Curse

Tuoba Hturt Eht · Jul 08, 2006, 03:25 PM // 15:25

Note to Mods:
My thanks to the mod who helped change the title of this thread.
Much appreciated. Cheers, mate.

================================

Reference Threads:
08-10-2006 | luxor9 | How about this for quitters
08-10-2006 | Naqser | An end to leechers
08-01-2006 | prism2525 | How long is your Ignore List? (no names pls)
07-19-2006 | Raiin Maker | How to stop AFK Faction Leeching.
07-19-2006 | Deathwingg00 | Prevent leeching: give them what they want: ISLE OF MEDITATION
07-09-2006 | scrinner | My solution to Leeching. Please read
07-08-2006 | Ira Blinks | Gaile Gray: Leechers are not a support issue.
06-12-2006 | unknown1 | AFkers in Fort aspenwood
05-31-2006 | Maria The Princess | new Title: The Quitter
06-08-2006 | lansid_drakken | They have anti-farm code, now what about anti-quit and anti-leech code?
06-01-2006 | Aerial Stormshadow | Anet, please listen (closed thread)
05-29-2006 | Unkillable Cat | New leech bot
05-25-2006 | Vermilion Okeanos | Need an official word.
05-21-2006 | Ira Blinks | [Petition] Remove faction reward for the losing side in Aspenwood
05-23-2006 | Ira Blinks | Official response to leechers problem.

================================

With reference to the recent discussion about the issue of leechers:
Gaile Gray: Leechers are not a support issue.

This thread will serve as a suggestion thread on how to come up with a suitable proposal to deal with the issue of leechers in Guild Wars, particularly the "Random Arenas" in which we have no control of who our potential team members would be, such as the "Random Arenas" and the 2 "Competitive Missions" - "Fort Aspenwood" and "Jade Quarry".

================================
List of Proposed Ideas to deal with the issue of leechers, AFKers
================================
Upgraded Ignore List (by GrendelScout1)
An example for an idea of how this would work:

1. John know Mary is a leecher, AFKer
2. John adds Mary to his personal Upgraded Ignore List
3. John clicks "Enter Mission" in any random arenas
4. John will never be placed in the same team with Mary

5. Other players who did not add Mary to their Ban List could be teamed up with Mary

6. Friends of John who know and trust his judgement also place Mary in thier respective Personal Upgraded Ignore Lists.
7. John and his friends live happily ever after.

Proposed Features:
- Like the existing Ignore List, only a maximum of 10 players can be added to this list
- Will prevent you from joining their teams
- Not preventing them from joining your team
- Only works in Random Arenas, Fort Aspenwood, Jade Quarry, Alliance Battles
- Will only function to a certain extent
- If there are no better choices of players available
- You will still be teamed up with them

================================
Commentary:
================================
As shown from the list of threads under the "Reference Threads", the issue of leechers is not new, and it has been mentioned before in the past. I believe something must be done about this.

If ANET is unable to code something up to counter this issue, at least amend the Rules of Conduct.

================================
Discuss.
================================

Poll:
You like the idea of "Upgraded Ignore List" and would like to see ANET implement a similiar function into Guild Wars. Yes / No

(8) Yes
=====
Tuoba Hturt Eht, LuxA, TheLordOfBlah, Legendary Shiz, Cash, Ventius Hozza, Gargle Blaster

(0) No
=====

Ira Blinks · Jul 08, 2006, 03:41 PM // 15:41

1. yes - as long as it is not limited to 10 people *duh*
2. yes - if 1. is not implemented, otherwise irrelevant.

Tho I see 2. being more important and realistic than 1. given how long it takes ANet to do anything playerbase asking for and that 1. can bring up more issues like people banlisting eachother left and right untill nobody can join anything.

Ganik Thress · Jul 08, 2006, 03:45 PM // 15:45

It's a good idea, but too easily abused.

Stockholm · Jul 08, 2006, 03:46 PM // 15:46

1 Yes for all missions
2 No might not be possible due to local law's and regulations(world wide game)(Panda not a pet= Chines law prohibits use of Panda. (just an example))

viper008 · Jul 08, 2006, 03:51 PM // 15:51

No easily abused

NinjaKai · Jul 08, 2006, 03:57 PM // 15:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ganik Thress

It's a good idea, but too easily abused.

Agreed. ANet won't make a system that could be easily abused or exploited.

Killmur · Jul 08, 2006, 03:58 PM // 15:58

This is not Medal of Honor or any other FPS based online game. If you want to ban people then go setup a FPS based online server and ban people if you want. By adding a ban function to GW for players use WOULD lead to abuse.

/notsigned

ubrikkean · Jul 08, 2006, 04:06 PM // 16:06

Interesting idea, and I'd like to use it in-game for me, personally, but... meh. I don't think it would serve the general GW player base very well.

General Surena · Jul 08, 2006, 04:12 PM // 16:12

It just cries for abuse, no thanks. /notsigned

Tarun · Jul 08, 2006, 04:12 PM // 16:12

Sorry but no to both, far too easy to abuse.

