Curse

Kaguya · May 22, 2006, 07:54 AM // 07:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by WasAGuest

It is in my opinion that once Anet stops trying to push PvP on PvEers or stops rewarding PvEers for playing in PvP games, those that enjoy PvP games will have a less corrupted gaming experience.

Well I haven't played PvP much at all in GW until Anet introduced Aspenwood/Quarry, and PvE player isn't forced to play the PvP missions. PvErs can do the Challenge missions for faction, or do the repeatable quests.

What it come to the OP, yes, the current AFK system is bad, but the suggested system isn't a fix for it as it has been stated in multiple posts above. You can win Aspenwood with 7. You can win Aspenwood with 6. Chances are that both sides have AFKers in them, making the game 7vs7 effectively. AFKers become a problem when real players start saying "omgz I'm not playing for AFKers" and quit, making the situation even worse, usually ending up in avalanche that leaves the team with 2-4 people. I've played those games till very end, just for the fun, had a lots of it chatting with the opposing side on the local channel.

Removing the reward for losing isn't a solution, I think it has been suggested elsewhere that the reward for losing should be taken from a NPC after the game, just like any other quest reward is given. If the NPC spawns randomly, bots will not be able to get any faction at all.

Or simply add a system that checks over what the player has been doing, if they haven't attacked/casted any spells/used skills they should be left unawarded, and possibly add a penalty time of hour or two when they can't enter the mission again.

konohamaru heaven · May 22, 2006, 08:04 AM // 08:04

This would kill Aspenwood completely. I personally think that removing the losing point gain over this. I play aspenwood for the luxons and this would make aspenwood more luxon Bias and also who would play if they lost faction for trying lol you would end up having the entire losing team leave before the offical losing so they dont lose faction (they cant give or take you the faction if you leave). All this idea is encourages Rage Quiting which would make this 100 times worse than what is currently used.

/Neverwillsigninamillionyears

Esprit · May 22, 2006, 11:28 AM // 11:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ira Blinks

err what? o...k I might be missing something here, but isn't team with one afk = 7 people and team with one quitter = still 7 people? Wth are you talking about anyway?

It was to point out to your previous comment that having a leecher or quitter did not necessarily mean you would lose.

Tien ak · May 22, 2006, 01:58 PM // 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaguya

Or simply add a system that checks over what the player has been doing, if they haven't attacked/casted any spells/used skills they should be left unawarded, and possibly add a penalty time of hour or two when they can't enter the mission again.

Quit digging into Ira binks everyone and read this fantastic idea

however as good this idea is I can think of ways around it just get some guy to cast skills (healing sig) and done you used a skill. hmm perhaps do it as other games have done it were you have a idle time were if you don't move your kicked out and can't enter the game for anouther 10 mins?

I know then some people could then just walk around a bit...hmm tiz a pickle...how about make it that you have a vote system not for kicking out no no no but a system that observes the player/s and if they don't do anything they are replaced by hench.

Guys some of us are grown ups here stop acting like apes and bitching about the guys Idea and actually come up with an idea.

Loralai · May 22, 2006, 03:14 PM // 15:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ira Blinks

this is exactly a pve mindset I'm talking about: "I spend this much time on game, so the game is obligated to give me this much back". I'm sorry, you are dead wrong. This might work when you farm ettins, but in Aspenwood you dont fight the game, you fight real people on the other side, and they do not owe you anything.

I'm pretty sure I already explained why this doen't work. Please bother to read something beside first post next time. And as the time goes by this problem will only be getting worse. The only real solution is to make losing unprofitable.

And your mindset and attitude is the kind that keeps PvE'rs away from PvP. There are more ways to effectively get your point across without making sweeping generalizations flaming people.

The crucial point that you seem to be missing is that the basic design of missions like Aspenwood, Jade Quarry, etc.. are the INFUSION of PvP and PvE. This was the crux of Anet's entire Factions outfit, to bring the two together. Here you are now essentially wanting to make it PvP exclusive by removing rewards for losing teams, likening it to HoH, TA, or GB. On top of that you want to make it even MORE exclusive by incorporating penalties for the losers? This doesn't occur anywhere else in GW. You don't lose Balth. faction when you lose in HA, and wow, I can just IMAGINE the uproar it would cause if it actually WAS introduced.

Basically, you haven't completely thought it through before posting, rather than me not reading.

Ira Blinks · May 22, 2006, 03:32 PM // 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tien ak

Quit digging into Ira binks everyone and read this fantastic idea

ok so now instead of just joining the game leecher will have to join the game and cast healing sig once after timer elapsed...
Once again, this is NOT the solution. It by no means stop leechers while might create problems for legimate players like monks or amber runners.

