Upgraded Ignore List - A possible cure? Issue of leechers, AFKers

Note to Mods:
My thanks to the mod who helped change the title of this thread.
Much appreciated. Cheers, mate.

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

Reference Threads:
08-10-2006 | luxor9 | How about this for quitters
08-10-2006 | Naqser | An end to leechers
08-01-2006 | prism2525 | How long is your Ignore List? (no names pls)
07-19-2006 | Raiin Maker | How to stop AFK Faction Leeching.
07-19-2006 | Deathwingg00 | Prevent leeching: give them what they want: ISLE OF MEDITATION
07-09-2006 | scrinner | My solution to Leeching. Please read
07-08-2006 | Ira Blinks | Gaile Gray: Leechers are not a support issue.
06-12-2006 | unknown1 | AFkers in Fort aspenwood
05-31-2006 | Maria The Princess | new Title: The Quitter
06-08-2006 | lansid_drakken | They have anti-farm code, now what about anti-quit and anti-leech code?
06-01-2006 | Aerial Stormshadow | Anet, please listen (closed thread)
05-29-2006 | Unkillable Cat | New leech bot
05-25-2006 | Vermilion Okeanos | Need an official word.
05-21-2006 | Ira Blinks | [Petition] Remove faction reward for the losing side in Aspenwood
05-23-2006 | Ira Blinks | Official response to leechers problem.

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

With reference to the recent discussion about the issue of leechers:
Gaile Gray: Leechers are not a support issue.

This thread will serve as a suggestion thread on how to come up with a suitable proposal to deal with the issue of leechers in Guild Wars, particularly the "Random Arenas" in which we have no control of who our potential team members would be, such as the "Random Arenas" and the 2 "Competitive Missions" - "Fort Aspenwood" and "Jade Quarry".

================================
List of Proposed Ideas to deal with the issue of leechers, AFKers
================================
Upgraded Ignore List (by GrendelScout1)
An example for an idea of how this would work:

1. John know Mary is a leecher, AFKer
2. John adds Mary to his personal Upgraded 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 Ban List could be teamed up with Mary

6. Friends of John who know and trust his judgement also place Mary in thier respective Personal Upgraded Ignore Lists.
7. John and his friends live happily ever after.

Proposed Features:
- Like the existing Ignore List, only a maximum of 10 players can be added to this list
- Will prevent you from joining their teams
- Not preventing them from joining your team
- Only works in Random Arenas, Fort Aspenwood, Jade Quarry, Alliance Battles
- Will only function to a certain extent
- If there are no better choices of players available
- You will still be teamed up with them


================================
Commentary:
================================
As shown from the list of threads under the "Reference Threads", the issue of leechers is not new, and it has been mentioned before in the past. I believe something must be done about this.

If ANET is unable to code something up to counter this issue, at least amend the Rules of Conduct.

================================
Discuss.
================================

Poll:
You like the idea of "Upgraded Ignore List" and would like to see ANET implement a similiar function into Guild Wars. Yes / No

(8) Yes
=====
Tuoba Hturt Eht, LuxA, TheLordOfBlah, Legendary Shiz, Cash, Ventius Hozza, Gargle Blaster


(0) No
=====

1. yes - as long as it is not limited to 10 people *duh*
2. yes - if 1. is not implemented, otherwise irrelevant.

Tho I see 2. being more important and realistic than 1. given how long it takes ANet to do anything playerbase asking for and that 1. can bring up more issues like people banlisting eachother left and right untill nobody can join anything.

It's a good idea, but too easily abused.

1 Yes for all missions
2 No might not be possible due to local law's and regulations(world wide game)(Panda not a pet= Chines law prohibits use of Panda. (just an example))

No easily abused

Agreed. ANet won't make a system that could be easily abused or exploited.

This is not Medal of Honor or any other FPS based online game. If you want to ban people then go setup a FPS based online server and ban people if you want. By adding a ban function to GW for players use WOULD lead to abuse.

/notsigned

Interesting idea, and I'd like to use it in-game for me, personally, but... meh. I don't think it would serve the general GW player base very well.

