Well, it is kind of like trying to get rid of a tapeworm by starving the whole family....
No.. Not really.
I generally leave early enough for another to pop in..
Plus I should have mentioned I do not do ANY borg PvE anymore. I am referring to Colony Invasion and Fleet Alert maps. Which have no leaving penalties... no reason to feed the leech.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Your Javelin deals 125417 (89066) Disruptor Damage(Critical) to Tholian Recluse. > lol
Early this morning I encountered a leecher and get his info in the hopes of contacting his fleet leader to see if they would be willing to take action against one of their members that was leeching. It turned out that the leecher in question was the fleet leader. Bummer for me, I suppose.
I know it's against the TOS to call out another player in the forum, but I wonder if that applies to calling out a fleet. I guess it's time to look at the TOS.
Early this morning I encountered a leecher and get his info in the hopes of contacting his fleet leader to see if they would be willing to take action against one of their members that was leeching. It turned out that the leecher in question was the fleet leader. Bummer for me, I suppose.
I know it's against the TOS to call out another player in the forum, but I wonder if that applies to calling out a fleet. I guess it's time to look at the TOS.
it could have been a one man fleet and all the other in it was alts..
really being afk is not against the TOS..
they arent going to do anything about it.. its been an ongoing thing for months.
[12:35] Vessel Two of Two Unimatrix 01 deals 225232 (271723) Plasma Damage to you with Plasma Lance.
[12:44] Vessel One of Two Unimatrix 01 deals 1019527 (1157678) Kinetic Damage to you with Plasma Energy Bolt Explosion.
Early this morning I encountered a leecher and get his info in the hopes of contacting his fleet leader to see if they would be willing to take action against one of their members that was leeching. It turned out that the leecher in question was the fleet leader. Bummer for me, I suppose.
I know it's against the TOS to call out another player in the forum, but I wonder if that applies to calling out a fleet. I guess it's time to look at the TOS.
for some dumb reason we cant point out any player by name, or fleet. *sigh*
So don't bother, or you.. a legitimate player with a legitimate complaint.. about an azz will get spanked by a volunteer moderator.
Seems fair.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Your Javelin deals 125417 (89066) Disruptor Damage(Critical) to Tholian Recluse. > lol
aarons9:
I was referring to the TOS as it relates to calling out a fleet, not to the AFKers. Sorry for the confusion.
urniv821:
I thought as much which is why I didn't mention any names. But I am recording those players in-game information in the hopes that one day it will prove useful, if only to myself.
As far as solutions, "Vote to Kick" will be abused and "DPS Monitoring" would be unfair to those who are new or just don't get it yet. However... Since we can only fire at enemies perhaps it would be possible to implement the following:
X% of players right-click on AFK/Leecher to access player information.
There is a button titled "Report AFK"
This causes the game to monitor weapons fire.
If weapons fire equals less than X, no reward is given.
AFK/Leecher is thwarted while other players are still able to continue with the mission.
Additionally, to really encourage AFK/Leechers to contribute to mission success, their "cut" is divided between the active players in said mission.
Can anyone see a flaw in that plan that I am missing?
I mean, we'd still have Griefers, but I believe this would be an improvement by at least an order of magnitude.
Additionally, to really encourage AFK/Leechers to contribute to mission success, their "cut" is divided between the active players in said mission.
This part i like. That not only will they get no reward, but that the rest of the team gets the leechers reward on top of their own.
Additionally i think it's funny that so many people's response to leeching is apparently to leech themselves or to rage quit. Whatever happened to being mature and just reporting them before continuing on with the mission? By leeching yourself, you just double the initial problem, and by leaving you still make things bad for those that actually want to run the mission(unless done so early enough to be replace as someone said earlier).
It's always funny to me when people flip out over the littlest things like some one not doing something, yet defend or ignore when Cryptic breaks the game, refuses to make finish art assets, or charge $30 for a tiger(NW). People have some strange priorities...
Has there been any mention of that the Anti-AFK actions would be, or is it still a vague comment from an ask cryptic?
Additionally i think it's funny that so many people's response to leeching is apparently to leech themselves or to rage quit. Whatever happened to being mature and just reporting them before continuing on with the mission? By leeching yourself, you just double the initial problem, and by leaving you still make things bad for those that actually want to run the mission(unless done so early enough to be replace as someone said earlier).
^ Exactly my point. Just report and move on. Leaving isn't the solution, if you left so early that a new person got in then the supposed AFKer could have still just been loading in.
