Idle time out is necessary in towns
Sythion
I'm surprised I haven't seen this brought up before. While in town, or looking for a group in Tomb, I often find the area is FULL but only 10 people are not AFK. This makes it very difficult to find groups, as there is a limit to the amount of people per district. If there was an idle time out (of say a half hour) in towns and hubs only, where an afk character would be disconnected from the server it would save bandwidth, and make it so much easier to find a group. Please tell me if you agree with this, or if there is any reason not to implement this change.
DrSLUGFly
on one hand I agree... on the other, I like the look of a full town...
I guess over all I'd have to say I support the idea since saving bandwidth and having active people present is much more important than the appearance of a crowd.
However:
1-what if we're grouped and the group knows we're afk
answer: partied-members are not considered afk by the "timer"
2-what if we have to go afk during missions for a significant chunk of time.
answer: "timer" only works in towns and outposts
generally a good idea
I guess over all I'd have to say I support the idea since saving bandwidth and having active people present is much more important than the appearance of a crowd.
However:
1-what if we're grouped and the group knows we're afk
answer: partied-members are not considered afk by the "timer"
2-what if we have to go afk during missions for a significant chunk of time.
answer: "timer" only works in towns and outposts
generally a good idea
Principa Discordia
I also like the look of a full town, but I'd have to say that if AFK people got booted then towns would still look full due to the fact that there would be less districts. There would also be much less load on the server is AFK players were booted after a specific time, which I'd definitely be in favour of.
johnnylange
Something like after 30 mins of idle time you're disconnected. If ANet thinks this will help them on their end then I don't see why not 
EmperorTippy
I like the idea but it better not apply to the guild hall. I go AFG (away from game) and if anyone on at the time needs anything they can whisper me and I hear it andd can come help em. For just in towns though I totally agree.
DrSLUGFly
agreed... no afk timer for guild halls or instances, 30 minutes in town (this might even be generous here)
theclam
I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a 30m timeout. It would make it easier to find groups in towns with lots of districts.
mylilpony
how about outside of towns? so those stupid losers who go afk waiting for you to finish the miissions can get kicked.
Tactical-Dillusions
I disagree. Not because i want to be different, but because that's my opinion.
Aaaaagh
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tactical-Dillusions
I disagree. Not because i want to be different, but because that's my opinion.
|
I really think this is a good idea, actually, it seems like a no-brainer. Obviously its not, since Sythions post was the first I have ever seen about this.
DrSLUGFly
as for the in instance afk, there's already loads of people fighting for a votekick and/or instance splitting, and Anet is working on a solution so we don't really need to worry about it. The problem here is 15 districts each with a 25% afk population...
No afk timer for those in a team, no afk timer for guild halls or instances. 30 minutes for those in a town.
No afk timer for those in a team, no afk timer for guild halls or instances. 30 minutes for those in a town.
Tactical-Dillusions
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aaaaagh
Alright, and you have every right to it, but I am curious to your reasoning. If you would be so good as to enlighten us.
I really think this is a good idea, actually, it seems like a no-brainer. Obviously its not, since Sythions post was the first I have ever seen about this. |
I could be waiting for someone to finish a mission and expect them to whisper me when they are done.
I could be monitoring the trade channel for a few hours to pick up a bargain.
I could be standing around in ToA waiting for favor (the other day i stood there for six hours +) with just occasional trips outside to stretch my legs.
There are times when i fall asleep listening to the icy winds of the shiverpeaks and the cool music that's comes with it (insomnia is not nice!).
I often minimze the game to check something on the forum and get caught up in an interesting topic.
It's the small things in online gaming that make a big difference for me. Project Entropia started playing with things such as timeouts and i took my money and left.
Aaaaagh
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tactical-Dillusions
I would prefer to stick around in town while having lunch rather than relogging.
I could be waiting for someone to finish a mission and expect them to whisper me when they are done. I could be monitoring the trade channel for a few hours to pick up a bargain. I could be standing around in ToA waiting for favor (the other day i stood there for six hours +) with just occasional trips outside to stretch my legs. There are times when i fall asleep listening to the icy winds of the shiverpeaks and the cool music that's comes with it (insomnia is not nice!). I often minimze the game to check something on the forum and get caught up in an interesting topic. It's the small things in online gaming that make a big difference for me. Project Entropia started playing with things such as timeouts and i took my money and left. |
Shadow_Avenger
Simple solution, if you go AFK for 15mins you get booted to AFK zone, a generic / maybe guild hall that only players AFK goto. Then you are not booted from game, but sent to a waiting area, once you return you can then pick your zone.
