Various suggestions to improve Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry

If 2 parties of 4 joined the mission, would they be in the party box with everyone included(like it is now) or like AB where only your party you made is in the party window?

If ANET is to implement this, all 8 players better be in the party box with everyone included.

I vote no on the PvP character access. The point of these missions is to have fun with RP characters in a competitive environment. I even like the random aspect.

However, they definitely need a much larger faction bonus (for boths wins and losses), and there needs to be some way to get back at leechers.

Furthermore, the balance of both maps should be examined. I'll write a post on this later.

/ signed

The lack of players especially at the Jade Quarry is making it almost impossible to now gain the Grandmaster Cartographer title.

Not only are PVE'ers forced to play at least some PVP in order to fill in some areas on the map, but now there are places were you wait and wait and wait and wait and still not enough players arrive to form a team.

After sitting in the Jade Quarry for fifty minutes waiting for a team for form I am getting rather fed up.

Not only should something be done to make this mission more attractive to players, but I feel strongly that these areas should be opened up for exploration as well.

How about a kicking system where:

If someone has not attacked or used a skill for 45 seconds, a window opens up
People vote to see if that person gets kicked off the team

This would make AFKing useless, since you may as well just fight anyway rather than just use [insert self heal skill here] every 45 seconds.

There are 8 poll options in the original post of this thread, please indicate which poll you want to sign "Yes" or "No", or else I will treat "/signed" as "Yes" to all the 8 polls.
(Actually there are 9 polls, but one of them is a bad idea so please disregard that poll)

Ideas to add to poll No. 5:
Individual actions add up to total team faction rewards awarded at end of battle (some of which are contributed by WasAGuest)
- time used to complete mission (higher score for faster completion)
- non player characters killed
- player characters killed
- damage done to target foes (spike, degen)
- target other allies health healed (regen)
- gate repairs done
- target other allies' damage reduced (protection monks and spirits)

Intentional AFKers aka Leechers are still plaguing these competitive missions and I believe this problem needs to be fixed before Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry are fun to be played again.

In my opinion, the best solution would be to make the entry system similiar to the current Alliance Battles system, i.e: Entry into mission must require your team to have 4 players.

You can't get around it like that. AFKs go, botters with a simple program to do somet appear. Make it so you can kick people who just follow the same pattern, more sophisticated bots appear.

The only way around it is to actually get people to watch the first few minutes of Alliance/Competitive missions. Like an occasional GM sorta thing. Watch random alliance battles and if something goes wrong, action can be taken. Things like leaving can be ignored... things like leaving just to sabotage should be punished (but double checked first)... botting should be instant perma ban.
You can't automate something like that, within days they'll be new programs/methods to get round the automated process. Its like the chat spamming, how long did it take people to make programs to simply spam chat channels because of the utterly shit filter.

good summarize while some are signed and some are not signed.

you edited your post and left out a bit of chunk.

It would be better to leave the parties at 8, or 4+4 parties. Mainly because you need the people to get through the number of NPC's as well as having groups do different things. but 4+4 will need to be kept to the one party window with all 8... not like how the alliance missions are.

Erm... something is wrong here... the remainder part is missing... I did not delete those section...

First my thread about profession changer is gone, now this... I am very depressed and dissapointed now...

Well, I guess I can attempt to redemdy this error, thanks for letting me know...
Depressing...

Agreed.

Update:
At least I found out that my thread was not deleted, it was merged.

As for this thread, very depressing that the later part was gone.
I am very tired now.
Kinda sad that my other thread was merged.
Happy that it is not gone.
But very tired now.
1am here.
I will work on restoring the thread when I wake up.
Zzzz...

Ok, I think I have restored this thread, well, somewhat.

Much thanks Terra Xin for letting me know that the thread is damaged.
I really appreciate that, mate.

Now we have one poll instead, and I think it is a poll that many people would agree to, aye.

Anyway, this thread is alive again!
Rwar! Let's get the votes in!

Added a new thread to the reference threads list.