Kaguya · May 22, 2006, 03:33 PM // 15:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tien ak

Quit digging into Ira binks everyone and read this fantastic idea

however as good this idea is I can think of ways around it just get some guy to cast skills (healing sig) and done you used a skill. hmm perhaps do it as other games have done it were you have a idle time were if you don't move your kicked out and can't enter the game for anouther 10 mins?

I know then some people could then just walk around a bit...hmm tiz a pickle...how about make it that you have a vote system not for kicking out no no no but a system that observes the player/s and if they don't do anything they are replaced by hench.

Guys some of us are grown ups here stop acting like apes and bitching about the guys Idea and actually come up with an idea.

It was just an unrefined suggestion, of course it would need more refinement than just simple ifs for skill usage. No need to start trolling around. It would eliminate the 'enter battle'-watch TV people, as apparently not all of them are bots. One of them even spoke at the outpost, before enter battle-afk'ing again. Oh yay.

For 'working' idle detection you'd need to factor in some sort of efficiency meter. Hexes/spells cast, amount of healing provided, amount of damage dealt, amount of amber ran, amount of commanders talked to etc etc. Properly tuned, normal players wouldn't notice this, but afkbots wouldn't meet the requirements. Unless they'd start following people around casting orison in them.

Hunter Sharparrow · May 22, 2006, 03:52 PM // 15:52

/signed

You should have to earn your faction. The current system just encourages farming faction. You enter then go afk. Win or lose you get faction so you then go back in and do it again. There you have it folks, instant faction farming. The mission is 8 vs 8 and if you have people that are only there to collect whatever faction they can get then you will have 8 vs 7 or 7 vs 5 anything other than 8 vs 8 because you will have people afk and who are only there to collect the faction. If you are on the side that loses the way I see it is that you failed your mission. Take a look at the mission in tyria, if you lose do you still get the 1000xp? Do you get any xp? NO, you don't. So why should you get any faction for losing this mission.

So I agree completely that a reward of faction should only be given to the side that wins. You already have people rage quiting when they see people on their team leeching and you already have people quiting when their side looks like its going to lose. Another thing is people not caring. They participate but they don't care because they know they are going to be rewarded win or lose. With the suggestion here it would light the fire under people's asses to do their best. Also if it succesfully puts an end to (or cuts it down to a minimum) leechers then you won't have nearly as many people quiting because of the leechers. So the increase of quiters at the sign of losing would be balanced by the lack of quiters that would occur from the lack of leechers. So to use ragequiters as an excuse is a hollow argument and is also merely speculation without any real thought.

Ragequitting wouldn't be a bad thing. One argument mentioned is that people would just rage quit when it looks like their team is going to lose. So be it. So the team that had a good chance at winning will win sooner and can go back and do the mission over again sooner while those that quit will go back and try again sooner as well. So where would you have people not playing? Sounds to me you would have people playing more often.

-It would keep leechers at bay (or atleast make them pointless)
-It would give something to try for instead of the half ass attemps that people make already.
-It would stop ragequitters who quit when they see leechers on their team but would increase the number of ragequiters at the first sign of losing which would balance itself out for the most part.
-It would make the missions go by quicker if you have people rage quiting at the first sign of losing instead of streatching out the inevitable.
-It means no more farming for the faction but rather having to work for it. This is a game of skill not free time.

So you think people would stop playing the mission? Says who, you? Who are you to talk about what other people would do? It's a big GW population out there and I'm sure you will have people playing the mission regardless. Also it could be that more people would start playing. People who wouldn't play because of the leechers would begin playing and would probably make up for the number of people that would stop. The people that are the leechers themselves that is.

/signed

Edit:

Quote:

And your mindset and attitude is the kind that keeps PvE'rs away from PvP. There are more ways to effectively get your point across without making sweeping generalizations flaming people.

It's the same thing that happened to me Ira. I first got on to these forums to make a simple suggestion. Rather than constructive criticism I believe the first reply was "Farming is not a problem, your making it a problem. There is a difference". That was just the start of the attacks not only at my post but at me aswell. Then these ignoramuses had the audacity to call me the flamer when I stood up for myself. I guess they thought I would just role over. You know what I say? F**k'em. 364 posts and 1 referal later and I'm still standing. I've even proven my point about farming. I laugh every time anet makes a change that makes it harder for farmers to farm and/or makes it not worth the time.

dawnrain · May 22, 2006, 03:59 PM // 15:59

If I understand the thinking behind the suggestion: not rewarding the losing side will decrease afk'ers because they will not get faction. While being afk does decrease the chances of winning it is no guarantee of a loss. Consider an afk'er on both sides, one of them will get faction. An afk'er has minimal investment. Any faction gain is motivation enough to continue afk'ing.

I think there are better suggestions to solve the afk'ing problem.