Myself, I never go AFK in towns, but do in the instances if I'm with henchies, and try to aviod afk in missions player groups as much as humanly possibly.
Myself, I never go AFK in towns, but do in the instances if I'm with henchies, and try to aviod afk in missions player groups as much as humanly possibly.
DrSLUGFly
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tactical-Dillusions
I could be waiting for someone to finish a mission and expect them to whisper me when they are done. I could be monitoring the trade channel for a few hours to pick up a bargain. I could be standing around in ToA waiting for favor (the other day i stood there for six hours +) with just occasional trips outside to stretch my legs. There are times when i fall asleep listening to the icy winds of the shiverpeaks and the cool music that's comes with it (insomnia is not nice!). I often minimze the game to check something on the forum and get caught up in an interesting topic. It's the small things in online gaming that make a big difference for me. Project Entropia started playing with things such as timeouts and i took my money and left. |
Schorny
Are you sure all these people are AFK?
Most of the time, when I'm not responding I'm chatting.
But on the other hand, I'm also often standing in a town waiting for my guildmates and talking to them over TS.
So I'm not AFK, allthough I don't respond to whispers or group invites.
Maybe I'm just selling/buying things, so I'm blind to your none trade-whispers and group invites.
Of course, you can say: someone is AFK if he hasn't used mouse or keyboard for 30 minutes - but what about TS?
No, it's just not possible to tell if someone is AFK. And even if someone is not AFK, there is a good chance that he won't respond to you.
As you can see "AFK" isn't really important. "not responding" would be the term you are looking for, but this is really impossible to know.
And a group can always switch district while looking for members.
Most of the time, when I'm not responding I'm chatting.
But on the other hand, I'm also often standing in a town waiting for my guildmates and talking to them over TS.
So I'm not AFK, allthough I don't respond to whispers or group invites.
Maybe I'm just selling/buying things, so I'm blind to your none trade-whispers and group invites.
Of course, you can say: someone is AFK if he hasn't used mouse or keyboard for 30 minutes - but what about TS?
No, it's just not possible to tell if someone is AFK. And even if someone is not AFK, there is a good chance that he won't respond to you.
As you can see "AFK" isn't really important. "not responding" would be the term you are looking for, but this is really impossible to know.
And a group can always switch district while looking for members.
Shadow_Avenger
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Schorny
Are you sure all these people are AFK?
Most of the time, when I'm not responding I'm chatting. But on the other hand, I'm also often standing in a town waiting for my guildmates and talking to them over TS. So I'm not AFK, allthough I don't respond to whispers or group invites. Maybe I'm just selling/buying things, so I'm blind to your none trade-whispers and group invites. Of course, you can say: someone is AFK if he hasn't used mouse or keyboard for 30 minutes - but what about TS? No, it's just not possible to tell if someone is AFK. And even if someone is not AFK, there is a good chance that he won't respond to you. As you can see "AFK" isn't really important. "not responding" would be the term you are looking for, but this is really impossible to know. And a group can always switch district while looking for members. |
Silmor
I can imagine people leave their client on so they don't miss guild chat or ingame messages, but this timeout would force them to wait outside in an instance. This still means the bandwidth overhead they caused by leaving their character in an outpost gets reduced significantly, since their position doesn't need to be sent to any other players, so everybody wins.
Mr. Matt
I agree with Tactical-Dillusions, for all the points they listed.
And I disagree strongly with the idea that there should be AFK timers outside of outposts. To start with, supposing the team you're with has discussed it with you and is OK with you going AFK for some reason? You're half-way through a mission, so zoning out wouldn't exactly be convenient for anybody, and you've promised to be back in a short while. Perhaps the team members all have things to do AFK as well, but no-one wants to quit the mission? Not everybody is unreasonable and dedicated to finishing everything in record-time, so this is not an impossible scenario by any stretch of the imagination.
Not just that, but I very often go out with henchmen and then leave my character and the henchmen in a safe spot while I go off and do something, such as eat, or watch a TV program that I wanted to see, or go out for a short time. I don't want to erase all the progress I've made, so I leave them where they are. That's not inconveniencing anybody, yet your plan would force me to lose all my progress anyway.
And I disagree strongly with the idea that there should be AFK timers outside of outposts. To start with, supposing the team you're with has discussed it with you and is OK with you going AFK for some reason? You're half-way through a mission, so zoning out wouldn't exactly be convenient for anybody, and you've promised to be back in a short while. Perhaps the team members all have things to do AFK as well, but no-one wants to quit the mission? Not everybody is unreasonable and dedicated to finishing everything in record-time, so this is not an impossible scenario by any stretch of the imagination.
