[Petition] Remove faction reward for the losing side in Aspenwood

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

/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:

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.

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.

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?

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.

/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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:
/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.

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

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.

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.

Doh, having played, I knew that. *insert approiate embarrassed emot*

Do you seriously think that post was based off anything you said? The part you quoted if you look carefully at the first line I asked a question. If you must know it wasn't your post Loralai that inspired that part of the post but rather the following post:

Take a look at the part in bold then look at the question I asked in the first part you quoted from my post.

However if that is the game you want to play. I can play.

GET OVER YOURSELF. NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU.

Edit:

One can only assume that if you believed that it was directed to you or based off anything you said that you would have to have the same opinion as the person who posted saying people would stop playing it. That is the reason I named no names and didn't quote any post just prior to say such things (or in this case, asked such questions). That I was sure more than just that person posting on this thread was thinking the same thing. So you were not only wrong to assume it was in direct response to you or anything you posted but you are also wrong that it is in direct response of any one person's view.

NO, one can reasonably assume that if you quote me in your post and then use the terms YOU, you, you, that it is directed to me. Reread your own post.

OMG I quoted you after an edit. AN EDIT! The paragraph that followed was the only one based off what you said and only the one part I quoted. It also wasn't even directed to you. I was addressing Ira and all i said was that I understood and gave an example of what happened to me since I saw the same thing happening to him in this thread. Note in this post I quoted you to start off. That means the paragraph to follow is based off that. Although it may not be the case all the time. Though I really shouldn't have to point this out.

lol, there's already not enough people playing in there...

no reward to losing side will just make even less people go there

there are no ways of getting factions already.
stupidest petition ever !!
/not fu**ing signed

/not signed

who will quit? Those who come there to farm faction (leechers and losers)? Oh I'm so going to cry about that...

/notsigned

Man, so much hostility in this thread. FYI: You do lose something for losing a GvG. You lose rating. Rating makes rank. Just thought I'd point that out, since it seems like EVERYONE was ignoring it.

At any rate, I like getting something for my effort. Let me follow with this:
Any other form of PvP (HA, TA, RA, GvG) gives you faction with Balthazar when you kill someone. While flawlesses are possible, there are certainly many times when this isn't the case. So, even if you lose, YOU STILL GET SOMETHING. Maybe not as much as the winners, but you usually do get at least some faction. The way that these work, however, is that you get the faction after the mission is completed, either as a failure or as a victory.

I don't know. There is something to me in the way that Ira is talking here that seems, well, a little bit overzealous. I'm sorry if you find it offensive, but that is just how I'm preceiving you from your posts.

Leechers, afkers, what have you, exist because people are lazy, that is true. People do prefer the easiest route. So does electricity. Anyway...I'd like to see Jade Arena played. But it really isn't, because Faction awards there are apparently trivial. Causing penalties, etc. for leavers/afkers/losers won't necessarily help much. Especially penalties for losing. People don't want to be hurt for losing at this sort of thing, and that will drive many many people away.

Overall, the issue is quite complex. How do you best please the most people? That is challenging, and it is impossible to please everyone. So, not everyone will like how things are done.

Let me get this straight. I am getting very annoyed yes, but that is only because of flaming I was getting for no good reason.

1) Some guy jumps is and says my idea is very bad. I ask why. He never replies.
When it happens third time in a row im getting pissed.

2) Some guy says there are better ways to farm faction. I say well if you only care about faction then go and farm repeatable quests. Why are you here? He gets all defensive and claims I know nothing about this game. Im getting pissed.

3) Some guy says it will drive people off. I ask why. And who are those people that will leave? He gives me blind look and repeats same stupid thing again. I'm getting pissed.

4) I'm trying to explain some guy my idea. He turns my words inside out, add something I never said, intentionally misunderstands things and then claims I say nonsense. I go like wtf... oh yes, and ofcourse I'm getting pissed.

5) Some guy says it will be harder to play because people will be quitting. Say how is this different from now? Leechers are effctively quitters on their own, except that they get faction for it. Plus on top of that they generate extra quitters who dont want to play for them. He abandons this thread of agrument, just so the next guy few posts below could repeat the same thing... And again I'm getting pissed.

6) Tenth guy in a row says that we need some afk detection code. I don't even bother replying anymore, i'm getting pissed silently.

7) Some guy calls me names, tells me I don't know how to play, and then says I have problems with attitude. I'm getting pissed and loosing faith in humanity.

8) Some idiot posts some bullpie, which clearly indicates that he is one of those leechers sucking my blood in Aspenwood. Suprisingly I just ignore that altogether.

And you think there's no "leechers and losers" in alliance battles?

"leechers and losers" are everywhere!
You see them in Random Arena!
You see them in Alliance Battle!
You see them in Story Mission!