Added 6th idea: (Which was original in the first post, but gone due to a freak accident)

6. Amend the Rules of Conduct, allow us to report the repeating offenders
If we keep seeing the same AFKers over and over again in these maps, I believe we must be given the right to report these players who are ruining the gaming experience of other players.

Yes to number one. Obviously it has to be made fairly reasonable (something like 2,000 a win seems over the top to me, but that is just me) but that doesn't mean it should not be implemented.

Yes to number two. Max armor is a cakewalk to get and collectors hand out perfect weapons. Certain mods can be troublesome to lay your hands on, but since when has it been that one weapon mod that made the difference in a battle?

For number three, they would have to be if number two was implemented.

No on four. I do not see any reason to remove the straight up "you either win or you lose" setup, and I would prefer the faction reward stay with that concept.

No on five. There is a reason you don't see me in alliance battles that often: I "dislike" pick-up groups. My guildies don't always want to PvP. Allowing groups of four to form up and go in would be fine with me, but do not lock out those people who enjoy not having to form up a group of players. I would be in team arenas if I wanted that.

No on six. Scenario: 1 minute in to an alliance battle I get a call that my brother has been in a car accident and I need to get to the hospital. Am I going to take the time to finish the mission I am in? No, I am not even going to log off, I am just gone. But I can be reported for afk'ing, possibly getting a permanent ban, because of an emergency in real life. You say that we should only be able to report repeat offenders, but who decides I am a repeat offender? Maybe I make a monk angry, so he reports me for "going afk" but has no proof. Could he not ask all his friends to do the same? Suddenly ANet has 30+ reports of me going afk, I guess it is ban time! And all I did was ask why he was using mending. If you demand proof, how do you get it? Do people have to send in a video of me standing around for X amount of time?

Does around 1,000 sounds reasonable aye?
Why not a merger of both? It would provide greater motivation for the players to perform better in the battle.

For example, a base faction reward for winning the battle would be 1000 factions, plus any additional bonuses earned.
But without such an implementation, leechers aka intentional AFKers would be able to join in and do nothing, just letting their characters sit there and leech the faction rewards at the end of the battle.
Aye. I am refering to cases such as:

1. John enters mission in Fort Aspenwood
2. John sees Mary
3. Battle commences, Johns rushes into the fray
4. John was playing support, as a Charge! Warrior collecting amber
5. John notices Mary hiding in a corner in the room where the architect is
6. John figured that Mary could be taking a toilet break
7. John ignored Mary and continue to collect amber
8. After a few more runs, John noticed that Mary is still in that same corner
9. John ignores Mary again, thinking that Mary could be in the loo pooing
10. After 10 minutes, the battle has ended

11. John enters the mission again, as a Charge! Warrior, as usual
12. After the first run back to the Architect room, John sees Mary again, in that same corner
13. John feels strange about this, but John focuses on his duty - amber collection
14. Again, after a few more amber runs, John still sees Mary hiding in that very same corner, doing nothing
15. John ignores Mary and continue collecting Amber

16. Battle ends, Johns enters mission again
17. John sees Mary again, in the samce place

18. This scenario continues for on for quite some time, say 10 rounds

Questions:
Now, here comes the question:
1. Is Mary a leecher, an intentional AFKer?
2. Should Mary be allowed to do this?
3. Should Mary be reported?

It does, yes. I thought I has seen someone mention 2,000 in this thread, so I picked that number as one I thought was to large

It does, but it also favors certain setups. A team with X amount of this, Y amount of that, and Z of such-and-such would get more faction than a different setup becuase they are more balanced (two point-cappers, two amber runners, whatever). With the current random setup, players very well could start quitting if they thought they could land on another team that was more balanced (and would thus earn more faction for the same amount of work).

Very true, though it would still be possible for someone to join a group and once they got in go afk. This just happens to be a solution I like less than the current setup. Dealing with afk'ers is still better than not playing.

1. Yes. 2. No. 3. Yes.
"Mary" should absolutely be reported. But what is to stop grief reporting? How does ANet know, without any doubt, that the reported player was afk'ing and is not being reported by a griefer and his gaggle of friends?

