Curse

djroar · Aug 17, 2006, 08:48 AM // 08:48

Well I hate these bloomin leeches I had to post this to support today :

Was just wondering if the players that leech the the game arenas for factions are breaking the any of the policy's in the game?
Reason why I ask this is because they are seriously making many gamers very frustrated when they enter a mission such as ( Fort Aspenwood )but refuse to fight the opposing team, but choose to remain at the respawn point until the end of the game and where they collect all the faction points regardless of weather the team wins or loses!
Due to this behaviour many players leave the mission game so as not to be used by these leechers, which leaves the original team with less players to fight the oppossing team.

If these people are considered to be using inappropriate behaviour by behaving in this manner and disrupting other peoples gaming enjoyment,I was hoping that support may be able to come up with some ways to remedy the problem which I realise may not be easy.

This coming weekend August 18 - 20 is another competative weekend, which I am positive that these leeches will be out in force to ruin for everybody else!

Will their be at the very least numerous admins monitoring these areas to help make this weekend as successful as possible?

Thanks in-advance for any support you may be able to help us with on this issue.

djroar · Aug 17, 2006, 09:10 AM // 09:10

My suggestion to this problem is much faster and far more simpiler.

Anet posts on the main in-game page that all suspected leeches will be banned by ADMINS in future.
From their the ADMINS make a huge stand in the predominant areas and ban accounts on-site that thay deem nessacery.

This way they see the problem first hand and deal with the leechers immediately, any problems anet just says you were banned by an admin that experienced your behaviuor first hand. SIMPLE ohhh not enough ADMINS? I am certain their are plenty of people happy to do the job.

wilebill · Aug 17, 2006, 11:53 AM // 11:53

I posted a thread about this yesterday. This morning I logged into Fort Aspenwood and found that the number of leachers on the Kurzick side there is now growing. I guess the bot operators are tuning up for the weekend. Smallest number of leachers in my groups was three. Largest was five. With only three players you can't do much. The Luxons have fewer leachers because amber on the Kurzick side is worth more.

People were leaving the Fort because it was just not possible to play because of the leachers. By the time the weekend starts, the bots will be out in full force unless ANet takes action before then. But, given the reply above, I doubt that they will.

This is very sad. It also makes me wonder if Nightfall will have similar problem with exploits.

Big_Iron · Aug 17, 2006, 11:53 AM // 11:53

Did we really have to dredge this old thread up again?

BTW, this wouldn't work anyway.

Numa Pompilius · Aug 17, 2006, 11:55 AM // 11:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swinging Fists

Aren't there leechers in RA ?

It's extremely rare. Presumably because you can't trade Balthazar faction for gold; leechers are really a special case of gold farmer.

wilebill · Aug 17, 2006, 12:01 PM // 12:01

This morning, Thursday, I logged into Fort Aspenwood and found that the number of leachers on the Kurzick side there is now growing as predicted.

It looks like the bot operators are tuning up for the weekend. Smallest number of leachers in my groups was three. Largest was five. Groups at the Fort are random with 8 players. With only three non leaching players you can't do much. The Luxons have fewer leachers because amber on the Kurzick side is worth more.

People were leaving the Kurzick side of the Fort because it was just not possible to play because of the leachers. By the time the weekend starts, the bots will be out in full force unless ANet takes action before then.

If ANet does not take action, then a possible strategy for players will be to play the Luxon side. With the Kurzick side more heavily exploited by leachers, the Luxons should win quickly each time. This is a depressing solution, with all of the fun of shooting fish in a barrel.

wilebill · Aug 17, 2006, 12:12 PM // 12:12

At Fort Aspenwood this morning, Thursday, the minimum number of leachers in the group on the Kurzick side was three. The maximum was five, out of a random group of 8 players. These were all the dumb sort of bot that just stands there for the duration of the game. A few were old familiar names who have been there for weeks. The others were unfamiliar to me, probably new bots being brought online for the competitive weekend.

People were leaving the Fort. The comment I remember best was "The fun is broken."

The fun is broken. Only ANet can bring the fun back by getting rid of the bots.

Demesis · Aug 17, 2006, 12:19 PM // 12:19

If Anet isn't going to do anything about it, I suggest to everyone that we all go leeching.

Anet's too lazy to fix this problem, so we can exploit it during the event and we are not to blame.

I never leech and I never really play Aspenwood, but as a show of protest I ask everyone to leech to boycott the event.