Badger2 · May 22, 2006, 04:06 PM // 16:06

Please don't misunderstand this as agreeing with the OP.

If someone is afk they arent doing anything and its as if they arent there. How is this different than someone rage quiting?

WasAGuest · May 22, 2006, 04:35 PM // 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by robrobrob

WasAGuest, you call everything a nerf. When you do that, you truly take away from the word it's true meaning. Simply tweaking and adjusting is not nerfing. Balancing is not nerfing. Please, please, learn to distinguish between them. (Please do not claim you already do. All you call things are 'nerfs.')

Uhh, you seem to think you know me, yet you assume that your post (nothing more than a flame) adds something to the discussion. If you follow my posts so religiously, you'll know that flaming me often adds to my enjoyment of the forums.

You'll also know that I don't call everything a nerf, in fact most of the time I am throwing out ideas for alternate changes that would not be considered nerfs.
So far in Factions we've seen no balancing, we've seen only nerfs. A balance is something that is changed to create a "balance". The changes on the 19th balanced nothing. All it did was slow the faction point farming for all players by a couple of minutes; and created a higher desire to leech or afk some missions. If the changes has slowed it for the larger alliances and brought the ability for smaller alliances to actually compete, that would have been a balance. As it stands, the larger still has more power... think of it as a skill balancing. A skill is over powered, it's balanced to bring it on par with the rest. Thus we have the use of the skill as GW should be, skill over time.

@ Kaguya - yes, it's true that you aren't "forced" into PvP, but once Anet begins to reward Jade/Aspen and those ABs with higher rewards (as they attempt to get more people to play them), then doing the challenge missions and repeatable quests will yield rewards not worth the time.
As Hunter says, the game is supposed to be about skill over time, but it's not. Yet anyway. We are all hoping for the system to be changed so it is skill over time.
Course if we could all make suggestions on improvements and throw out ideas rather than flame each other all the time *cough robrobrob cough* we might be able to get good ideas posted through to the Sanitarium for Anet to see.
My posts often seem harsh and critical, but I see them as simply calling bad choices and design on what they are, bad choices and design. I will then always try to offer an idea to fix what I think needs fixing. Unlike some that choose to flame rather than add to discussions.
Hunter's anti-farming campaign (which I've followed and agreed with) often got him flamed with little or no alternate options added.
Anyway, as I suggested before, rather than removing rewards or penalizing the loosing sides, make rewards else where more inviting that way the leechers will go there and earn the faction points, therefore leaving the meta games alone.

I await more flaming, bring hotdogs for lunch.

Tazzo · May 22, 2006, 04:44 PM // 16:44

/not signed

I was on the losing side a couple of times after 15 mins of battle was pleased i got something for it.

Better with boot if afk for X amount of time to remove leechers.

quickmonty · May 22, 2006, 04:55 PM // 16:55

I think that in any PvP contest the losers should lose something (faction) and not gain, or break even. Perhaps we could also increase the winner's reward.

Badger2 · May 22, 2006, 04:59 PM // 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hunter Sharparrow

Take a look at the mission in tyria, if you lose do you still get the 1000xp? Do you get any xp? NO, you don't. So why should you get any faction for losing this mission.

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong but, loosing a mission in Tyria and not getting the XP does not prevent you from accessing all of the remaining PvE environment (except Dragons Lair which you can get around). Where as not having enough faction will keep you out of certin PvE areas in Cantha.

Kaguya · May 22, 2006, 04:59 PM // 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by WasAGuest

@ Kaguya - yes, it's true that you aren't "forced" into PvP, but once Anet begins to reward Jade/Aspen and those ABs with higher rewards (as they attempt to get more people to play them), then doing the challenge missions and repeatable quests will yield rewards not worth the time.
As Hunter says, the game is supposed to be about skill over time, but it's not. Yet anyway. We are all hoping for the system to be changed so it is skill over time.

This is true, and I agree. There is only one problem, Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry are random teaming. You can be skilled, you can be God of Guild Wars, but there is much nothing you can do against 8 players if rest of the team are clueless newbies, making the two missions more "luck" based than skill.

Thus, if you are "unlucky" enough to get a "bad" team, the time over reward goes clearly to the repeatable quests and challenge missions, that to me atleast, aren't even close to being as fun has doing Aspenwood/Quarry is. Repeatables get dull after run or two, Challenge quests eat plenty time teaming up/getting the team, or hopeless attempts with henchies.

