement related move to 'afk area'

Alot of you guys think like people which is good, but the way a computer deals with it is far more logical. I can see you arguements if a person was monitoring and thought you was AFK then sure, but the system would not make assumptions that you are AFK, it would know.

eventhorizen · Jun 27, 2005, 12:29 PM // 12:29

Im against this idea. Guild Wars is a game I play that just happens to have other people in it, and I be quite annoyed if any of my other games booted me for being idle.

Shadow_Avenger · Jun 27, 2005, 12:38 PM // 12:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by eventhorizen

Im against this idea. Guild Wars is a game I play that just happens to have other people in it, and I be quite annoyed if any of my other games booted me for being idle.

We are suggesting moving to an idle zone not booting. BIG difference, once means you return to see you desktop, the one proposed means you see the same as when you left, only all the people there are AFK or even have it like a screen saver, when you return, it returns you to a distict with in the town you went AFK.

squiros · Jun 27, 2005, 12:46 PM // 12:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadow_Avenger

Nice idea, but not everyone would use, having the game automatically do these things is best, if the game auto set afk on players away for 2 mins and then on movement took it off would be a good system but leaving it to players, just gives more option, it doesn't deal with the topic 1/2 as effectively.

The only people that would use it are the people looking for a party - they are the only ones concerned with people who are afk. As such, they would have a viable solution. Setting people afk does not necessarily solve the party acquiring situation. Sending said users to an alternate map does not necessarily facilitate nor improve party acquiring. Sending afk users to an alternative map does not send active users to the same map. Dictating both would be necessary to forming a party. It's also important to consider persons who are active but unwilling to respond. Alternatively, reserve a district dedicated to gathering a party may be more useful. Additionally - the general consensus is that behavior is not necessarily indicative of status. The method suggested previously not only gaurantees that people actively looking for a party will find other people actively looking for a party, but also that people who have concerns non-inclusive of party formation will not be altered in any way.

Yorrix · Jun 27, 2005, 01:30 PM // 13:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadow_Avenger

Thats fine, if you are actually using the chat then you are not afk, just because you aint moving doesn't mean you are AFK.
In my mind I saw it as removing AFK people to a seperate instance in the towns. I.e. the game monitors your bandwidth / signals (which it does) if no signals that are either chat or movement related move to 'afk area'

Alot of you guys think like people which is good, but the way a computer deals with it is far more logical. I can see you arguements if a person was monitoring and thought you was AFK then sure, but the system would not make assumptions that you are AFK, it would know.

Yeah, that I think could work.

I know how the computer will see it, and that's relatively easy to achieve. The problem is how people will see this, because some probably see people as AFK when they aren't. Potentially there could be complaints of a buggy feature that isn't buggy at all.

How about an AFK cage? }:]

Numa Pompilius · Jun 27, 2005, 02:37 PM // 14:37

But idle time out DOESN'T ADRESS THE PROBLEM THAT IT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO FIND PUGs!

It'll be no easier finding PUGs if idle players get booted. It's not so that the number of places in town is limited, so that if an idle player is booted, an active player can get in. It doesn't even help much with lag.

It sounds as if the original poster looks for PUGs by randomly clicking on players and selecting 'join', and then I'm not surprised he finds it hard finding groups. I'd NEVER let anyone who did that join a group of mine!

If he does like everyone else, and asks in ALL channel, then maybe he need to consider _how_ he asks. There's a difference in success-rate between "LFG: W/Me 20 to do mission + bonus, will consider any reasonable offers" and "WNaT 2 D0 MiS+B0NuS **NO N00BS!!!!!1**".

But the bottom line is this: whatever his problem is, idle timeout wont fix it.

drowningfish999 · Jun 27, 2005, 03:18 PM // 15:18

I think one of the problems with looking for groups is the number of districts that exsist. I mean, go to Piken Square and they're are almost 20 districts, half of which are empty. I think instead of the current "active district" system, it should automatically send you to the lowest number district that has room. This way you don't have to move around 10-20 distrcits with like 5 people in each, and can find a group much faster. Any district not full would be removed.

This coupled with a good idle timeout thing would make PUG's much easier to start. Maybe it could work that after 5 minutes or so, a popup menu appears saying that in 2 minutes you will be logged off, if they click cancel or w/e, then the timers moves up to 10 minutes, and stays at that until they leave the town.

Sythion · Jun 28, 2005, 06:02 PM // 18:02

Let me clarify my point. I do not want people, chatting, shopping, and people actually PLAYING the game to be penalized. I simply want those not playing the game to not take us slots in a district.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

But idle time out DOESN'T ADRESS THE PROBLEM THAT IT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO FIND PUGs!

It'll be no easier finding PUGs if idle players get booted. It's not so that the number of places in town is limited, so that if an idle player is booted, an active player can get in. It doesn't even help much with lag.

Actually, it does directly address the problem. I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to explain this to you like you're a three year old. 40 players on a server, 10 players are active, that means there are only 10 players to fill up the 8 slots on a team. A variety of classes are needed to create a group. If there are only ten active players in a district, it will be harder to find a group then if there were forty active players. Do you understand? The argument was also brought up that you can simply go to another district. The problem is, this district could be suffering from the same personel difficiency of the original district. Often (especially when trying to find a group in Tomb) this is the case. Let me again say I do not want people who are chatting, shopping, etc. to be punished. People who say things like "Let's just leave the game on all night and meet up again at 7 tomorrow in the same group." make it pointlessly more difficult for everyone else in the game to find a PUG. This is NOT acceptable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

It sounds as if the original poster looks for PUGs by randomly clicking on players and selecting 'join', and then I'm not surprised he finds it hard finding groups. I'd NEVER let anyone who did that join a group of mine!

If he does like everyone else, and asks in ALL channel, then maybe he need to consider _how_ he asks. There's a difference in success-rate between "LFG: W/Me 20 to do mission + bonus, will consider any reasonable offers" and "WNaT 2 D0 MiS+B0NuS **NO N00BS!!!!!1**".

I'm sorry, did I use L337 speak at any point in my original post? Did I say anything that would lead to the assumption that I'm an impatient 12 year old? Obviously, it's difficult for you to find groups as well, or you wouldn't have said we need to address the problem of finding PUGs. So why in the world would you assume I have any more difficulties then you in finding a group?

Leave your assumptions and flaming at the door, or else you will contribute to the attitude of hate and blame that corrupts this game.

Miss Puddles · Jun 28, 2005, 09:50 PM // 21:50

/afk emote

if they're sitting, they're away. easy as pie.