Curse

EF2NYD · Jun 12, 2006, 09:14 PM // 21:14

They should make faction gained based on kills (like exp) and amber collected, and bonus faction if you win (+100 or something).

lg5000 · Jun 13, 2006, 01:41 AM // 01:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberNigma

Fort Aspenwood (Mission)
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Fort_Aspenwood

People are leeching faction by sitting in there AFK. The losing team gets around 320 faction now and the winning team around 600 so they get faction regardless. Of course this means one less team member per AFK'er for the team. It is annoying to the other people that are actually trying to enjoy the mission and beat the opponents (as well as getting just a slight bit more faction, though not much, by winning).

Actually, the loosing side doesn't get 320 faction. We had three people drop for various reasons this morning, lost, and got a total of... 80 faction. Wondering if that has something to do with people quitting when there's a afk guy there and the amount of faction therefore being less so as to discourage afk'ers... not really fair to a group where no-one is afk and people drop anyway, but.. probably not a bad idea if it's there to discourage people.

ChildeOfMalkav · Jun 13, 2006, 03:27 AM // 03:27

I dont see how AFK leeching is any different from bot farming...and yet chinese bot farmers are getting banned. At least bot farmers are not disrupting other players' gameplay.

I think if you get reported enough times you should get banned. I dont care what excuse you have. I mean come on, who actually has a real life "emergency" 5 matches in a row? And to actually click Enter Mission between those emergencies? Riiiiggghtt.

Fort Aspenwood really is not as much fun anymore with the leechers. It's demoralizing to see one or two afkers right at the start. What's the point of making it PVP when most of the time, the people arent even there to play?

generik · Jun 13, 2006, 04:33 AM // 04:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by lg5000

Actually, the loosing side doesn't get 320 faction. We had three people drop for various reasons this morning, lost, and got a total of... 80 faction. Wondering if that has something to do with people quitting when there's a afk guy there and the amount of faction therefore being less so as to discourage afk'ers... not really fair to a group where no-one is afk and people drop anyway, but.. probably not a bad idea if it's there to discourage people.

Don't quote me on this but this is how I believe factions are calculated. For the kurzicks you get 4 faction per % of completion for "God's vengence" and an additional 200 factions to ensure Gunther lives.

For the Luxons you get 80 factions per gate breached plus an additional 200 factions to kill Gunther. Both works out to 600 if you win =)

Kaguya · Jun 13, 2006, 06:32 AM // 06:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by EF2NYD

They should make faction gained based on kills (like exp) and amber collected, and bonus faction if you win (+100 or something).

GL playing without monks in Aspenwood after that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by generik

For the Luxons you get 80 factions per gate breached plus an additional 200 factions to kill Gunther. Both works out to 600 if you win

Think the faction for losing is capped at 400, haven't gotten more than that. Tho it seems if the Gatekeepers are alive when Gunther is killed, the faction reward is much smaller.

crystalklear64 · Jun 13, 2006, 06:36 AM // 06:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChildeOfMalkav

Fort Aspenwood really is not as much fun anymore with the leechers. It's demoralizing to see one or two afkers right at the start. What's the point of making it PVP when most of the time, the people arent even there to play?

Exactly. PvP has no place in PvE. A big TY to those who still join aspenwood, makes it so afkers can get faction

zakaria · Jun 13, 2006, 08:03 AM // 08:03

Reasons of AFKers in Fort Aspenwood :

1- Bots leeching faction whether they are in winning or losing side they get faction points -->exchange it with amber/jade -->sell them-->gold enough to ebay it-->economy suck more.

2- Some stupid ppl think they are cool to go AFK on the opposite side to make his faction teams win.

3- Befriending with (insert opposite faction) quest to continue playing/unlocking outposts and towns.Some players doesn't like to play side quests with rewarded opposite faction to accumulate the the 10K so they go AFK in fort to get the faction needed thinking that they also doing favor for his faction to make them win.

4- Reseting the timer over and over may make some ppl try do something else until they hook up with match (TV,telephone...etc.) can result an AFK players also.