Not just that, but I very often go out with henchmen and then leave my character and the henchmen in a safe spot while I go off and do something, such as eat, or watch a TV program that I wanted to see, or go out for a short time. I don't want to erase all the progress I've made, so I leave them where they are. That's not inconveniencing anybody, yet your plan would force me to lose all my progress anyway.
Shadow_Avenger
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr. Matt
I agree with Tactical-Dillusions, for all the points they listed.
And I disagree strongly with the idea that there should be AFK timers outside of outposts. To start with, supposing the team you're with has discussed it with you and is OK with you going AFK for some reason? You're half-way through a mission, so zoning out wouldn't exactly be convenient for anybody, and you've promised to be back in a short while. Perhaps the team members all have things to do AFK as well, but no-one wants to quit the mission? Not everybody is unreasonable and dedicated to finishing everything in record-time, so this is not an impossible scenario by any stretch of the imagination. Not just that, but I very often go out with henchmen and then leave my character and the henchmen in a safe spot while I go off and do something, such as eat, or watch a TV program that I wanted to see, or go out for a short time. I don't want to erase all the progress I've made, so I leave them where they are. That's not inconveniencing anybody, yet your plan would force me to lose all my progress anyway. |
The AFK for people on missions debate is a totally seperate post and has more to do with the ability to boot players from group rather than auto sending AFK players to limbo.
Yorrix
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this I'm afraid. If I'm AFK, I tend to go to the side somewhere and sit down; and I am not alone in that.
I know last night I was in Lion's Arch and several people tried to join the group of three of us who had just arrived there. They weren't added. Those people probably thought we were AFK, but we weren't. The three of us were chatting about the fun mission we had just played, but didn't wish to proceed any further with questing or anything due to time.
So, why hang around in a group I bet is the next question; why not disband? It's easier talking in our group. Why talk, why not just get on with it? Guild Wars is a game, made for amusement (barring things banned in the EULA of course). If we find chatting amusing, and helpful; an activity that helps in the 'GW comunity'; what is wrong with that? After all, we didn't advertise our party, people just requested to join.
Other than that people don't have to add you to groups. I had a request previously to add only people of a certain level to our party, due to the nature of our mission, hence I tried to vet people with the party first before adding them.
So, in short, I don't think the time-out thing will work, though I can appreaciate the frustration other players may have. Instead, how about a party time-out feature? A way of telling whether a party is active or not? That way I could flag up the party as inactive, and people can avoid it whilst we chat. It doesn't stop problems from people not being picked, or people just plain forgetting to set it, but I think that, in the long run, it's a better method for achieving the result. just something like a grey colour, rather than the deep blue, would work.
I know last night I was in Lion's Arch and several people tried to join the group of three of us who had just arrived there. They weren't added. Those people probably thought we were AFK, but we weren't. The three of us were chatting about the fun mission we had just played, but didn't wish to proceed any further with questing or anything due to time.
So, why hang around in a group I bet is the next question; why not disband? It's easier talking in our group. Why talk, why not just get on with it? Guild Wars is a game, made for amusement (barring things banned in the EULA of course). If we find chatting amusing, and helpful; an activity that helps in the 'GW comunity'; what is wrong with that? After all, we didn't advertise our party, people just requested to join.
Other than that people don't have to add you to groups. I had a request previously to add only people of a certain level to our party, due to the nature of our mission, hence I tried to vet people with the party first before adding them.
So, in short, I don't think the time-out thing will work, though I can appreaciate the frustration other players may have. Instead, how about a party time-out feature? A way of telling whether a party is active or not? That way I could flag up the party as inactive, and people can avoid it whilst we chat. It doesn't stop problems from people not being picked, or people just plain forgetting to set it, but I think that, in the long run, it's a better method for achieving the result. just something like a grey colour, rather than the deep blue, would work.
PieXags
Yeah I'm against this as well. I don't know what you're talking about having only 10 out of like 40 people not afk. I always see the majority of the population in every sitting moving around, those that aren't could be trading, talking with friends, watching the trade channel to see if they want something, etc. I sit in towns for hours on end while talking to people and/or researching a build or something. I never get added to a group or anything anyways.
Silmor
If they're trading, talking with friends or doing just about anything that involves sending packets to ArenaNet, that means they're not being entirely idle. The idling the OP is talking about is no interaction whatsoever with the client, which could only be achieved by sitting on your hands staring at the screen for over 30 minutes (who does this?), or by actually leaving the computer (the situation mentioned where you're in a group taking an agreed thirty-plus minute break is a valid concern against this suggestion though I think).
Numa Pompilius
I'm strongly against.
