Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Amy Awien
They might, and the one-sided change of agreement could be used as a reason to file for a (partial) refund. They're not going to risk anything just to prevent a bit of faction-farming.
On a more practical note, how are they going to distinguish leeching from someone being distracted for real-life matters?
|
The same way a forum distinguishes between someone having a bad day and a regular troll;
Not sarcasm, it's a matter of history and effective log-keeping.
Most games and forums have a method of keeping track of actions taken against an account, and should ideally be able to keep detailed notes for each account.
There's a difference between a person who is reported and logged as having gone AFK a few times here and there across time, and a person who is doing so repeatedly and consistently, usually to farm some kind of reward, as with the Aspenwood missions.
I will admit that many players have been quick to jump to the, "OMG LEECHER" statements, to the point that the match hasn't even started, and there's still 45 or so seconds on the clock, just because someone hasn't budged.
This does not, however, invalidate that many players demonstrate a distinct, and obvious, pattern. Unless a player can be AFK and magically click the "Enter Mission" button many times in a row over a multiple-hour period, this is what is Leeching. And if they're really AFK, it's macroing/botting too, which is in explicit violation of the EULA.
Realistically, leeching and griefing behaviours can never be entirely removed from the game. There will always be more that slip through the cracks. This is wholly understandable.
What is not being asked for in the actual sense, though some people may word it poorly, is that Anet put a complete halt on leeching in-game. Rather, that they crack down on serious, methodological leeching going on at select areas where the quality of gameplay has grossly deteriorated because of it.
Everyone that I know that stopped playing Fort Aspenwood, but still plays Guild Wars, has done so because of the leecher problem.
To this extent, there are a number of possibilities that come to mind, not all mutually exclusive;
- Make Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry parties pre-determined through manual team-up before entering the mission. This will remove the largely non-problematic issue of sync-entering to gain an advantage, and heavily hit the ability of individuals to AFK macro-enter missions, as they'll have to form full parties. This is by no means full-proof, and has the added toss-up of possibly greatly diminishing the play value of the competitive missions for casual PvP players, or enhancing its appeal to a broader base.
- Tie in faction gain to active participation through. This reduces or eliminates the benefits of AFK gains as a deterrent to doing so. However, making it work in such a way that is conducive to all active playstyles (for instance, tying gains to damage would be harmful to monks and other professions that act more subtly), and can result in a clunky or convoluted result.* (see example below) There is also evidence, indicated by recent farming changes, that heavily reduced gains will not necessarily bring about much change in behaviour.
- Attempt to directly target AFK players through varying anti-AFK means. This ranges from 'bot detection' protocols, that use simple turing tests to determine human presence, to 'elegant' solutions of questionable validity that target regular bot activities (or inactivities, be that the case).** Unfortunately, anything made to address this using simple, cost-effective methods would probably only screen out simplistic bots and regular AFK.
- Target the symptoms rather than the source. Ignoring the situation that makes it easy for players to play this way, and diverting resources to removal of accounts that abuse/exploit the system. As a moderator of this forum, I can assure you, though it helps with immediate relief, it's always an uphill battle to deal with things reactively like this. You can never win this battle, though that's not to say it lacks merits.
- Remove, limit, or replace gains made from participation in the maps. As seen with the Guild Wars Winterfest Snowball arena, this is a kind of solution that is both hated by many, but can be effective in reduction of this behaviour. If one assumes that the primary reasons individuals play Fort Aspenwood other than to have fun, is to farm faction in order to gain tangible goods, including, but not limited to, Jade, Amber, and now Scrolls to Elite Missions. All of which are personally usable and saleable goods. By removing the ability to attain these through playing these maps, you remove much of the incentive to leech. Title farming ("Friends of the ____" could be considered a tangible benefit as well.)
*Inelegant, but interesting suggestion draft I abandoned
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Draft Suggestions List
Luxon Pride (Event Effect):
Mouse-Over Summary - "Luxon Pride - Skill. Earn Luxon Faction by aiding the Luxons."
Complete Effect: While under the effects of Luxon Pride, you gain -
1 Luxon Faction for every 3 seconds within earshot of a Siege Turtle.
12 Luxon Faction for every Amber Chunk returned within earshot.
6 Luxon Faction for every Kurzick killed within 'longbow range'.
25 Luxon Faction for each Kurzick Gatekeeper and 50 for each Architect killed within 'longbow range'.
15 Luxon Faction for each Command Point captured within 'longbow range'.
30 Luxon Faction for each unique Kurzick Gate destroyed within 'longbow range'.
150 Luxon Faction for victory.
Max Luxon Faction gained per instance: 1000
Kurzick Defiance (Event Effect):
Mouse-Over Summary - "Kurzick Defiance - Skill. Earn Kurzick Faction by aiding the Kurzicks."
Complete Effect: While under the effects of Kurzick Defiance, you gain -
1 Kurzick Faction for every 5 seconds within earshot of an undestroyed Gate. [Stacking]
30 Kurzick Faction for every Siege Turtle killed within 'longbow range'.
20 Kurzick Faction for every Amber Chunk run to a Gatekeeper or Architecht.
6 Kurzick Faction for every Luxon killed within 'longbow range'.
15 Kurzick Faction for each Command Point captured within earshot.
20 Kurzick Faction for each Luxon Commander killed within 'longbow range'.
150 Kurzick Faction for victory.
1 Kurzick Faction for each % of Vengeance of God completed.
Max Kurzick Faction gained per instance: 1000
|
**This draft looks nice, especially after the prior one, until you realise what a Mo/R does to it. *sigh*
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Draft Suggestions List
Cowardice:
Mouse-Over Summary - "Cowardice - You earn no rewards for your inaction. Active participation will end this effect."
Complete Effect: After standing still or remaining in the waiting area for more than 20 seconds, you suffer from Cowardice. While under the effects of Cowardice, you gain no additional Luxon Faction, Kurzick Faction, Balthazar's Faction, or Experience. Cowardice lasts for 30 seconds or until you attack a foe, take damage, or cast a spell that targets an other ally or foe.
|
It's 6 AM at the time of posting this, and I did not get a full night's sleep, so I can't promise the above is perfect or helpful, or that my judgment is all that great, drowsy or otherwise, but;
I think in order from preferrable to least preferrable solutions, taking into account viability, effectiveness, and obtrusiveness;
- Active suspensions (temp bans) for serious, consistent, infractors. Even a slight reduction in the pool of active leechers would be nice, and there's always the hope that it will deter others from continuing, or starting, doing so. This is compounded if players are inspired to return somewhat, raising the player:leech ratio, indirectly reducing how many leeches players will encounter.
- "Cowardice" (see **) or similar effect. This will kill simple AFK behaviour in its entirety, short of doing so just to grief. To overcome it would require active participating, or use of a bot or macro, which should hopefully wind down this behaviour somewhat.
- Replacing existing Luxon/Kurzick Faction rewards with a higher Balthazar's Faction reward rate, and possibly an alternate reward. What that alternate reward would be, I don't quite know yet. It has to be something interesting, and possibly good for personal use, like Balthazar's Faction, but ideally wouldn't be marketable. I'll mull over this later.
- Mandatory party-making. This would also kill simple AFK behaviour effectively, and may also discourage other kinds of undesirable behaviour. However, for better or worse, this entails a significant indirect change to the very basis of the competitive missions. It might work out for the better, though, and this is an option that I think should be explored on a 'test weekend' to see how it turns out.
Apologies for the longwindedness and tired rambling. I'll see about fixing it later on in the day after I've gone back to sleep.