CyberNigma · Jun 13, 2006, 11:30 AM // 11:30

On a side note, it would be nice to have an explorable version of these two (Jade Quarry) because they are required to be mapped for Grandmaster Cartographer. I actually split my time between mapping and fighting on one char. For the other char I entered one side while a guildie entered the other side so we would balance it out (1 on each team, but still splitting time between fighting/dying/mapping). Some people though join in, say they are just mapping, and don't help at all (we try to split time and if it takes more than once so be it). Grandmaster Cartographer is a nice title to strive for (for some ppl) and I don't blame other ppl for wanting to map there. It does affect the match, though,and if someone doesn't help at all (just maps), it's pretty similar to someone being AFK. I think that was plain just a bonehead move on ANet's part, but could be fixed. At least with the challenge missions you can map them without affecting anyone else. In Dragon's Throat and the alliance battles, they don't even map, so there's no problem there either.

Ravenglass · Jun 13, 2006, 02:10 PM // 14:10

The solution is simple /votekick 'playername' - just like in many online FPS games - one player types /votekick 'playername' - this then brings up a menu - would you like to kick 'playername' 1 = Yes, 2 = No - if the majority of the team (4 or more) vote Yes - then the player is kicked. The faction leechers will soon get the message that this tactic isn't working anymore, and move on to do something else just as irritating.

I do wonder however how many people get up and walk away from thier PC while waiting to find a team to battle (a common problem on the Kurzick side). With no intention of leeching, but just forget to come back. A simple kick (instead of ban) would not infuriate the masses.

SilentAssassin · Jun 13, 2006, 02:17 PM // 14:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenglass

The solution is simple /votekick 'playername' - just like in many online FPS games - one player types /votekick 'playername' - this then brings up a menu - would you like to kick 'playername' 1 = Yes, 2 = No - if the majority of the team (4 or more) vote Yes - then the player is kicked. The faction leechers will soon get the message that this tactic isn't working anymore, and move on to do something else just as irritating.

Well yes thats a very good idea, wich has been suggested many times, but I would also like it to be that when you kick som1 or som1 leaves the game he gets replaced by a henchman.

But I think there is a reason Anet isn't implementing something like this, maybe its because its darn hard to implement these things in the way they coded the game or something else I don't know, but there is a reason

jimmy_logic · Jun 13, 2006, 02:25 PM // 14:25

You really can't have the /boot or /kick options why? How many would need to do that in order to boot one player? How would they stop it from being abused?

Also the Ban List whilst a good idea but very hard to implement i.e. would take alot of server ticks to match up everyone to make sure those who are banned on one person list aren't playing in the same game.

Very hard to implement anything here that wouldn't be defeated. There is one option make it so you need a minimum set of players to group with you before going in therefore the humans will check if they are bots or not. But then that introduces problems with people making sure they take a certain class with them in the party.

Damn Botters.

Regards

Ravenglass · Jun 13, 2006, 03:31 PM // 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmy_logic

You really can't have the /boot or /kick options why? How many would need to do that in order to boot one player? How would they stop it from being abused?

Well the votekick, works in just about any other game without any abuse - the majority rules, hard to abuse that, especially in a random arena. 8 players - 5 people say 'yes' to kick, then the person is gone, pretty simple.

I think the problem with this solution may lay in what another poster said, it may be too hard to implement into the code at this stage.

Riplox · Jul 08, 2006, 08:41 PM // 20:41

I don't think it would be that difficult. Heck, they added whole new parts and quests to the Tyrian map and do updates like adding emotes and new commands, so making a votekick system should be beyond them.

Nexus Icon · Jul 08, 2006, 09:26 PM // 21:26

We could start an active players movement. Both Kurzicks and Luxons could agree to leave the map completely if there are any leechers on either team.
Now if I'm not mistaken, if neither team has active players, nothing happens and the game continues indefinitely, right?
That'd teach the leechers. Come back 8 hours later only to find the same game continuing with no faction gain for you!