Aye, it was mentioned by Undivine.

Hmmm, ya do have a good point here, I believe. But perhaps this issue would be resolved if the ability to enter battle as a single individual is removed and players are required to enter the mission as a team of 4 instead?

However, this may promote some other issues, for example:
"Group looking for Charge Warrior"
"Group looking for Architect bonder"
"Group looking for turtle slayers"
etc...

But then again, this will not stop the casual players from forming their own casual groups of players, correct?

"Casual group forming, need 3 more to start mission."
"Group of 2/4 (Mo/Me, W/N) needs 2 more to start mission, self invite"
etc


True, this may happen. But if this happens, then the remaining 3 players would know that the player is a leecher, and would kick the leecher out of the group when the battle has ended and the team is back in the mission outpost.

Plus, these missions are still to be exclusive for RPG characters only, the players can come up with a blacklist to avoid inviting these leechers into their groups.

Best experience is to invite 3 known friends and enter the mission.

Well, I believe ANET do have means to check on these things.

But, as I have mentioned, making it compulsary to enter the mission as a team of 4 players, and we should be seeing much less of these leechers in action.

Added new ideas to the first post:

1a. Equipment Requisitions, Luxon Totems as rewards (by generik)
Besides the Kurzick / Luxon Faction earned, also hand out rewards to the victorious team.

6a. Quiters must be dealt with
Here's a story:
1. Jack is a Kurzick, who frequently plays in the Fort Aspenwood competitive mission
2. Jack is not happy that his Kurzick team gets defeated by the Luxon team every time

3. Jack decides to sabotage the Luxon team
4. Jack travels to Luxon's Fort Aspenwood
5. Jack clicks Enter Mission

6. Jack quits before the battle has even started
7. Jack continues to this for many times

Now here comes the questions:
1. Is Jack be allowed to do this?

But, it is a known fact that, there is no real solution to this problem of quiters.

Removing faction rewards for the team who lost the battle in Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry would bring more harm than good, this is discussed in detail in the petition started by Ira Blinks.

I believe the best suitable solution to resolve this issue of AFKers and leechers would be to change these Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry from "Random Arena" into "Team Arena".

Players would be required to enter the mission as a team of 4 players, this system would be similiar to how the Alliance Battles works, except that we can see all 8 players on the party screen.

This suggested fix is listed as idea No. 5 in the first post of this thread.

My wife asked me a question earlier this evening. She asked if you have someone in your ignore list, are you still able to party with that person. That got me thinking, I'm sure it would possible to implement that feature.

You run into a typical afk'er, you put him/her in your ignore list, and viola! you never, ever are placed into a party with that person again, ever. Of course the size of your ignore list would have to be increased, to accomodate all the sorry bastards. As you come across individual afk'ers, you just add 'em to the list. And as people come across the habitual afk'ers, they gradually will add that person to their ignore list, and your afk problem may eventually go away.

It seems pretty fair. We already have the ability to ignore people in chat, why not extend that to gameplay. It doesn't really seem like something that could be abused, and the offenders will eventually be unable to get groups in any sort of play due to their own poor conduct.

That is my suggestion, although all the credit goes to my old lady.

What if someone just had to go afk, like bathroom or some emergency and you leave GW on while the timer is ticking and everyone adds you to ignore list and you can't play Fort Aspenwood or Jade quarry again?

Yay so now you've also hurt random arenas, not that it matters that much. If you're ignoring them it should just exclude YOU from the party not them, so you'd get less games. Its also completely abuseable if you just don't like someone if it works otherwise &.&;

/signed

I mostly want there to be higher incentive for people to play Jade Quarry so I can actually get into it to map it out.

In that situation, the worst that could happen is you are never included into another party with those seven people whom you abandoned in the battle, or if they are feeling particularly vindictive, any of their guildmates/friends whom they recommended your name to their respective ignore lists.


