Curse

Mercury Angel · Apr 24, 2007, 10:44 PM // 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Wow thread res.

And if nothing's been dealt with already, then it's most likely that nothing's going to change.

Post move actually, but the issue becomes even more relevant as faction has become a means to access elite content, so it might possibly have warranted its own new thread due to this change. Ah well, live and learn. (not an invitation to create a new thread, at this time.)

Hope springs eternal, though, right?

Just to stick in my own experience, the last time I went to Aspenwood and decided I didn't want to go back, I had 7 leechers and AFK'ers (yes, everyone but me just stood in place!). It was a bit late, and it took a while to get in, so it's conceivable some were still away doing things waiting for it to load.
However, I gave it some time, and there was just no indication people were coming back. Combined with the 5 leechers on the other side, as per the information given in all chat after a query, that was it. No more Aspen for me.

Amy Awien · Apr 25, 2007, 11:00 AM // 11:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_Cynical

Solution: ban the leechers.

They can't do that, leeching doesn't violate the agreement between ANet and the player.

Gli · Apr 25, 2007, 11:36 AM // 11:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

They can't do that, leeching doesn't violate the agreement between ANet and the player.

If it doesn't violate the agreement, they should first rewrite it (They can and they have in the past, see quote.) and then ban them.

Quote:

I.b Amendments. NC Interactive may amend this Agreement or modify the Rules of Conduct at any time in its sole discretion on our web site via (a) the amended Agreement, currently at http://www.guildwars.com/support/legal/termsofuse.php or (b) the modified Rules of Conduct, currently at http://www.guildwars.com/legal/rulesofconduct.php. Amendments to the Agreement and/or modifications to the Rules of Conduct will be effective immediately upon posting. When logging onto the Service (as defined below) you will be asked to confirm your acceptance to any such revised terms and conditions.

Captain Robo · Apr 25, 2007, 11:39 AM // 11:39

I don't know if anyone explained the rules, but if you leech a mission, your team is down a player.

Less players = less chance of winning.

Less winning = minimal faction.

If you're leeching to gain faction, you're doing it wrong.

It's better just to help your team win, then you win FASTER, and you have fun in the process.

Does this sound illogical?

warren_kn · Apr 25, 2007, 01:16 PM // 13:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Robo

I don't know if anyone explained the rules, but if you leech a mission, your team is down a player.

Less players = less chance of winning.

Less winning = minimal faction.

If you're leeching to gain faction, you're doing it wrong.

It's better just to help your team win, then you win FASTER, and you have fun in the process.

Does this sound illogical?

The point is that even when you lose you get some faction, so the leecher is still getting faction for nothing no matter how little it is.

Pakana · Apr 25, 2007, 02:05 PM // 14:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.Kougar

Leeching in places like Aspenwood has been an issue since Factions came out, an ArenaNet has made it clear they don't care (I too reported dozens and dozens of people, even the same people day after day, and they didn't care). Even Gaile once said that she didn't see leeching as a problem. So if the Customer Relations person doesn't think it's an issue if people want to leech and ruin the game play for people who actually want to play legitimately and enjoy it, then we are more than screwed when it comes to expecting them to ever do anything to fix it. Seems more and more these days that ArenaNet cares less and less about the player's enjoyment of the game, just so long as they get their money (problem is, they are driving people away and that's going to cost them a lot, and more as time goes on).

This is very true and so sad.

I participated on the protest Aspenwood leeching campaign, and privately still continue it. When ever there is a leecher in team, I quit. Amazing, but it makes some people mode mad to me than they're mad to the leechers: I've got tons of insults doing it. But when ever I quit, my team is more probable to loose, and the leecher more probable to get less faction. There is nothing else a single player can do.

A week ago I reported about 50 MO/W-characters from Granite Citadel, using the same bot script, and sent several screen captures to Arenanet. Did that have any results? Nope, the bots still farm there. Arenanet just doesn't care.

Well, I'm not gonna buy the bot-feast game they call GW2. If the developper does not care about leeching and botting, they can have their game and attitude. I have been warned. I will not buy GW2. Quite frankly Arenanet sucks!

