Curse

Tuoba Hturt Eht · Jul 19, 2006, 10:40 PM // 22:40

Perhaps it would be made to work like this:

1. John knows Mary is a leecher, AFKer in Fort Aspenwood, Jade Quarry
2. John added Mary to John's personal, private Ignore List
3. At this time, John's Ignore List only has 1 person, Mary

4. John clicks enter mission in Fort Aspenwood, Jade Quarry
5. John's character get placed in Guild War's game finding system

6. Since John's account has 1 player - Mary in John's ignore list
7. The game finding system will ignore games that Mary is in.

8. Game finder will attempt to determine whereabouts of Mary.
9. If Mary is already in a game (explorable area, mission, pvp mission etc)
10. Game finder will proceed to find a game for John

11. If Mary is not in a game (outpost, town)
12. Game finder will attempt to find teams that only needs 1 more player to start
13. Teams that already have 7 players, in this case of Fort Aspenwood

14. This way, John does not have to worry about being placed in the same team Mary is

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

Does this clears up things a bit?

viper008 · Jul 19, 2006, 11:29 PM // 23:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuoba Hturt Eht

Perhaps it would be made to work like this:

1. John knows Mary is a leecher, AFKer in Fort Aspenwood, Jade Quarry
2. John added Mary to John's personal, private Ignore List
3. At this time, John's Ignore List only has 1 person, Mary

4. John clicks enter mission in Fort Aspenwood, Jade Quarry
5. John's character get placed in Guild War's game finding system

6. Since John's account has 1 player - Mary in John's ignore list
7. The game finding system will ignore games that Mary is in.

8. Game finder will attempt to determine whereabouts of Mary.
9. If Mary is already in a game (explorable area, mission, pvp mission etc)
10. Game finder will proceed to find a game for John

11. If Mary is not in a game (outpost, town)
12. Game finder will attempt to find teams that only needs 1 more player to start
13. Teams that already have 7 players, in this case of Fort Aspenwood

14. This way, John does not have to worry about being placed in the same team Mary is

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

Does this clears up things a bit?

"Game finder" = more lag

Tuoba Hturt Eht · Jul 20, 2006, 02:32 PM // 14:32

There is already an in-game finding system for Random Arenas, Fort Aspenwood, Jade Quarry and the Alliance Battles, how else do you think we got paired up with random team mates?

Though I agree that it would probably cause the player to wait a bit longer, if that player's Ignore List is full, hence the 10 player limit is suggested.

The Ignore List would not be required in places where you have control over your team mates, the least it can do is to provide a warning alert, stating that a player in your ignore list is in the same team as you are on.

Feedback requested from the community of Sardelac.
Discuss.

P/S: Thanks to the moderator who helped to changed the title of this topic.

Tuoba Hturt Eht · Jul 20, 2006, 11:19 PM // 23:19

To summarize things up even further, it would kinda work like this:

1. John has 10 players in his upgraded ignore list.
2. "Gamer browser" would now look for
- 7 player teams for Fort Aspenwood, Jade Quarry
- 3 player teams for Random Arenas
to slot John into the group.
3. John will not be sloted into groups with the 10 players in his upgraded ignore list

Is that easier to understand now?

Tuoba Hturt Eht · Aug 09, 2006, 10:26 PM // 22:26

Revived the thread seeing that there are similiar topics of discussions recently.

Feedback is much appreciated.
Thank you for your time.

Tuoba Hturt Eht · Aug 10, 2006, 11:14 PM // 23:14

Is it possible for this thread to get more feedback from the community regarding the proposed ideas in this thread?

Ideas may seem broken and impossible to excecute at first, but this does not mean that they cannot be changed to be better, until they are no longer broken.

For the case of this idea, the original one was very abusable, as stated by many who replied to this thread.

lyeoh · Dec 29, 2006, 07:40 AM // 07:40

/signed

But:

Make it a separate list from the Ignore list. Call it an Exclude list instead (seems a lot of people don't understand it's a personal list and not a global list).

If we really want to be forgiving we could make entries expire after a time period (1 month? 2 weeks?) unless there is an attempt to re-add the person again which then refreshes the time.

If players are _manually_ being invited to a party (like in AB or TA) then either the exclude list doesn't have any effect at all, or it gives a private warning - not broadcast (just like those you have been playing X hours etc warnings

).

With respect to people putting hundreds of people on their lists just to have TA in RA, I don't think that will be a big problem.

But if it becomes a problem, instead of limiting the list to 10 entries, you could just limit the rate you can add people to the list. e.g. a max of 5 people in any 30 minute period (adjust values for lamer density

). Or only allow you to add people you have actually played with.

Then if people willing to wait that long to make Random Arenas into TA for them good luck to them. As for Aspenwood, the waiting time was long enough already when I last was there.

It won't break Random Arenas that much anyway, since with Random Arenas you actually have "winning team stays and stays together". So as per Darwin/Natural Selection the incoming random teams are more likely to be weaker than the winners - and the winners will tend to keep winning.

Lastly this won't really tax the system very much. Because based on my experiences in Aspenwood I suspect Anet already has a fancy matching system behind the scenes to assign players to teams based on how well they do etc. Many times when I switched between Kurzick and Luxon in a short space of time, I often find that the teams I ended up in claimed they had been winning straight games, and we actually did keep winning so I don't think they were all lying. It's not like I'm a great player, so who was doing all the losing? Seems like there were always more leechers on the other side (whether Kurzick or Luxon) - so maybe Anet tends to group the leechers together.

After all leechers are customers too, and may pay for the next GW edition too to leech there as well

.