Or, if you are of the type who genuinely feels guilty when you have to go afk for whatever reason, before you leave the keyboard you would notify the group and apologize. Or better yet, if you know you'll be a while, log/map out. "sry, gtg, gl" or "sry, afk, brb" would suffice. And for insurance purposes, hit the printscreen key before you leave the computer. That way you can personally apologize to each player for prematurely leaving the group after you get back, or if you are on their ignore lists, have a guildie apologize for you on your behalf.


If I were to receive a pm from someone I've never heard of before stating "You know my guildmate (player ignored) really feels bad for abandoning your group the other day. He feels so bad in fact that he's gone as far as having guildies apologize for him because he cannot do so in person", I would respect the fact that your typical afk'er would not make the effort of contacting people that he happened to offend. I would then most likely remove that particular afk'er from the ignore list, simply because of that extra effort.


The chronic afk'ers would eventually learn, due to their constant pissing off of people actually trying to play the mission, that it will become practically impossible to enter these missions, since they will end up on pretty much everyone's individual ignore list. I will not feel sorry for these people, since it will be their own actions that will lead them to their situation of being unable to get a group (to leech from).


As far as affecting RA's, I don't think this will significantly affect it in any way. I tend not to place the goofballs or obnoxious people I encounter there on my ignore list. Foolishness is somewhat expected in the RA's, and people who go afk during a RA match aren't really that prevalent anyway. I'm not sure if that was what you were getting at. I also did not understand your explanation on how this was abuseable, so if you'd care to elaborate, I would appreciate it. Addressing your comment about who is excluded from who's party, hopefully this next paragraph will sum up how I would hope it would work.


The bottom line is, if I elect to place someone on the ignore list, I am choosing both not to listen to anything they have to say and not teaming up with them, which becomes especially important when I don't have the ability to select my party (RA's and alliance battles). The proposed Ignoring feature will filter any interaction with that individual out of my game entirely (hopefully), other than seeing their silly ass stranded in an outpost.

I think GrendelScout1's idea would be a perfect fix for this.

To sum up GrendelScout1's idea:

1. John know Mary is a leecher, AFKer
2. John adds Mary to his ignore list
3. John clicks "Enter Mission" in any random arenas
4. John will never be placed in the same team with Mary

5. Other players who did not add Mary to their ignore list could be teamed up with Mary

Did I get this right?

Exactly.

And don't forget:

6. Friends of John who know and trust his judgement also place Mary in thier respective ignore lists.
7. John and his friends live happily ever after.

(Ok, that might be a stretch)

That is the whole purpose of this idea of an "improved ignore" list.
Yes, we do get less games, but we do not have to worry about being placed in the same team with a leecher, AFKers, quiter ever again. I do not mind if I have to wait a bit longer to get in a game, as long as I will not get teamed up with bad players.How would it be abusable? That is the whole idea of this "improved ignore list", if I do not like that guy, and I added him to my ignore list, I would not have to worry about being placed in the same team with him ever again. The idea is working as intended, where is the abuse?

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

Aye, thanks to GrendelScout1 for confirming that.
Added the idea to the first post of this thread and revised the layout.

0. Greatly Improved Ignore list (by GrendelScout1)
Refer the example for an idea of how this would work:
1. John know Mary is a leecher, AFKer
2. John adds Mary to his ignore list
3. John clicks "Enter Mission" in any random arenas
4. John will never be placed in the same team with Mary

5. Other players who did not add Mary to their ignore list could be teamed up with Mary

6. Friends of John who know and trust his judgement also place Mary in thier respective ignore lists.
7. John and his friends live happily ever after.

Discuss on this newest idea to combat the issue of leechers, AFKers, quiters in Fort Aspenwood, Jade Quarry.

Personally, I think this is the best possible solution.
What say the rest of you?

First, thank you ANET for listening.
I believe Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry is indeed improved by this update.
Cheers.

Ok I got a questions to ask aye.
This refer to Player kills only, or does it includes NPC kills as well?
Can anyone confirm this?
Thanks.

Can those who played the improved Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry post their comments in here as well?
Cheers.

Now, the only thing left to do is to fix the issue of quiters, AFKers.
The Ban list is one option, the other one is make it work like Aliance Battles, compulsary to enter mission as a team of 4 players.

