Curse

Riplox · Jul 08, 2006, 06:58 PM // 18:58

Shantel, the first part you have written is correct. There is a difference between the ban and ignore lists. Ignore just means you can't see the pm's the person is sending you. Banning means they cannot party, pm, or trade with you.

Tuoba Hturt Eht · Jul 08, 2006, 11:29 PM // 23:29

First, I must express my gratitude for all the feedback that this thread has received within such a short time, it is much appreciated. Much thanks for all those who replied and expressed their opinions.

I understand that such a powerful function could of course be very easily abusable, which I why I posted this up in here, for everyone to read and to discuss, so that, hopefully, eventually, we can come up with a perfect system to combat the leechers, AFKers.

I think most of the people who objected to this idea and saying it is too easily abusable might have misunderstood the function of this proposed "Ban List", perhaps the name itself might be misleading.

Perhaps it is best to rename it from "The Ban List" into something else, such as "Improved Ignore List" or "Enchanced Ignore List" etc. I think it is just better to upgrade the existing Ignore List, as was original suggested by GrendelScout1, the person who originally came up with this idea.

Question:
Why would we want to be in the same team as the person that we just placed on our Ignore List?

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

Ira Blinks,

By limiting it to 10 people would kinda make certain that this "Ban List" feature cannot be abused, but would still serve its purpose.

I believe "issues like people banlisting eachother left and right untill nobody can join anything", can be avoided if "The Ban List" has only a limit of 10 players.

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

Stockholm,

Could you elaborate more in detail regarding this?
"might not be possible due to local law's and regulations(world wide game)"

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

Ganik Thress, viper008, NinjaKai, Killmur, General Surena, Tarun, Caldec, xnightmythx, Terra Xin, seandom, Caleb The Pontiff

Would this system still be as easily abusable if there is a limit of 10 players addable to this "Ban List"?

P/S: Terra Xin, I must thank you for replying in my threads again, though our opinions may differ, feedback is nonetheless much appreciated.

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

Riplox,

Much thanks for the feedback that you have provided, perhaps the two of us can work something in order to make this proposal more feasable to the masses.

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

Shantel Span,

It is meant to be an Upgraded Ignore List, kinda of a personal ban list. We can use it to avoid being partied up with the players that we have placed on this Improved Ignore List.

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

Here is the question that I will ask everyone who participated in this thread, and who will participate in this thread in the future, would this "Upgraded Ignore List" still be as easily abusable if it has the following mentioned properties?

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

Discuss.

Ira Blinks · Jul 08, 2006, 11:53 PM // 23:53

ugh no, i'd rather have unlimited ignore alist and leechers then 10 people limit and no leechers.

/not signed

Hidden in the Mist · Jul 09, 2006, 03:03 AM // 03:03

I rather have an unlimited amount of people I can place in my Ignore List.

Sab · Jul 09, 2006, 03:27 AM // 03:27

The advantages are clear:
- Relatively simple solution
- Instant action
- Said action is almost guaranteed to work - a leecher who has been bothering you will not pose a problem anymore
- Less upkeep for ANet, no need for them to individally indentify, confirm and ban leechers (should they do that in the future)

I believe the disadvantages are sufficiently addressed by limiting the number of entries on the ignore list.

And if ANet decides not to take action against leechers, then at least allow the us, the players to do that in their stead.

/signed

Tuoba Hturt Eht · Jul 09, 2006, 11:11 PM // 23:11

Ira Blinks, Hidden in the Mist

Having an unlimited ignore list would mean that this system would be very easily abusable, as stated by many people who replied in this thread.

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

LuxA,

Thanks for the support and the summary of the advantages and disadvantages.

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

With a limit of 10 people in this Upgraded Ignore List, I believe that this system would still serve its purpose, and not prone to abuse.

Discuss.

Ira Blinks · Jul 10, 2006, 01:01 AM // 01:01

Quote:

Having an unlimited ignore list would mean that this system would be very easily abusable, as stated by many people who replied in this thread.

I understand that, but if i have to pick between limited ignore list and leechers i pick leechers.

Tuoba Hturt Eht · Jul 13, 2006, 12:22 PM // 12:22

Personally, I feel that it would not be wise to make such a choice. It is much better to have at least some form of method to allow us not to be grouped into leechers or AFKers, this Upgraded Ignore List will grant us that ability, plus it cannot be abused to due the limitation of 10 players.

Regarding functionality, it is still there:
1. John discovers that Mary is a leecher.
2. John adds Mary to his Ignore List.
3. John continues the game happily without Mary's presence.
4. After a few days, weeks, or even months, John's Ignore List of 10 is full.
5. John manages his Ignore List to sort out this issue.
6. John is a happy gamer because he do not have to be in the same team with leechers anymore.

I believe that this idea can be implemented if there is a limit of 10 player, same as the current Ignore List's limit.

Can those who strongly objected initially return and comment on the revised idea? Feedback requested.

Liu · Jul 13, 2006, 12:57 PM // 12:57

First idea = bad, very bad,

Tuoba Hturt Eht · Jul 13, 2006, 01:10 PM // 13:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liu

First idea = bad, very bad,

Please explain how "bad, very bad," this idea can be?

With a limit of 10, it cannot be abused, and it will serve its purpose, it is not doubt the best idea to resolve this problem of leechers, AFKers till date.

Please explain yourself, or else I will suspect that you are a leecher, AFKer attempting to bash this idea to resolve this problem of leechers, AFKers.