It just cries for abuse, no thanks. /notsigned

Sorry but no to both, far too easy to abuse.

id have to say no for good reason ill leave an example of this abuse-

player x is a W/Mo who is just using mending as the primary heal player y is a monk teamed with player x and typically hates EVERY W/Mo that uses mending because of bad experiences so player y adds every W/Mo that using mending to ban list.

i see people come into my teams in RA and leave after they say F*** no monk *player quits* people like that i could see adding to a ban list but alot of other times i see people quit because for some unforseen reason they hate every W/Mo that uses mending in the start of a battle so i can just see way to many people adding to ban list many reasons except what your saying it should be used for good idea way to hard to do tho

Genius, simply genius. Are you Serious!? How the hell is this not only an intelligent answerer, but more importantly helpful? Do us a favor, don't post.



Anyways, although something does need to be done about this issue, the approach you have chosen will undoubtedly be abused. There are so many factors to consider here that these rules alone won't cover them and still make things fair. One thing my friends and I have discussed regarding afk'ers is that Anet could simply write a code that says, : players that don't use attack/spell/ skills in 20 seconds get penalized somehow:
Notice we didn't say inactive as in not moving because these smart asses would then use the /dance emote to bypass the code. Although not incredibly effective, it would still be better than nothing.

But even then you are not taking care of those who are Kurz and go over to lux and vice ver'sa just to pad scores. Say that to fix this they made us chose one side. Then if you want to switch it costs you like 100k. Still, this deterrent will not work because people would simply open another account and resume the same abuse.

Not an easy issue to deal with, welcome to the world of cheaters.

/not signed

Can everyone fill in the poll in they way it was intended, and not just put up a bunch of /notsigned posts. That way, your opinion will be much clearer and you wont give threadmaker a headache^^

This is more like a higher power of the Ignore feature. That's not really good, but I've been reading the threads and haven't found a really good idea. This is the best one so far.

Until I see or think of a better idea, then:

1. No
2. No

Solution: Deal with it... They are degrading themselves and it's already become socially unacceptable. Good willed people who have been afking in the past will stop. Hopefully, the nasty ones will realise how idiotic they are becoming. The smart ones, who shouldnt AFK, should realise that you have a much greater chance of losing and gaining nothing in the long run, than to actually participate. If this AFK is automatic, then it's a bot, which should be banned anyway.

Not signed,abused too easily. For example...Bob wants to play in RA with all of his friends.So he adds everyone he sees on his ban list except his 3 other friends who also have done the same. Then it's just team arenas for him =/

I know this is an extreme case, but if it was done, it could ruin the arenas.

eh... i wouldn't count on that...
Also "deal with it" is not a solution, its excatly opposite - suck it up and be a loser.

"Daimos Tel Arin was AFK all morning in Aspenwood, leeching off us for 10k faction! Please add him to all ban lists everywhere!"


And suddenly even though you never even went in Aspenwood, you are on dozens of ban lists and cannot group?

/no thanks to both "fixes"

1.) Yes
2.) Yes

Well I think the ban list would have limits to how many people you can add of course, just like the friends and ignore lists. And really, if somemone bans you or you ban someone, are you going to want to play with that person? Not really, cause one of you is going to be treated like dirt most likely (which is why the ban was put on in the first place). It's not like the account is being banned from playing, just from playing with certain people. There are enough people online to where banning people just because they ruffled your feathers during a mission wouldn't be enough to warrant a long term ban. The chronic offenders would be more suited for that. Also, how many times do you party with the same person that pissed you off? Just my 2¢.

~ Riplox

Be a loser I shall be. But this wont address the situation and will only buff the Ignore feature, to which if Anet takes into consideration, will most likely replace the ignore feature, making your efforts pointless.

My only problem is how would the ban listings handle groups? If you're in a group with 6 other people and a person on a party member's ban list tries to enter the group either from inviting himself or from being invited, would that person be banned from the group just because of the one ban from that person or would the banned person have to exist on multple ban lists within the party? Sorry if I made it a little confusing.

Maybe I misread, but I understood the OP reference to a Ban list to be your own personal ban list - not something submitted and the player to be banned for everyone. It wouldn't be so much a "ban" list as an "ignore" list.

Shantel, the first part you have written is correct. There is a difference between the ban and ignore lists. Ignore just means you can't see the pm's the person is sending you. Banning means they cannot party, pm, or trade with you.

First, I must express my gratitude for all the feedback that this thread has received within such a short time, it is much appreciated. Much thanks for all those who replied and expressed their opinions.

I understand that such a powerful function could of course be very easily abusable, which I why I posted this up in here, for everyone to read and to discuss, so that, hopefully, eventually, we can come up with a perfect system to combat the leechers, AFKers.