I for one won't do so, if I see an AFKer, I sit next to them until they move and encourage the team to do the same.
I've said this sooooo many times, that if someone(s) are indeed leaching. Warn the others to only keep the basic part of said mission from a total fail, wait for 15mins total from the time you first started the mission to expire and leave. It won't give you the hour penalty, trust me I do this all the time when I spot a leecher. I sit in wait usually cloaked, warn the others of the situation with said player(s) to do the same provided things don't have to be killed to prevent a failure, and after a few mins warn them to leave and than I leave. Whammo no penalty!!! I know 15mins sounds like a waste of time, but figure it helps cut down on the leeching opportunity and is much better turn around time than 1 hour!!! Oh and almost forgot if you can manage to do it draw as many enemies over to the leacher, and try to encourage them to attack him. Than everyone leaves!!!
In my opinion, if you leave because of an AFK player, you're just as bad as them, forcing others to do the mission without your help.
So leaving because you don't want to keep encouraging someone to leech and you don't want to keep playing a mission that will take longer because of said leecher makes someone as bad as a leecher?
That is just a messed up opinion.
If everyone quit when someone tries to leech the leeching would stop because the leechers would not get any rewards. Keep playing the missions when someone is leeching just encourages someone to leech and the problem will never go away.
AFK players here remind me a lot of the "camper" problem of Unreal tournament, but opposite in that situation, it was a player who would sit on a specific weapon or power up spawn and actively keep it out of play for everyone else.
the solution there was to time how long they stood in one place, and once it was too long, all players in the game got a warning about it and could gang up on him, vote the player out of the map, and some servers even banned players for it automatically.
So if the problems are as opposite and they are similar, then the only solution to AFK is to do the same thing, but exactly opposite...
-TL/DR-
count how long a player stays out of combat rang from the rest of the team, or in a required mission zone (like the end room of Stasis), for 60 seconds then everyone playing is warned of the player being afk - if the player doesn't get back with the group after another 30 or seconds, they are flagged as afk.
when a player is flagged as AFK, their cool down time for that STF is doubled - and everyone else in the team has their cool down timer cut in half.
- Using Khitomer in Stasis as the continuing example here, all players would have to stay within combat range of each other all the way until the nodes are cleared, then the player who goes to the room will be exempt.
While this might be suitable for FPS games, I doubt it will work here. Some of the carrier players tend to park their ships in the lanes of the enemy and then fire away and command their pets around without moving much themselves until the current task is finished and they have to sit in another lane.
I think there is no easy solution to this problem, since every solution mentioned so far tends to be unfair in one or another way towads people who are not afk but might be seen so using that logic, or the logic was to easily to fool.
In my eye the best solution (and still far from being perfect) would be a new grouping logic and a queue flag. This flag could be set by me when I play together with people in PVE. They have to answer the flagging request just like a friend request, though it isn't one.
Now the grouping logic would look for people I have flagged once I started a new queue and preferably throw me together with those when they play the same mission.
That way I could ensure to play with people I have played well with already and minimize the chance of getting teamed with an afker.
It doesn't eliminate the chance though. Also the flagging request might be turned down for no reason leaving the chance unused (some people are just strange sometimes).
Also it would create a whole new lot of database entries for the accounts whose impact on the performance I cannot judge.
the easiest method is the vote kick method employed by hundreds of mmos
If 3 out of the 5 people want someone off the team they can, its simple and after having an argument with some complete tool saying "im not afk im busy doing other things" while he stood there and did nothing.
Any automated monitoring system that auto kicks players based on game activity is a bad idea. As mentioned, keyboard or movement trackers will backfire on some legitimate players in one form or another.
I like browserxl solution, and it reminds me of the match making logic of some FPS games on consoles. After you are done with a match, you can flag someone as good, bad or not at all. Good players get queued with you more, and you avoid bad players get avoided for... lets say 6 months. If a player is persistently flagged as a bad player, say after 50/flags in X time, the player is removed from the queue system for Y time, as well as an anonymous explanation as to why. (Ninja looting, AFK, failed mission, ect.)
The number would need to be quite high for queue ban though, to prevent griefing on a small scale and having newbie players who just needs gear and training get banned by elitist.
Live on Earth. Work in Space. Play with Dragons. Join the best add on to STO, the Neverwinter holodeck program! Only 14 GPL a month.