The point of towns isn't just to help YOU pick up a group, it's also about letting OTHER people meet up. I don't answer LFG requests because I'VE GOT ONE, but I'm not AFK. I'm simply waiting for my teammates to turn up. And in instances me and my team have on a few occasions said "OK lets leave the avatars where they are, and we'll pick up playing here again at 7 tomorrow".
We've all got broadband, you know. We're always online.
Plus that kicking players who've not moved for x minutes wouldn't make it easier for you to find a PUG anyway.
In fact, I can see no point of kicking players for inactivity at all, either in towns or in instances.
What is needed, though, is a votekick function in instances.
The point of towns isn't just to help YOU pick up a group, it's also about letting OTHER people meet up. I don't answer LFG requests because I'VE GOT ONE, but I'm not AFK. I'm simply waiting for my teammates to turn up. And in instances me and my team have on a few occasions said "OK lets leave the avatars where they are, and we'll pick up playing here again at 7 tomorrow".
We've all got broadband, you know. We're always online.
Plus that kicking players who've not moved for x minutes wouldn't make it easier for you to find a PUG anyway.
In fact, I can see no point of kicking players for inactivity at all, either in towns or in instances.
What is needed, though, is a votekick function in instances.
Yorrix
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Silmor
If they're trading, talking with friends or doing just about anything that involves sending packets to ArenaNet, that means they're not being entirely idle. The idling the OP is talking about is no interaction whatsoever with the client, which could only be achieved by sitting on your hands staring at the screen for over 30 minutes (who does this?), or by actually leaving the computer (the situation mentioned where you're in a group taking an agreed thirty-plus minute break is a valid concern against this suggestion though I think).
|
Forgive me if I am wrong but what I understood the point to be was:
Quote:
| I get fed up trying to find a team in towns. Everyone doesn’t accept me/join <assumption>because they are afk</assumption>. Therefore, other than frustraiting me, they are wasting data flow to ANet. This leads to the conclusion that they should have a 30 minute boot-off. |
Actually, to this point, some people 'loiter' in town. Furthermore, the police usually disperse them for being a hassel. I'll just leave that as an interesting parallel.
squiros
I think the real problem is finding a group - not dictating AFK or assigning districts. A simple solution would be to implement /lfg commands that are cross district (see http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=25481 ). It could even be transparent to the user.
Shadow_Avenger
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by squiros
I think the real problem is finding a group - not dictating AFK or assigning districts. A simple solution would be to implement /lfg commands that are cross district (see http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=25481 ). It could even be transparent to the user.
|
Shadow_Avenger
Quote:
| As I say, forgive me, I may be wrong, but that is how I read it. What I, and I think PieXags, were trying to put foward is this. Towns, much like most in real life, serve more than one purpose. People are travelling about serving their own agendas; from socialising to buying much needed supplies. |
In my mind I saw it as removing AFK people to a seperate instance in the towns. I.e. the game monitors your bandwidth / signals (which it does) if no signals that are either chat or movement related move to 'afk area'
Alot of you guys think like people which is good, but the way a computer deals with it is far more logical. I can see you arguements if a person was monitoring and thought you was AFK then sure, but the system would not make assumptions that you are AFK, it would know.
eventhorizen
Im against this idea. Guild Wars is a game I play that just happens to have other people in it, and I be quite annoyed if any of my other games booted me for being idle.
Shadow_Avenger
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eventhorizen
Im against this idea. Guild Wars is a game I play that just happens to have other people in it, and I be quite annoyed if any of my other games booted me for being idle.
|
squiros
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shadow_Avenger
Nice idea, but not everyone would use, having the game automatically do these things is best, if the game auto set afk on players away for 2 mins and then on movement took it off would be a good system but leaving it to players, just gives more option, it doesn't deal with the topic 1/2 as effectively.
|
Yorrix
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shadow_Avenger
Thats fine, if you are actually using the chat then you are not afk, just because you aint moving doesn't mean you are AFK.
In my mind I saw it as removing AFK people to a seperate instance in the towns. I.e. the game monitors your bandwidth / signals (which it does) if no signals that are either chat or movement related move to 'afk area' Alot of you guys think like people which is good, but the way a computer deals with it is far more logical. I can see you arguements if a person was monitoring and thought you was AFK then sure, but the system would not make assumptions that you are AFK, it would know. |
I know how the computer will see it, and that's relatively easy to achieve. The problem is how people will see this, because some probably see people as AFK when they aren't. Potentially there could be complaints of a buggy feature that isn't buggy at all.
How about an AFK cage? }:]
Numa Pompilius
But idle time out DOESN'T ADRESS THE PROBLEM THAT IT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO FIND PUGs!