Hunter Sharparrow · May 22, 2006, 05:14 PM // 17:14

Quote:

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong but, loosing a mission in Tyria and not getting the XP does not prevent you from accessing all of the remaining PvE environment

I'm pretty sure that you have to do the Sanctum Cay mission to access the desert. You also have to do all three ascention missions to get ascended and that you have to get ascended to have access to the UW and FoW. You also have to beat THK (I believe that's the one) to access the 'volcano islands' (as I like to call it). While there you have to do the last three missions in the game in order completing one to access the next. No skipping ahead and no access if you lose. There are more than just these too.

Loralai · May 22, 2006, 05:53 PM // 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hunter Sharparrow

/signed

So you think people would stop playing the mission? Says who, you? Who are you to talk about what other people would do? It's a big GW population out there and I'm sure you will have people playing the mission regardless. Also it could be that more people would start playing. People who wouldn't play because of the leechers would begin playing and would probably make up for the number of people that would stop. The people that are the leechers themselves that is.

/signed

Edit:

It's the same thing that happened to me Ira. I first got on to these forums to make a simple suggestion. Rather than constructive criticism I believe the first reply was "Farming is not a problem, your making it a problem. There is a difference". That was just the start of the attacks not only at my post but at me aswell. Then these ignoramuses had the audacity to call me the flamer when I stood up for myself. I guess they thought I would just role over. You know what I say? F**k'em. 364 posts and 1 referal later and I'm still standing. I've even proven my point about farming. I laugh every time anet makes a change that makes it harder for farmers to farm and/or makes it not worth the time.

It's much more effective to get a point across without referring to one individuals (mine in this instance) as a general "mindset." I was reiterating that case by stating the same "generalization" on the flip side.

Quote:

It's a big GW population out there...

You are exactly right. And for that reason it is ridiculous to start throwing around ideas such as "PvE/PvP" mindset. That was my point. It's fine to tear apart my opinions, I mean forums of any type are more or less just places to argue in type. That's fine. But to make a sweeping statement based on something you perceive to be my intention and put it on the entirety of PvE players instantly detracts from the point trying to be made.

My initial post:
/

Quote:

unsigned

This is PvP play that I, as a usually exclusive PvE'r, truly enjoy. Why this desire to make something so utterly "win" or "lose"? Either way, everyone is playing for the same amount of time.

If the leechers are the problem, then ask for a new solution, such as auto-boot after so much time of not using a skill, or something along those lines. Penalizing other people who participate, because of 1 or 2, is one good and solid way to make a whole lot of PvE'ers stop giving PvP a chance.

First of all, this was introduced as a petition. For that reason, you can expect a fair amount of naysayers to post their opinions. Secondly, I did not come anywhere "near" flaming, and I resent the fact that you insinuated that I did. I stated "MY" opinion by using the word "I", asked a question, stated a fact, then offered up a seperate solution to the problem.

To come at everyone with two horns in the air, that offers up an /unsigned and/or a differing opinion or alternative solutions, will not be an effective way to get your point across nor your petition well-received.

Unlucky Slayer · May 22, 2006, 05:53 PM // 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by quickmonty

I think that in any PvP contest the losers should lose something (faction) and not gain, or break even. Perhaps we could also increase the winner's reward.

By doing that you drive people that would normally do PvP for the fun of it because they're bored away.

Why would I want to do something to give me mild enjoyment if I'm going to be knocked down if I dont win?

Maybe we should do that in real life... Go into high school sporting events and tell the kids that if they lose we chop off a finger or something... How would that sound?

Oh and as for the original suggestion...

/unsigned multiple times

quickmonty · May 22, 2006, 06:10 PM // 18:10

I tend to think of the gaming world as more of a gladiator's arena then a school sporting event. This is not real life, but a challenging game. Losers are rarely rewarded in games. Perhaps losing factions is a bit much, but looking at it as a high school football game .... the other team scored a touchdown and gets 6 points. You didn't stop them from getting a touchdown but you still get 3 points.

Phades · May 22, 2006, 06:32 PM // 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaguya

Removing the reward for losing isn't a solution, I think it has been suggested elsewhere that the reward for losing should be taken from a NPC after the game, just like any other quest reward is given. If the NPC spawns randomly, bots will not be able to get any faction at all.

Or simply add a system that checks over what the player has been doing, if they haven't attacked/casted any spells/used skills they should be left unawarded, and possibly add a penalty time of hour or two when they can't enter the mission again.

Penalties for idle characters are decent, but ive seen bot like behavior in the random arenas, where the character will follow the most active character similar to how henchmen do. It becomes painfully obvious when the character suddenly stops moving when all teammates are dead or no allies are in the area.

Combine the idle idea with the npc reward idea, where the character must reach *a* objective, which is a different non-combatant object along the way and not within targeting range of the starting positions. Then following the match spawn a different npc to hand out the reward within the mission area durring the countdown before being sent back to the outpost.

The quoted ideas are pretty good and could easily be expanded upon in different ways.