Silent Kitty · Jul 08, 2006, 09:56 PM // 21:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riplox

I don't think it would be that difficult. Heck, they added whole new parts and quests to the Tyrian map and do updates like adding emotes and new commands, so making a votekick system should be beyond them.

The problem is when you are with just two players and some really good stuff drops. Can you kick the other player and get all the drops? Or how about when you, and a good friend decide to kick the third complete stranger for these greens? There is a universe open for abuse there, unless the kicked person get an option to take the stuff with him/her. To difficult, I think.

aron searle · Jul 08, 2006, 10:27 PM // 22:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakaria

Reasons of AFKers in Fort Aspenwood :

No in game moderators?

Meiludor The Quick · Jul 09, 2006, 01:28 AM // 01:28

I've whitnessed this myself at aspenwood (rarely at Jade Quarry but those matches have to be scheduled, lol).

It's actually starting to spread. I used to only see one every now and then but now I have had as many as two on my team (6 left to fight). At one point a leecher got very comfortable and had no problem ruining many many matches one after another. He was in several of mine, and got mixed in some alternate teams. I know this cause I warped back to camp after the battle ended to see a flood of spam about this same ndividual.

It's very very unsportman like and their should be some kind of punishment for it but I can't think of anything that would'nt also hurt a legitimate player as well. Perhaps a voting menu for kicking a team mate in only aspenwood might help. if say 60% of the team votes for a kick, it succeeds, unless 60% of the team is leeching

Curse You · Jul 09, 2006, 08:35 AM // 08:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silent Kitty

The problem is when you are with just two players and some really good stuff drops. Can you kick the other player and get all the drops? Or how about when you, and a good friend decide to kick the third complete stranger for these greens? There is a universe open for abuse there, unless the kicked person get an option to take the stuff with him/her. To difficult, I think.

Well simple solution: only implement the command in PvP.

It would obviously get abused in PvE where expesive items can drop (Greens, Ectos, Golds) and the other members (espesially when it's a guild group with a random extra) might kick them to get it.

Seeing how things like whole new map areas, items, and emotes have been added before, this wouldn't be a big thing. As well many things only work in PvE or PvP (Mini-pets) and not both.

Amity and Truth · Jul 09, 2006, 09:01 AM // 09:01

There actually is NO valid reason to NOT implement a votekick function. That is just nonsense. Don't make up all these arguments about "someone might pirate an item this way, omgz0r".

What's better?

The guarantee to have an absolute retard on your team you can't do a damn thing about and have to endure it the whole time

or

Being able to simply kick the stupid thing out of the team. Sure, there might be the occasional abuse but i promise and guarantee you right here:

The problems a votekick function can cause are ultimately inferior to the problems the LACK of a votekick function actually causes. Because as it is now, the idiot ultimately wins. He gets to piss of a full team. He get's things easy and he still gets the game done. Heck, is there a reason to NOT be a moron in GuildWars? It pays off big time because the normal players can't do a damn thing about it. Scam, Steal items, abuse other players, leech faction afk. You name it. The amount of times people tried to scam me in GuildWars as of lately is just downright ridiculous, but proves one thing. Abusing fellow players is en vogue in GW.

Besides, there would be many ways to prevent abuse of the votekick function. For example have the drops automatically follow the player into the outpost. Ooops, no ecto vote kick anymore. Downright genius, isn't it?

Curse You · Jul 09, 2006, 09:18 AM // 09:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amity and Truth

Besides, there would be many ways to prevent abuse of the votekick function. For example have the drops automatically follow the player into the outpost. Ooops, no ecto vote kick anymore. Downright genius, isn't it?

So what you're saying is that if for example:

Player A gets an ecto that dropped reserved for him.
Player B and C want that ecto.
They intice the whole group to /votekick Player A.
Player A is kicked back to the outpost, but (like when you end a mission) all items reserved for him at the time are put in the "Unclaimed Items" box and removed from the explorable area that Player A was kicked from as a result.

If that were to happen, then I don't see very many ways that the system could be abused.