Discuss.

TheLordOfBlah · Jul 13, 2006, 06:37 PM // 18:37

THe reasoning to how this could be abused isnt convincing me. The limit it 10. It'll only be effective if a lot of people ignore one person. Explain how thats abuse and not FAIR.

/signed

Legendary Shiz · Jul 13, 2006, 08:28 PM // 20:28

I dont understand how this could be "easily abused".

If they keep it to 10, that eliminates your little "ban everybody but your friends" thing. And I highly doubt that you could ban all mending using whammos with only 10 slots haha

/signed

Cash · Jul 13, 2006, 09:10 PM // 21:10

/signed for #1 as long as it couldnt be abused in the previously discussed ways.

/not signed #2 .....example

frank just logged onto GW and is looking forward to a fun time in aspenwood. he enters the mission and is very excited to see he apparently has a decent team. all of the sudden he hears the screech of tires and a blood-curdling howl. all thoughts of GW disappear from his mind and all he can think of is poor Sparky ("Why God why?!?!?). he rushes out the door of his home and quickly searches the road for a brown fluffy dead lump, but happily sees no roadkill and soon finds Sparky taking a massive dump in his flower bed. after many hugs and sloppy kisses from Sparky and silent curses to the punk rocker teenagers that must have just peeled out from the nearby stop sign, Frank returns to his computer to find himself reported by all his luxon allies and half of the opposing kurzick team as well. POOR FRANK!

now is Frank a "repeat offender"? no, but thats not going to matter to the dozen other players cursing him and calling him "noob" and "leecher." as they say, "shit happens" and sometimes all of us need to hop off the computer in a hurry. yes, i think its lame for people to repeatedly afk for faction, but i just dont see a way to truly distinguish between those people and those of us who just had one of life's little emergencies.

Ventius Hozza · Jul 13, 2006, 09:54 PM // 21:54

1: Yes
2: Yes
The possible abuse overpowers the potential good that will come out of this

Also, can we put a time limit on the time that they are on the list? Seems kinda harsh to inhibit them forever.

Gargle Blaster · Jul 13, 2006, 10:41 PM // 22:41

1: YES!!!!
2: no.

Tuoba Hturt Eht · Jul 16, 2006, 04:20 PM // 16:20

Thank you all for the feedback, much appreciated.
Removed the 2nd idea due to the potential abuse it could have.

Again, I request the feedback of those who strongly objected the original idea which does not include the limit of 10 players in the Ignore List.

Please review the proposed idea again, and let me know if it is still as abusable as before, before the limit of 10 people is proposed.

Thank you for your time.

Tuoba Hturt Eht · Jul 19, 2006, 12:53 PM // 12:53

Feedback requested from the community of Sardelac Sanitarium.
Here, I ask again those members who initially objected to this proposed idea, review the revised idea, and comment again.
Thank you.

Horseman Of War · Jul 19, 2006, 02:02 PM // 14:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuoba Hturt Eht

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

=====

heres an idea of how it wouldnt work=

you will never see many of those people again... 10 people ignore list would never cover all the leechers you will encounter in just a couple of weeks.

I think the best way to do it, would be to auto-expel the person from a mission, if they are afk for a set period of time.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that guild wars is a GAME- people sometimes do have emergencies to attend to. You cannot speculate on every reason someone goes AFK in an alliance battle or town mission.

Granted, Im with you on this, but I dont think itl be possible to implement any kind of fix without really hurting some people who dont deserve it.\

I would like to see someone AFK for 10 minutes be ejected before the XP is handed out... 10 minutes is fair- even if your cat spills mountain dew on your keyboard...

Completely banning someone from GW just for wasting 30 minutes of your personal time is an arrogant, pompous approach to this issue.

Tuoba Hturt Eht · Jul 19, 2006, 02:31 PM // 14:31

You are not reading it right, please take note the text below:

- 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

Please take note the bolded and underlined text.

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

"10 people ignore list would never cover all the leechers you will encounter in just a couple of weeks."

10 is a sufficient amount for you to manage your own personal Ignore List, if you need to add in a new leecher, remove the old ones.

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

"Completely banning someone from GW just for wasting 30 minutes of your personal time is an arrogant, pompous approach to this issue."

Read the bolded and underlined text again, it is a personal Ignore List, not a universal ban list.

Riplox · Jul 19, 2006, 04:03 PM // 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuoba Hturt Eht

Like the existing Ignore List, only a maximum of 10 players can be added to this list

Yes, this is fine. If you need to "ban" any more than that at one time, then you are using the feature too liberally.

Quote:

Will prevent you from joining their teams

This is fine.

Quote:

Not preventing them from joining your team

I'm kind of against this idea and I think needs to be changed to something more along the lines of being a majority rule to keep the player off the team. For instance, if 50% or more of the people have the person on their ban lists then that player cannot join the team. If not, the player can.

Quote:

Only works in Random Arenas, Fort Aspenwood, Jade Quarry, Alliance Battles

It really needs to be a globally effective feature as there are more problem areas than that. If I'm going to "ban" someone, I don't ever want to deal with that person again, not just in those areas.

Quote:

Will only function to a certain extent

Um, explain please?

Quote:

If there are no better choices of players available, you will still be teamed up with them

I really dont see how you can designate one player as better than the other (unless of course you know for a fact they are from personal experience). I understand what you mean though, and sadly, this is the only real option open that I can see.