It'll be no easier finding PUGs if idle players get booted. It's not so that the number of places in town is limited, so that if an idle player is booted, an active player can get in. It doesn't even help much with lag.
It sounds as if the original poster looks for PUGs by randomly clicking on players and selecting 'join', and then I'm not surprised he finds it hard finding groups. I'd NEVER let anyone who did that join a group of mine!
If he does like everyone else, and asks in ALL channel, then maybe he need to consider _how_ he asks. There's a difference in success-rate between "LFG: W/Me 20 to do mission + bonus, will consider any reasonable offers" and "WNaT 2 D0 MiS+B0NuS **NO N00BS!!!!!1**".
But the bottom line is this: whatever his problem is, idle timeout wont fix it.
It'll be no easier finding PUGs if idle players get booted. It's not so that the number of places in town is limited, so that if an idle player is booted, an active player can get in. It doesn't even help much with lag.
It sounds as if the original poster looks for PUGs by randomly clicking on players and selecting 'join', and then I'm not surprised he finds it hard finding groups. I'd NEVER let anyone who did that join a group of mine!
If he does like everyone else, and asks in ALL channel, then maybe he need to consider _how_ he asks. There's a difference in success-rate between "LFG: W/Me 20 to do mission + bonus, will consider any reasonable offers" and "WNaT 2 D0 MiS+B0NuS **NO N00BS!!!!!1**".
But the bottom line is this: whatever his problem is, idle timeout wont fix it.
drowningfish999
I think one of the problems with looking for groups is the number of districts that exsist. I mean, go to Piken Square and they're are almost 20 districts, half of which are empty. I think instead of the current "active district" system, it should automatically send you to the lowest number district that has room. This way you don't have to move around 10-20 distrcits with like 5 people in each, and can find a group much faster. Any district not full would be removed.
This coupled with a good idle timeout thing would make PUG's much easier to start. Maybe it could work that after 5 minutes or so, a popup menu appears saying that in 2 minutes you will be logged off, if they click cancel or w/e, then the timers moves up to 10 minutes, and stays at that until they leave the town.
This coupled with a good idle timeout thing would make PUG's much easier to start. Maybe it could work that after 5 minutes or so, a popup menu appears saying that in 2 minutes you will be logged off, if they click cancel or w/e, then the timers moves up to 10 minutes, and stays at that until they leave the town.
Sythion
Let me clarify my point. I do not want people, chatting, shopping, and people actually PLAYING the game to be penalized. I simply want those not playing the game to not take us slots in a district.
Actually, it does directly address the problem. I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to explain this to you like you're a three year old. 40 players on a server, 10 players are active, that means there are only 10 players to fill up the 8 slots on a team. A variety of classes are needed to create a group. If there are only ten active players in a district, it will be harder to find a group then if there were forty active players. Do you understand? The argument was also brought up that you can simply go to another district. The problem is, this district could be suffering from the same personel difficiency of the original district. Often (especially when trying to find a group in Tomb) this is the case. Let me again say I do not want people who are chatting, shopping, etc. to be punished. People who say things like "Let's just leave the game on all night and meet up again at 7 tomorrow in the same group." make it pointlessly more difficult for everyone else in the game to find a PUG. This is NOT acceptable.
I'm sorry, did I use L337 speak at any point in my original post? Did I say anything that would lead to the assumption that I'm an impatient 12 year old? Obviously, it's difficult for you to find groups as well, or you wouldn't have said we need to address the problem of finding PUGs. So why in the world would you assume I have any more difficulties then you in finding a group?
Leave your assumptions and flaming at the door, or else you will contribute to the attitude of hate and blame that corrupts this game.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius
But idle time out DOESN'T ADRESS THE PROBLEM THAT IT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO FIND PUGs!
It'll be no easier finding PUGs if idle players get booted. It's not so that the number of places in town is limited, so that if an idle player is booted, an active player can get in. It doesn't even help much with lag. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius
It sounds as if the original poster looks for PUGs by randomly clicking on players and selecting 'join', and then I'm not surprised he finds it hard finding groups. I'd NEVER let anyone who did that join a group of mine!
If he does like everyone else, and asks in ALL channel, then maybe he need to consider _how_ he asks. There's a difference in success-rate between "LFG: W/Me 20 to do mission + bonus, will consider any reasonable offers" and "WNaT 2 D0 MiS+B0NuS **NO N00BS!!!!!1**". |
Leave your assumptions and flaming at the door, or else you will contribute to the attitude of hate and blame that corrupts this game.
Miss Puddles
/afk emote
if they're sitting, they're away. easy as pie.
if they're sitting, they're away. easy as pie.