Mercury Angel · Apr 25, 2007, 02:26 PM // 14:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

They can't do that, leeching doesn't violate the agreement between ANet and the player.

For the record, in the EULA agreement, it states that they can ban users for any or no reason at any time. This is probably for legal reasons, but there's definitely no restriction.

I don't think anyone is going to expect any kind of action taken against someone that goes AFK occasionally;
However, when someone is explicitly and intentionally doing it repeatedly to receive benefits without doing anything, without the express consent of their party, then I think it becomes problematic. When you start knowing leechers by name due to familiarity, then that's definitely the case <_<

This is aside from the possibility that these individuals are using bots or macros in order to enter games indefinitely over an extended period of time, which is definitely against the terms expressed in the EULA, Rules of Conduct, and ToS.

Ninna · Apr 25, 2007, 03:20 PM // 15:20

regarding AFKs
this was posted by Gaile 4 months ago

Why does anet do nothing about snow arena bots?
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...53#post2421253

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

You're right. Botting and leeching is a persistent problem. I don't necessarily know if it's growing, but whether it's growing or just staying at the same level, we do agree that it's not a good thing in any way.

We made a game to be played, not AFK'd, and I would love nothing more than to give a big boot with my Extra-Sylish, Uber-Powered 15K Boots of Banning to those who abuse the game, and by doing so, demean the accomplishments of legitimate players who actually earn their rewards.

I will check with the rest of the team and see if there is anything to tell players at present about this issue. I'll also check with Support and see how they deal with tickets or incident reports about botting, AFKing and leeching, just to be sure we're all on the same page.

Be assured, none of us is indifferent to this problem!

savage vapor 33 · Apr 25, 2007, 07:34 PM // 19:34

Yeah I don't do aspenwood for this reason anymore, not to mention jade quarry, I've never even been in that place. If there was a big change to Aspenwood and Jade Quarry, that would be incredible. It would get so many more people playing factions. It's a great place to test builds, and stuff. Mainly cuz AB gets boring once in a while.

VegJed · Apr 25, 2007, 08:42 PM // 20:42

Edit: Post I was replying to was from 2 years ago, I figure the person either's been corrected or doesn't care at this point.

J.Kougar · Apr 25, 2007, 09:51 PM // 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

We made a game to be played, not AFK'd

LOL, BS! If that were even a little bit true they'd not keep reopening the Boardwalk where it's pretty much a flat out requirement to AFK to get any of the titles associated with it, Titles that are now a requirement for better Lockpick use in Hard Mode. So yes, ArenaNet not only promotes AFKing, but also requires it.

Not to mention, we've been hearing contradictory statements from her and ArenaNet since Factions came out, about if they promote leeching or not, and if they actually do anything about the bots (you know, those same ones we keep reporting over and over in places like the Granite Citadel where they continue to bot without any interference from ArenaNet) when nothing ever gets done, except more nerfs and changes that don't affect the bots but rather hinder the enjoyment of the game for casual players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

As to AFK leechers, you may find that behavior unsportsmanlike or irritating -- many of us do -- but where is it a support issue? We are not taking action on AFKers at this time, and reporting to support will probably garner a response that confirms that fact. We may not even have the technology to pull records and see if someone idled in a mission or was active; I honestly don't know if we do. I do know that the AFK situation is something that we may be choose to address in the future, either by disciplining players who engage in it, or perhaps by changes in design. But it is not considered a Support issue at this time, and we request that you not submit tickets regarding this matter.

As you can see, the above quote compared to the other quote from Gaile in this thread a few posts above this one, she seems to want to flip-flop on the issue, as usual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pakana

I participated on the protest Aspenwood leeching campaign, and privately still continue it. When ever there is a leecher in team, I quit. Amazing, but it makes some people mode mad to me than they're mad to the leechers: I've got tons of insults doing it. But when ever I quit, my team is more probable to loose, and the leecher more probable to get less faction. There is nothing else a single player can do.

A week ago I reported about 50 MO/W-characters from Granite Citadel, using the same bot script, and sent several screen captures to Arenanet. Did that have any results? Nope, the bots still farm there. Arenanet just doesn't care.