Caldec · Jul 08, 2006, 04:26 PM // 16:26

id have to say no for good reason ill leave an example of this abuse-

player x is a W/Mo who is just using mending as the primary heal player y is a monk teamed with player x and typically hates EVERY W/Mo that uses mending because of bad experiences so player y adds every W/Mo that using mending to ban list.

i see people come into my teams in RA and leave after they say F*** no monk *player quits* people like that i could see adding to a ban list but alot of other times i see people quit because for some unforseen reason they hate every W/Mo that uses mending in the start of a battle so i can just see way to many people adding to ban list many reasons except what your saying it should be used for good idea way to hard to do tho

xnightmythx · Jul 08, 2006, 04:52 PM // 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killmur

This is not Medal of Honor or any other FPS based online game. If you want to ban people then go setup a FPS based online server and ban people if you want.

Genius, simply genius. Are you Serious!? How the hell is this not only an intelligent answerer, but more importantly helpful? Do us a favor, don't post.

Anyways, although something does need to be done about this issue, the approach you have chosen will undoubtedly be abused. There are so many factors to consider here that these rules alone won't cover them and still make things fair. One thing my friends and I have discussed regarding afk'ers is that Anet could simply write a code that says, : players that don't use attack/spell/ skills in 20 seconds get penalized somehow:
Notice we didn't say inactive as in not moving because these smart asses would then use the /dance emote to bypass the code. Although not incredibly effective, it would still be better than nothing.

But even then you are not taking care of those who are Kurz and go over to lux and vice ver'sa just to pad scores. Say that to fix this they made us chose one side. Then if you want to switch it costs you like 100k. Still, this deterrent will not work because people would simply open another account and resume the same abuse.

Not an easy issue to deal with, welcome to the world of cheaters.

/not signed

Terra Xin · Jul 08, 2006, 05:08 PM // 17:08

Can everyone fill in the poll in they way it was intended, and not just put up a bunch of /notsigned posts. That way, your opinion will be much clearer and you wont give threadmaker a headache^^

This is more like a higher power of the Ignore feature. That's not really good, but I've been reading the threads and haven't found a really good idea. This is the best one so far.

Until I see or think of a better idea, then:

1. No
2. No

Solution: Deal with it... They are degrading themselves and it's already become socially unacceptable. Good willed people who have been afking in the past will stop. Hopefully, the nasty ones will realise how idiotic they are becoming. The smart ones, who shouldnt AFK, should realise that you have a much greater chance of losing and gaining nothing in the long run, than to actually participate. If this AFK is automatic, then it's a bot, which should be banned anyway.

seandom · Jul 08, 2006, 05:09 PM // 17:09

Not signed,abused too easily. For example...Bob wants to play in RA with all of his friends.So he adds everyone he sees on his ban list except his 3 other friends who also have done the same. Then it's just team arenas for him =/

I know this is an extreme case, but if it was done, it could ruin the arenas.

Ira Blinks · Jul 08, 2006, 05:20 PM // 17:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terra Xin

Solution: Deal with it... They are degrading themselves and it's already become socially unacceptable. Good willed people who have been afking in the past will stop. Hopefully, the nasty ones will realise how idiotic they are becoming. The smart ones, who shouldnt AFK, should realise that you have a much greater chance of losing and gaining nothing in the long run, than to actually participate. If this AFK is automatic, then it's a bot, which should be banned anyway.

eh... i wouldn't count on that...
Also "deal with it" is not a solution, its excatly opposite - suck it up and be a loser.

Caleb · Jul 08, 2006, 05:38 PM // 17:38

"Daimos Tel Arin was AFK all morning in Aspenwood, leeching off us for 10k faction! Please add him to all ban lists everywhere!"

And suddenly even though you never even went in Aspenwood, you are on dozens of ban lists and cannot group?

/no thanks to both "fixes"

Riplox · Jul 08, 2006, 05:44 PM // 17:44

1.) Yes
2.) Yes

Well I think the ban list would have limits to how many people you can add of course, just like the friends and ignore lists. And really, if somemone bans you or you ban someone, are you going to want to play with that person? Not really, cause one of you is going to be treated like dirt most likely (which is why the ban was put on in the first place). It's not like the account is being banned from playing, just from playing with certain people. There are enough people online to where banning people just because they ruffled your feathers during a mission wouldn't be enough to warrant a long term ban. The chronic offenders would be more suited for that. Also, how many times do you party with the same person that pissed you off? Just my 2¢.

~ Riplox

Terra Xin · Jul 08, 2006, 05:55 PM // 17:55

Be a loser I shall be. But this wont address the situation and will only buff the Ignore feature, to which if Anet takes into consideration, will most likely replace the ignore feature, making your efforts pointless.

Riplox · Jul 08, 2006, 06:19 PM // 18:19

My only problem is how would the ban listings handle groups? If you're in a group with 6 other people and a person on a party member's ban list tries to enter the group either from inviting himself or from being invited, would that person be banned from the group just because of the one ban from that person or would the banned person have to exist on multple ban lists within the party? Sorry if I made it a little confusing.

Shantel Span · Jul 08, 2006, 06:42 PM // 18:42

Maybe I misread, but I understood the OP reference to a Ban list to be your own personal ban list - not something submitted and the player to be banned for everyone. It wouldn't be so much a "ban" list as an "ignore" list.