Curse

Naqser · Aug 09, 2006, 09:34 PM // 21:34

Okay, so leechers are only in certain small areas, but they are still an annoyance and should be dealt with

Practicly, they could be reported as scammers, why? They do nothing and gain on it.

but that is not the case

Here is one idea on how GW could detect scammers, add a small program that looks where you run, where the enemy is at the time, damage dealt, or healed. That way GW could easily know what the player is

Now the punishment could be one of several, or all

1: Ban for a week, Ban is when you aren't allowed to play, and they don't play anyway, just join and stand there.

2: Ban from that faction, if leeched in aspenwood or jade quarry (rarely played), the Kurz/Lux people could ban you from their area for a week

3: The faction gained, like winning 650 + the faction gained in the battle would be distributed among the people who actually did something, so if there were one leecher and they totaly gained 700 faction, then that faction is split in 7 so each person who played get 100 extra, 750, while the leecher get 0

Tear Of Cherokee · Aug 09, 2006, 09:42 PM // 21:42

I think a better resolution would be that in PVE the leader of the team has the ability to kick the "leacher" or "afker" from the group along with the adolescent loud mouth, sexual oriented drawing on the radar goofballs. At all starting points of a mission (within) the mission their should be npc's awaiting capable of being added to the team after someone has been removed.

In the PVP scenario the "leachers" afkers should automatically be kicked out after a time period has passed with no movement or interaction in the game.

You cant expect Anet to start banning leachers because that would call a need for direct reporting to have someone banned and that would highly be abused.

unholy guardian · Aug 09, 2006, 09:43 PM // 21:43

yes those foul drawing SOBS are a problem too.

Naqser · Aug 09, 2006, 10:03 PM // 22:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tear Of Cherokee

You cant expect Anet to start banning leachers because that would call a need for direct reporting to have someone banned and that would highly be abused.

yes I know, but GW could handle the ban itself, sending the ban info to the servers

Tear Of Cherokee · Aug 09, 2006, 10:23 PM // 22:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naqser

yes I know, but GW could handle the ban itself, sending the ban info to the servers

What I meant was, Anet would have to setup an ingame reporting tool to get a screen cap of the person for the last lets say 180 seconds or something. They would have to staff people to investigate these screen caps in turn costing more money and I am sure that the adolescent imature kids would abuse the heck out of that and most likely 90% of the reports would not even be worthy of investigation time.

Auto kick and Team leader player removal. All I have to say.

gameshoes3003 · Aug 09, 2006, 10:35 PM // 22:35

i dont' like your idea of banning people for a week

MSecorsky · Aug 09, 2006, 10:37 PM // 22:37

All ANet would have to do is enter the battles as NPCs or the like and just watch to see who's doing what. They see someone repeatedly entering Aspenwood and leeching... BAN!

Naqser · Aug 10, 2006, 10:56 PM // 22:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tear Of Cherokee

What I meant was, Anet would have to setup an ingame reporting tool to get a screen cap of the person for the last lets say 180 seconds or something. They would have to staff people to investigate these screen caps in turn costing more money and I am sure that the adolescent imature kids would abuse the heck out of that and most likely 90% of the reports would not even be worthy of investigation time.

Auto kick and Team leader player removal. All I have to say.

no, Anet would not have to investigate, GW's little progam would singlehandedly investigate, while GW is played, and hand out the ban itself

Quote:

Originally Posted by gameshoes3003

i dont' like your idea of banning people for a week

that was one option, I was thinking about a permanent but that would be to harsch, and the ban is just one of the options, personaly I like the third one better, more Faction for those who work for it, and none to those who didn't do anything

Dirty Panda · Aug 11, 2006, 12:14 AM // 00:14

[QUOTE=Tear Of Cherokee]I think a better resolution would be that in PVE the leader of the team has the ability to kick the "leacher" or "afker" from the group along with the adolescent loud mouth, sexual oriented drawing on the radar goofballs. At all starting points of a mission (within) the mission their should be npc's awaiting capable of being added to the team after someone has been removed.QUOTE]

this could easily be abused. you can i have a disagreement about which way to go in a mission. i say left, you say right. the rest of the team remands silent and watches. Now i get angry, call you a noob and /kick. so now you got kicked beacuse i am jerk and you dared disagree with me, or worse if i need you for the mission i bottle my anger until then end a /kick right before the end of the mission. for disagreeing with one person you now fought through the entire mission and got booted. it doesnt even have to be a disagreement, you do one thing i dislike and /kick, i dont even have to warn you

your idea creates an all powerful team leader = bad
what i say if a vote among the team members, you type /kick dirty panda, a simple message will come up 'A Kick Vote has been placed against Dirty Panda', rather like /resign in that all the players on the team (excluding the one being voted for of course) must vote to kick them for it to take effect. this would also deter them because after they see some votes cast for them they might wise up and knock it off before they get kicked

Undivine · Aug 11, 2006, 04:59 AM // 04:59

Do you know how many threads there are on this exact topic? In fact, there are many not only on this topic but that suggest exactly the same solution you are suggesting. And those replying to it are finding the same holes and leading it down the same path as in the other threads.

There is no need for redundent threads. Please make use of the Index of Ideas and the search feature before you post. If you have anything to contribute to the discussion, do so in existing threads.

And honestly, just let that idea of a monitor program go. I'd hate to have a highly advanced (as it would have to be) program that must constantly be upgraded as the bots develop ways around it, keep a constant watch on me and hopefully be completely fair and bug-free.