Well, I'm not gonna buy the bot-feast game they call GW2. If the developper does not care about leeching and botting, they can have their game and attitude. I have been warned. I will not buy GW2. Quite frankly Arenanet sucks!

I have to admit, with the current trend in which things are going, and from what I've heard about persistent-worlds and being forced to play with other people, I'm also having my doubts about GW2 and if I want anything to do with it. I'd just drop Guild Wars now if I didn't have so much invested in it, but with over four thousand hours, just shy of two years, and more than a half dozen accounts and all the extra character slots... my Fiance and I have spent about $1,000.00 on Guild Wars since it came out... adding up the cost of all the Collector's Editions of various campaigns, as well as Special Editions, The Normal Accounts, the Character Slots, the Prima Guides, and whatnot... it's just hard to stop playing and walk away after all the time and money we have invested, but it's really hard to just sit and watch the game further and further degrade as well.

bart · Apr 26, 2007, 06:07 AM // 06:07

I suggest Anet do what WoW is doing/did, ie if u afk especially at the start point, u get a PM from a GM asking you a question like "hello, whats happening?". if you don't reply means that you're afk and u get kicked from the BG/given a warning not to leech. I got a PM like that once when i was afk in a BG because of gf aggro.

Miral · Apr 26, 2007, 06:35 AM // 06:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by killer toast

well i was doing a mission in factions and we had this one worthless monk who would follow me and just recast divine intervision on me when we werent even fighting. also he would just spam heal area out of no where but when he did get a gold drop he didnt even pick it up. so i just sat there until it went to everyone and i got it (20% demonslaying staff wrapping ftw -.-).

so... in a group, you completely stopped everything to sit by that gold drop for 10 minutes to take it? wow, sounds like you were worse than the afk monk... at least he was following and healing you...

Amy Awien · Apr 26, 2007, 07:30 AM // 07:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

If it doesn't violate the agreement, they should first rewrite it (They can and they have in the past, see quote.) and then ban them.

They might, and the one-sided change of agreement could be used as a reason to file for a (partial) refund. They're not going to risk anything just to prevent a bit of faction-farming.

On a more practical note, how are they going to distinguish leeching from someone being distracted for real-life matters?

Mercury Angel · Apr 26, 2007, 11:14 AM // 11:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

They might, and the one-sided change of agreement could be used as a reason to file for a (partial) refund. They're not going to risk anything just to prevent a bit of faction-farming.

On a more practical note, how are they going to distinguish leeching from someone being distracted for real-life matters?

The same way a forum distinguishes between someone having a bad day and a regular troll;
Not sarcasm, it's a matter of history and effective log-keeping.

Most games and forums have a method of keeping track of actions taken against an account, and should ideally be able to keep detailed notes for each account.

There's a difference between a person who is reported and logged as having gone AFK a few times here and there across time, and a person who is doing so repeatedly and consistently, usually to farm some kind of reward, as with the Aspenwood missions.

I will admit that many players have been quick to jump to the, "OMG LEECHER" statements, to the point that the match hasn't even started, and there's still 45 or so seconds on the clock, just because someone hasn't budged.
This does not, however, invalidate that many players demonstrate a distinct, and obvious, pattern. Unless a player can be AFK and magically click the "Enter Mission" button many times in a row over a multiple-hour period, this is what is Leeching. And if they're really AFK, it's macroing/botting too, which is in explicit violation of the EULA.

Realistically, leeching and griefing behaviours can never be entirely removed from the game. There will always be more that slip through the cracks. This is wholly understandable.

What is not being asked for in the actual sense, though some people may word it poorly, is that Anet put a complete halt on leeching in-game. Rather, that they crack down on serious, methodological leeching going on at select areas where the quality of gameplay has grossly deteriorated because of it.
Everyone that I know that stopped playing Fort Aspenwood, but still plays Guild Wars, has done so because of the leecher problem.