I think most of the people who objected to this idea and saying it is too easily abusable might have misunderstood the function of this proposed "Ban List", perhaps the name itself might be misleading.

Perhaps it is best to rename it from "The Ban List" into something else, such as "Improved Ignore List" or "Enchanced Ignore List" etc. I think it is just better to upgrade the existing Ignore List, as was original suggested by GrendelScout1, the person who originally came up with this idea.

Question:
Why would we want to be in the same team as the person that we just placed on our Ignore List?


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

Ira Blinks,

By limiting it to 10 people would kinda make certain that this "Ban List" feature cannot be abused, but would still serve its purpose.

I believe "issues like people banlisting eachother left and right untill nobody can join anything", can be avoided if "The Ban List" has only a limit of 10 players.

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

Stockholm,

Could you elaborate more in detail regarding this?
"might not be possible due to local law's and regulations(world wide game)"

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

Ganik Thress, viper008, NinjaKai, Killmur, General Surena, Tarun, Caldec, xnightmythx, Terra Xin, seandom, Caleb The Pontiff

Would this system still be as easily abusable if there is a limit of 10 players addable to this "Ban List"?

P/S: Terra Xin, I must thank you for replying in my threads again, though our opinions may differ, feedback is nonetheless much appreciated.

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

Riplox,

Much thanks for the feedback that you have provided, perhaps the two of us can work something in order to make this proposal more feasable to the masses.

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

Shantel Span,

It is meant to be an Upgraded Ignore List, kinda of a personal ban list. We can use it to avoid being partied up with the players that we have placed on this Improved Ignore List.

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

Here is the question that I will ask everyone who participated in this thread, and who will participate in this thread in the future, would this "Upgraded Ignore List" still be as easily abusable if it has the following mentioned properties?

Proposed Features:
- Like the existing Ignore List, only a maximum of 10 players can be added to this list
- Will prevent you from joining their teams
- Not preventing them from joining your team
- Only works in Random Arenas, Fort Aspenwood, Jade Quarry, Alliance Battles
- Will only function to a certain extent
- If there are no better choices of players available
- You will still be teamed up with them


Discuss.

ugh no, i'd rather have unlimited ignore alist and leechers then 10 people limit and no leechers.

/not signed

I rather have an unlimited amount of people I can place in my Ignore List.

The advantages are clear:
- Relatively simple solution
- Instant action
- Said action is almost guaranteed to work - a leecher who has been bothering you will not pose a problem anymore
- Less upkeep for ANet, no need for them to individally indentify, confirm and ban leechers (should they do that in the future)

I believe the disadvantages are sufficiently addressed by limiting the number of entries on the ignore list.

And if ANet decides not to take action against leechers, then at least allow the us, the players to do that in their stead.

/signed

Ira Blinks, Hidden in the Mist

Having an unlimited ignore list would mean that this system would be very easily abusable, as stated by many people who replied in this thread.

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

LuxA,

Thanks for the support and the summary of the advantages and disadvantages.

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

With a limit of 10 people in this Upgraded Ignore List, I believe that this system would still serve its purpose, and not prone to abuse.

Discuss.

I understand that, but if i have to pick between limited ignore list and leechers i pick leechers.

Personally, I feel that it would not be wise to make such a choice. It is much better to have at least some form of method to allow us not to be grouped into leechers or AFKers, this Upgraded Ignore List will grant us that ability, plus it cannot be abused to due the limitation of 10 players.

Regarding functionality, it is still there:
1. John discovers that Mary is a leecher.
2. John adds Mary to his Ignore List.
3. John continues the game happily without Mary's presence.
4. After a few days, weeks, or even months, John's Ignore List of 10 is full.
5. John manages his Ignore List to sort out this issue.
6. John is a happy gamer because he do not have to be in the same team with leechers anymore.

I believe that this idea can be implemented if there is a limit of 10 player, same as the current Ignore List's limit.

Can those who strongly objected initially return and comment on the revised idea? Feedback requested.

First idea = bad, very bad,

Please explain how "bad, very bad," this idea can be?

With a limit of 10, it cannot be abused, and it will serve its purpose, it is not doubt the best idea to resolve this problem of leechers, AFKers till date.

Please explain yourself, or else I will suspect that you are a leecher, AFKer attempting to bash this idea to resolve this problem of leechers, AFKers.

Discuss.