Oh, besides that, the option to skip the cinematic is required as well.

It counts npcs as kills, so when you are clearing out a point you can get faction

The cinematics aren't that long. I haven't found many AFKers in Fort Aspenwood recently.

I think the Luxons Flavor of the Month for Fort Aspenwood is EoE. Whenever I see that spirit go up, I kill it immediately. Ive seen people complain about this in the outpost of kurzick Fort Aspenwood. It can kill Gunther outside of the Green Gate and the Kurzicks can't do too much about it.

I like this idea, but what would happen if too many people added Mary on their ignore lists and Mary changed hey ways and she never got into a Fort Aspenwood/Jade Quarry mission?

Well, I can only say that, Mary should have thought better when she first decided to start AFKing, leeching off other players in Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry.

The only solution for this method is to perhaps limit the number of players in the Ban List to be 10, so people will replace "old AFKers, leechers" with new ones, and by doing so, Mary's place in the various players' Ban List could be replaced by new AFKers, leechers.

i agree with this idea but yeah limit the list so you can't just add everyone.

Thread revival, since there had been related topics surfacing in Sardelac which has been covered in this thread.

About the Ignore List, it has spawned its own thread at here:
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s....php?t=3073065

There is a recent thread regarding the cutscene at the end of Fort Aspenwood, which is already highlighted in there, and brought up before by other community members of Sardelac Sanitarium.

It appears that ANET has ignored these pleas for us to skip those cutscenes, why is this so? Perhaps that it is simply not enough people have voiced out their opinion regarding this.

ANET will make changes if there is a significant amound of demand and support for a particular new idea, or any other changes.

Successful examples would be:
- Titles
- Abolishment of refund points
- Increased Faction rewards
- Infused Pet Armor
- etc

By the way, new topics regarding leeching in Fort Aspenwood has appearing in Sardelac Sanitarium recently, it appears that the issue of leechers has yet to be solved by ANET, it has been a long time though.

I believe that the issue of leechers will never be solved if ANET does not do some drastic changes to the current system.

Discuss.

Please paste this thread into the refrence threads:

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10006414

Thread revival, because there is a new thread regarding PvP access for Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry, which has been discussed before in this thread.

Personally, I believe that the best possible way to reduce, or eliminate the problem of leechers, AFKers in these missions is to make the missions non-random, more like 4 players per team like Alliance Battles. Or even to the extreme, 8 players guild team.

I like the idea of increased faction rewards and new titles.

EDIT: Add to the Reference Threads, http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10010542

Updated Reference List, thanks, TheGuildWarsPenguin.

For a proposed way of allowing PvP-only characters into the "Competitive Missions" in Cantha, please read the following:

How PvP-only characters can access Competitive Missions in Cantha
- Talk to a Kurzick or Luxon NPC in Temple of Balthazar
- 4 NPCs total, 2 Kurzicks, 2 Luxons
- 1 Kurzick NPC - Fort Aspenwood
- 1 Luxon NPC - Fort Aspenwood
- 1 Kurzick NPC - Jade Quarry
- 1 Luxon NPC - Jade Quarry
- Will be brought to desired destination
- If player has Guild Wars: Factions' CD-KEY attached to his or hers account
- If character has unlocked those destinations, of course.

Discuss.

BTW PvP characters will have access to both competitive missions this weekend AND after the weekend event ends.

Aye, thanks TheGuildWarsPenguin for the update.
I guess that ANET do read these forums aye?

Here, I would like to express my thanks to ANET for making such changes.
And, to all the members of the Sardelac Sanitarium community who supported such a change.

Thank you, ANET.
Thank you, fellow Guild Wars players.


Hopefully, the double factions would stay as well, the amount of time spent in these Competitive Missions are similiar to the amount of time spent in an Alliance Battle.

Other than that, the only problem that remains in these Competitive Missions are the issue of leechers, AFKers. Hopefully a solution for these leechers, AFKers problem would be implemented by ANET some time in the future.

Peace.