To this extent, there are a number of possibilities that come to mind, not all mutually exclusive;

Make Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry parties pre-determined through manual team-up before entering the mission. This will remove the largely non-problematic issue of sync-entering to gain an advantage, and heavily hit the ability of individuals to AFK macro-enter missions, as they'll have to form full parties. This is by no means full-proof, and has the added toss-up of possibly greatly diminishing the play value of the competitive missions for casual PvP players, or enhancing its appeal to a broader base.
Tie in faction gain to active participation through. This reduces or eliminates the benefits of AFK gains as a deterrent to doing so. However, making it work in such a way that is conducive to all active playstyles (for instance, tying gains to damage would be harmful to monks and other professions that act more subtly), and can result in a clunky or convoluted result.* (see example below) There is also evidence, indicated by recent farming changes, that heavily reduced gains will not necessarily bring about much change in behaviour.
Attempt to directly target AFK players through varying anti-AFK means. This ranges from 'bot detection' protocols, that use simple turing tests to determine human presence, to 'elegant' solutions of questionable validity that target regular bot activities (or inactivities, be that the case).** Unfortunately, anything made to address this using simple, cost-effective methods would probably only screen out simplistic bots and regular AFK.
Target the symptoms rather than the source. Ignoring the situation that makes it easy for players to play this way, and diverting resources to removal of accounts that abuse/exploit the system. As a moderator of this forum, I can assure you, though it helps with immediate relief, it's always an uphill battle to deal with things reactively like this. You can never win this battle, though that's not to say it lacks merits.
Remove, limit, or replace gains made from participation in the maps. As seen with the Guild Wars Winterfest Snowball arena, this is a kind of solution that is both hated by many, but can be effective in reduction of this behaviour. If one assumes that the primary reasons individuals play Fort Aspenwood other than to have fun, is to farm faction in order to gain tangible goods, including, but not limited to, Jade, Amber, and now Scrolls to Elite Missions. All of which are personally usable and saleable goods. By removing the ability to attain these through playing these maps, you remove much of the incentive to leech. Title farming ("Friends of the ____" could be considered a tangible benefit as well.)

*Inelegant, but interesting suggestion draft I abandoned

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draft Suggestions List

Luxon Pride (Event Effect):
Mouse-Over Summary - "Luxon Pride - Skill. Earn Luxon Faction by aiding the Luxons."

Complete Effect: While under the effects of Luxon Pride, you gain -
1 Luxon Faction for every 3 seconds within earshot of a Siege Turtle.
12 Luxon Faction for every Amber Chunk returned within earshot.
6 Luxon Faction for every Kurzick killed within 'longbow range'.
25 Luxon Faction for each Kurzick Gatekeeper and 50 for each Architect killed within 'longbow range'.
15 Luxon Faction for each Command Point captured within 'longbow range'.
30 Luxon Faction for each unique Kurzick Gate destroyed within 'longbow range'.
150 Luxon Faction for victory.
Max Luxon Faction gained per instance: 1000

Kurzick Defiance (Event Effect):
Mouse-Over Summary - "Kurzick Defiance - Skill. Earn Kurzick Faction by aiding the Kurzicks."

Complete Effect: While under the effects of Kurzick Defiance, you gain -
1 Kurzick Faction for every 5 seconds within earshot of an undestroyed Gate. [Stacking]
30 Kurzick Faction for every Siege Turtle killed within 'longbow range'.
20 Kurzick Faction for every Amber Chunk run to a Gatekeeper or Architecht.
6 Kurzick Faction for every Luxon killed within 'longbow range'.
15 Kurzick Faction for each Command Point captured within earshot.
20 Kurzick Faction for each Luxon Commander killed within 'longbow range'.
150 Kurzick Faction for victory.
1 Kurzick Faction for each % of Vengeance of God completed.
Max Kurzick Faction gained per instance: 1000

**This draft looks nice, especially after the prior one, until you realise what a Mo/R does to it. *sigh*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draft Suggestions List

Cowardice:
Mouse-Over Summary - "Cowardice - You earn no rewards for your inaction. Active participation will end this effect."
Complete Effect: After standing still or remaining in the waiting area for more than 20 seconds, you suffer from Cowardice. While under the effects of Cowardice, you gain no additional Luxon Faction, Kurzick Faction, Balthazar's Faction, or Experience. Cowardice lasts for 30 seconds or until you attack a foe, take damage, or cast a spell that targets an other ally or foe.