So stop crying about that!

there another good example why I'm having problems with attitude.

The only thing that this "awesome idea" would accomplish is making half of the people leave in 2 minutes after the game starts- there's no point in wasting 10 minutes by playing in a team that seems to be losing, it's easier to find a new one.

And it won't even damage the leechers, because if you leave a bot running for the entire night then you'll score 10.000 Faction anyway.

/notsigned

Better ways to fix the leecher problem.

Removing faction gain for people losing will simply add to people who ragequit. Why? As so many other people have explained, the losing side has nothing to play for. Why continue to bother to try with nothing to gain? At the first sign of losing, the weaker team will just bail out since there's no point in staying.

As for the difference between an AFK leecher and a ragequitter, well quite simply, its this - there's the possibility that the AFK leecher might come back or simply act as a additional meatshield. In either case, how sure are you that the opposition doesn't have a similar if not greater number of AFK-ers? Simply ragequitting is giving up without even properly understanding the situation. Staying behind to fight might give leechers some faction, but on the other hand, you're in it for the fight not the faction, so why give a damn about the AFKers?


In either case, people who ragequit at the first sign of something that displeases them are much more offensive than those who AFK, and just only slightly better than griefers. Quitting is giving up without a fight, without even bothering to try. Faced with a handicap? Why not give it your best shot? You might always win, and a loss in any case doesn't reflect too badly on yourself. And what about the remaining players who are giving it their best? Ragequitting is simply abandoning them and quite frankly reflects very badly on the player.

In fact, I'd rather penalise ragequitters of any sort than remove faction for AFK players, let alone the losing side.

Having no desire to ever play PvP-GvG, or what ever, in GW:P, how does loosing that rank effect the PvE environment there? Unless I'm mistaken even loosing rank you can still take a PvE toon and go anywhere and do anything in that PvE environment. Where as in GW:F if your PvE toon is not in a guild alliance that has the necessary faction to control a town or outpost you don't get the benefit of lower merchant prices and the fireworks display never mind not being able to control one of the "l33t" mission cities, which, I suppose is Factions version of FoW/UW and I do not find entertaining and there for am not going to grind to gain the faction so that I can play with the "l33t".

If the deffination of a casual player is based on available time of game play then I do not fit that defination. Because I can and do spend atleast 3 hrs a night playing during the week. In GW:P that time was spent going around the country side seeing what I can see and killing whatever I come upon and running missions when ever I wanted to, to get the necessary xp to advance in the game. This, for me, is fun and entertaining and why I started playing GW in the first place. I didn't have to ceaselessly beat my head against the PvP wall to get anywhere.

Having recently completed the game with only the initialy required 10k faction and on only one side I will most likely take this toon to Tyria. Where there are no restrictions on where I can go or what I can do and when I can do it. Granted I can't yet play any of the missions prior to LA but there are plenty of mission/quests and wide open spaces between LA and Hells Precipas (sp?).

lol what?
Ever seen 3-4 people quit at start? I see that all the time. This IS because of leechers.
Me and some other people already answered there IS something to play for. VICTORY! If you are not there for it, then why are you there? Go farm your faction from repeatable quests and let those who want to fight have their fun, period. This is the ultimate place for lots of people like me who could never get into HA because of rank/profession discrimination and does not belong to good GvG guild. Leave us alone, you griefers.

The relation was the comparisons people were making with other forms of PvP, such as HA, etc, claiming that there is no form of PvP where you can lose something by losing. At least, that is what I recall picking up on my initial reading of the thread.

/not signed

Reason is this OP is slightly flawed, want one control / conquest city to not earn points vs the other 4 to stop leachers / bots earning faction in that one battle zone.

I think it would disrupt throw out of wack Anets system for faction gaiming to try and stop a different problem (that's been around for a long time).

Im convinced that noone reads what people say in this thread... totally

OK. let's start by saying

/notsigned

Now, let me clarify the reasons why:

1) Having people stay in the battle for the full 10 minutes not only grants them a runners up prize, but by staying you're giving your team a better chance at winning, and even if you still lose, it would have been a closer match.

2) Follow up on no. 1. People leave PvP arenas because they die... like... once. Knowing that there is no loss if they leave knowing that they are going to lose, Aspenwood, Jade quarry and that other area discourages people to leave.

It really doesnt matter whether or not you gain faction for losing, you're either going to have idle leechers, or rage quitters + leechers. At least with the consellation prize, you get rid of the quitters.

The answer to a better solution? Anet has trouble handling farming bots, now they have to deal with these suckers... please... they should devote a team designed on minor improvements, bug fixes and bot removals, but I doubt they could afford another team... go figure.

- note: you really cant compare these areas to PvP, PvE characters take a while to develop, it's not like you're gonna get some test PvPer joining battles and dying in an instant.