THe reasoning to how this could be abused isnt convincing me. The limit it 10. It'll only be effective if a lot of people ignore one person. Explain how thats abuse and not FAIR.

/signed

I dont understand how this could be "easily abused".

If they keep it to 10, that eliminates your little "ban everybody but your friends" thing. And I highly doubt that you could ban all mending using whammos with only 10 slots haha

/signed

/signed for #1 as long as it couldnt be abused in the previously discussed ways.

/not signed #2 .....example

frank just logged onto GW and is looking forward to a fun time in aspenwood. he enters the mission and is very excited to see he apparently has a decent team. all of the sudden he hears the screech of tires and a blood-curdling howl. all thoughts of GW disappear from his mind and all he can think of is poor Sparky ("Why God why?!?!?). he rushes out the door of his home and quickly searches the road for a brown fluffy dead lump, but happily sees no roadkill and soon finds Sparky taking a massive dump in his flower bed. after many hugs and sloppy kisses from Sparky and silent curses to the punk rocker teenagers that must have just peeled out from the nearby stop sign, Frank returns to his computer to find himself reported by all his luxon allies and half of the opposing kurzick team as well. POOR FRANK!

now is Frank a "repeat offender"? no, but thats not going to matter to the dozen other players cursing him and calling him "noob" and "leecher." as they say, "shit happens" and sometimes all of us need to hop off the computer in a hurry. yes, i think its lame for people to repeatedly afk for faction, but i just dont see a way to truly distinguish between those people and those of us who just had one of life's little emergencies.

1: Yes
2: Yes
The possible abuse overpowers the potential good that will come out of this

Also, can we put a time limit on the time that they are on the list? Seems kinda harsh to inhibit them forever.

1: YES!!!!
2: no.

Thank you all for the feedback, much appreciated.
Removed the 2nd idea due to the potential abuse it could have.

Again, I request the feedback of those who strongly objected the original idea which does not include the limit of 10 players in the Ignore List.

Please review the proposed idea again, and let me know if it is still as abusable as before, before the limit of 10 people is proposed.

Thank you for your time.

Feedback requested from the community of Sardelac Sanitarium.
Here, I ask again those members who initially objected to this proposed idea, review the revised idea, and comment again.
Thank you.

heres an idea of how it wouldnt work=

you will never see many of those people again... 10 people ignore list would never cover all the leechers you will encounter in just a couple of weeks.

I think the best way to do it, would be to auto-expel the person from a mission, if they are afk for a set period of time.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that guild wars is a GAME- people sometimes do have emergencies to attend to. You cannot speculate on every reason someone goes AFK in an alliance battle or town mission.

Granted, Im with you on this, but I dont think itl be possible to implement any kind of fix without really hurting some people who dont deserve it.\

I would like to see someone AFK for 10 minutes be ejected before the XP is handed out... 10 minutes is fair- even if your cat spills mountain dew on your keyboard...



Completely banning someone from GW just for wasting 30 minutes of your personal time is an arrogant, pompous approach to this issue.

You are not reading it right, please take note the text below:

- Like the existing Ignore List, only a maximum of 10 players can be added to this list
- Will prevent you from joining their teams
- Not preventing them from joining your team
- Only works in Random Arenas, Fort Aspenwood, Jade Quarry, Alliance Battles
- Will only function to a certain extent
- If there are no better choices of players available
- You will still be teamed up with them

Please take note the bolded and underlined text.

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

"10 people ignore list would never cover all the leechers you will encounter in just a couple of weeks."

10 is a sufficient amount for you to manage your own personal Ignore List, if you need to add in a new leecher, remove the old ones.

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

"Completely banning someone from GW just for wasting 30 minutes of your personal time is an arrogant, pompous approach to this issue."

Read the bolded and underlined text again, it is a personal Ignore List, not a universal ban list.

Yes, this is fine. If you need to "ban" any more than that at one time, then you are using the feature too liberally.

This is fine.

I'm kind of against this idea and I think needs to be changed to something more along the lines of being a majority rule to keep the player off the team. For instance, if 50% or more of the people have the person on their ban lists then that player cannot join the team. If not, the player can.

It really needs to be a globally effective feature as there are more problem areas than that. If I'm going to "ban" someone, I don't ever want to deal with that person again, not just in those areas.

Um, explain please?

I really dont see how you can designate one player as better than the other (unless of course you know for a fact they are from personal experience). I understand what you mean though, and sadly, this is the only real option open that I can see.