It's 6 AM at the time of posting this, and I did not get a full night's sleep, so I can't promise the above is perfect or helpful, or that my judgment is all that great, drowsy or otherwise, but;

I think in order from preferrable to least preferrable solutions, taking into account viability, effectiveness, and obtrusiveness;

Active suspensions (temp bans) for serious, consistent, infractors. Even a slight reduction in the pool of active leechers would be nice, and there's always the hope that it will deter others from continuing, or starting, doing so. This is compounded if players are inspired to return somewhat, raising the player:leech ratio, indirectly reducing how many leeches players will encounter.
"Cowardice" (see **) or similar effect. This will kill simple AFK behaviour in its entirety, short of doing so just to grief. To overcome it would require active participating, or use of a bot or macro, which should hopefully wind down this behaviour somewhat.
Replacing existing Luxon/Kurzick Faction rewards with a higher Balthazar's Faction reward rate, and possibly an alternate reward. What that alternate reward would be, I don't quite know yet. It has to be something interesting, and possibly good for personal use, like Balthazar's Faction, but ideally wouldn't be marketable. I'll mull over this later.
Mandatory party-making. This would also kill simple AFK behaviour effectively, and may also discourage other kinds of undesirable behaviour. However, for better or worse, this entails a significant indirect change to the very basis of the competitive missions. It might work out for the better, though, and this is an option that I think should be explored on a 'test weekend' to see how it turns out.

Apologies for the longwindedness and tired rambling. I'll see about fixing it later on in the day after I've gone back to sleep.

truemyths · Apr 26, 2007, 03:31 PM // 15:31

I do not like the idea of having set teams before you begin... many players will then be excluded. Nor do I think removing the rewards is the way to go either... (why play then?).

I like the idea of having rewards for being active in the map (destroying gates, etc.) specific to you vs. in general for the whole team.

Two other ideas:
- Have person specific drops (faction point bundles? unique items?) that make it enticing for people to be active
- Do not allow faction for someone sitting within the rez zone... (yes I know you can get around this, but the majority of folks just sit at the rez point)

Mercury Angel · Apr 26, 2007, 08:22 PM // 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by truemyths

I do not like the idea of having set teams before you begin... many players will then be excluded. Nor do I think removing the rewards is the way to go either... (why play then?).

The former is up for consideration because it does ameliorate some of the problems and can actually potentially improve the quality of gameplay there.
However, I tend to think it takes the raw appeal away.

Anecdotally, I believe the people that tend to like Aspenwood do so, including myself, because it's easy to get in, with whatever build, and pretty much just do your own thing. It's usually fast-paced, and is often a slaughterhouse of random killing. Basically, the kind of 'cast spells/attack and things die' that tends to make farming enjoyable for some, though there's a smattering of more complicated builds there as well.

Such a change would shift the dynamic away from this, and probably the audience too. Considering it's often dead in terms of player count, or largely inactive, this might not be a bad thing in the grander perspective.

Still, that's why I propose trying it at a test weekend to see how it goes, but it's also at the bottom of my list.

As for rewards, faction farming has always been fastest, even with nerfs, to do so with The Jade Arena and Duel of the Houses; Luxon and Kurzick faction has always been a nice, but very minor, perk of Aspenwood, and in turn, Jade Quarry.
It's also one of the few places in the game where you can net a decent, and equal reward, to the rest of your team by doing absolutely nothing, with ease.
Since the bot farming nerfs have demonstrated that even vastly reduced rates do nothing as long as individuals are still getting something, in particular, something that can be gotten easily overnight with nothing more than an auto-join macro, it would seem the simplest way to deal with this is to kill it altogether. Like the Winterfest arenas, sometimes a good thing can ultimately lead to more ill than good. Sucks to have something nice taken away due to other people's abuse of the system, but sacrifice and compromise is a necessity at times.

My understanding of game principles definitely fall short compared to a number of upstanding forum members, but I think something that is plain to see is that the existing system is broken; No change may be perfect, but some kind of change is needed, even if it only increases playability slightly.