Caged Fury · Aug 17, 2006, 12:26 PM // 12:26

Yes, I agree that the fun is broken in Fort Aspenwood. I used to enjoy playing there, win or lose, it was fun playing that map especially on the kurzick side. One or two leechers in the team didn't really had much impact, but recently there appears to be more and more. The last time I was at Fort Aspenwood was the weekend, and the higher number of leechers just took the fun out of it all. Leechers ruin things by not doing anything and driving others away. I was in 5 consecutive games with same leechers (3 or more) and others in the team who knew what they were apologised and left, putting the extremely small remaining team at a big disadvantage. I haven't been back since and I don't plan to.

Maybe those who enjoy these maps and hate leechers/bots should boycott the map. Let all the leechers enter the battle together only to find that there are no one doing the work to get them the points that they're too lazy to work for.

Numa Pompilius · Aug 17, 2006, 12:39 PM // 12:39

Just a personal nitpick. It's LEECHER, not LEACHER. They're named after the animal leech, because they attach to other people and parasitize on them:

And of course because they farking SUCK.

milias · Aug 17, 2006, 12:45 PM // 12:45

Personally, I think this event would give ANet a rare opportunity to concentrate their attention on such alleged infractions by unscrupulous players as in the OP. Maybe as a result, ANet can come up with a good solution to this problem.

Numa Pompilius · Aug 17, 2006, 12:47 PM // 12:47

My advice: screenshot leechers (make sure you have screenshots of them idling in more than one match, and make a note of time!) and report them. These people are griefers, botters & gold sellers all at once, and we all know how ANet feels about those, so I'd be surprised if the hammer didn't fall. Maybe not today, maybe not before the event, but you can bet it'll fall.

aron searle · Aug 17, 2006, 12:47 PM // 12:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by WoodyDotNet

Did we really have to dredge this old thread up again?

I think its relevant

Anet said to post on forums and report them

Everyday somebody makes a post about this or a new thread once a week at least on most forums, ive reported afkers, to still see them afking/botting weeks later.

The weekend event is coming up and so far they have been unprepared/unable to do anything about it.

I would assume they are partly doing these events as promotinal items and rewards for players = nice delivery

Pyramus Loral · Aug 17, 2006, 12:59 PM // 12:59

Okay here is hopeing someone on a dev team is reading this.

Two words for you. KICK BUTTON!

If you can vote to kick someone from a party in mission then problem solved.

Xenrath · Aug 17, 2006, 01:16 PM // 13:16

The usual robonet answer - "go post about it on a forum" When you get that bit in there, you know they don't care

I got the same about a bug I found a while back... no response since then, doubt if anything will be done about it.

edit: I agree with the other sentiments about being told to go post on forums about it, seriously something wrong with that picture. If you're playing a sports event (just for example) and notice some very unsportsmanlike behaviour, you go to the referee and complain about it, and explain it. The ref then tells you to go write about it on some sports magazine.... (he is not doing his job/doesn't want to/doesn't care) If you don't see what's wrong with that picture.... *shakes head*

wilebill · Aug 17, 2006, 01:47 PM // 13:47

Thanks Numa, leecher it is!

xiaotsu · Aug 17, 2006, 01:51 PM // 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by obastable

As to an anti-bot function in the challenges, how about something as (seemingly) simple as an auto-disconnect after being idle and/or not using skills for XX amount of time. If you aren't doing anything, maybe the game can take some initiative and kick you out.

Then instead they would follow and cast a low-cost low-recharge skill every few minutes O_O Solves nothing

Ira Blinks · Aug 17, 2006, 01:53 PM // 13:53

awhile ago (but after this thread was created) Galie actually posted on forums that leechers are not a support issue and they will simply disregard all submitted reports =\

Eviance · Aug 17, 2006, 01:54 PM // 13:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by prodigy ming

I thought Anet offcially stated that they will do nothing about leechers?

as much as I hate leechers, I this this is more of a ploy to increase sales than to catch leechers.

Hun there is a difference between human leechers and bots... Anet doesn't like bots (they are against the Eula) and the majority of the leechers are bots. Even if they get all the bots there will still be some normal human leechers, but the ratio of human to bot will slide to our favor if they can just sweep the bots out and thus making it a lot easier to play and win.

At least that is my view.

majoho · Aug 17, 2006, 02:12 PM // 14:12

More players during the weekend probably means the percentage of leechers will drop - I don't see the problem.