Hundreds of threads and posts have more or less come to the conclusion that ignored players should be prevented from being put into an instance with you. Aside from eventually making it impossible for afkers to get a group, it will have the added bonus that you will never again have to see that guy who threw a temper tantrum because you got a 'lucky' torp crit on ISE. It's also a better system than 'vote-to-kick' because it's an anonymous and passive way to improve your own gameplay experience.
"So my fun is wrong?"
No. Your fun makes everyone else's fun wrong by default.
i would like it if they made it so ignored players cant be put on your team..
but i am guessing if the game allowed this to be added it would have by now..
im guessing its much hard then it seems..
a vote to kick would be nice.. but its not going to happen either.. or it already would have been added as well.
its going to be a growing problem tho.. so they might do something about it someday.
[12:35] Vessel Two of Two Unimatrix 01 deals 225232 (271723) Plasma Damage to you with Plasma Lance.
[12:44] Vessel One of Two Unimatrix 01 deals 1019527 (1157678) Kinetic Damage to you with Plasma Energy Bolt Explosion.
Additionally i think it's funny that so many people's response to leeching is apparently to leech themselves or to rage quit. Whatever happened to being mature and just reporting them before continuing on with the mission? By leeching yourself, you just double the initial problem, and by leaving you still make things bad for those that actually want to run the mission(unless done so early enough to be replace as someone said earlier).
So your only solution is to give the leecher the rewards he came for while making some pointless report of him?
Hundreds of threads and posts have more or less come to the conclusion that ignored players should be prevented from being put into an instance with you. Aside from eventually making it impossible for afkers to get a group, it will have the added bonus that you will never again have to see that guy who threw a temper tantrum because you got a 'lucky' torp crit on ISE. It's also a better system than 'vote-to-kick' because it's an anonymous and passive way to improve your own gameplay experience.
Maybe some other than ignore. It is hard to unigonre player. If you ignore someone who dont know how to play than pople who dont know how to play or are now in game get more and more ignores, play less and have less chance so play.
Something like new option "dont want to play with payer". If you choose it you wont be put in the team wiht that player for maybe 1 week. If you choose this opiton second, trird, fourth time that one week will become 2 weeks, 3 weeks...
Hundreds of threads and posts have more or less come to the conclusion that ignored players should be prevented from being put into an instance with you. Aside from eventually making it impossible for afkers to get a group, it will have the added bonus that you will never again have to see that guy who threw a temper tantrum because you got a 'lucky' torp crit on ISE. It's also a better system than 'vote-to-kick' because it's an anonymous and passive way to improve your own gameplay experience.
That would only be half the truth. I would have to play at least with them once so that I know they have been a bad experience to play with. And if I remember correctly, I have rarely encountered the same person twice when I pugged. I liked kyetos addition to the system to rate the player as good, bad or neutral, which would serve all purposes.
Though I think a ban would be counter productive, since it is easily abused (just like the votekick).
they should just give players the option to buy/rent a Moderator license item
so team leaders can have the ability to vote kick players.
and if more then one person has the item it should randomly choose
who should be leader.
and vote kicking success or failure to kick will determine your importance
as a moderator and result to not make you a team leader.
While this might be suitable for FPS games, I doubt it will work here. Some of the carrier players tend to park their ships in the lanes of the enemy and then fire away and command their pets around without moving much themselves until the current task is finished and they have to sit in another lane.
I think there is no easy solution to this problem, since every solution mentioned so far tends to be unfair in one or another way towads people who are not afk but might be seen so using that logic, or the logic was to easily to fool.
In my eye the best solution (and still far from being perfect) would be a new grouping logic and a queue flag. This flag could be set by me when I play together with people in PVE. They have to answer the flagging request just like a friend request, though it isn't one.
Now the grouping logic would look for people I have flagged once I started a new queue and preferably throw me together with those when they play the same mission.
That way I could ensure to play with people I have played well with already and minimize the chance of getting teamed with an afker.
It doesn't eliminate the chance though. Also the flagging request might be turned down for no reason leaving the chance unused (some people are just strange sometimes).
Also it would create a whole new lot of database entries for the accounts whose impact on the performance I cannot judge.
I don't understand , if you are commanding pets and shooting , how could you get kicked for non activity? Although i like the flag system idea. How about having to get a minimum score within a certain period of time and if not the afker gets warped out for a new player?
Captains, we only need one active thread about AFK at a time.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I don't understand , if you are commanding pets and shooting , how could you get kicked for non activity? Although i like the flag system idea. How about having to get a minimum score within a certain period of time and if not the afker gets warped out for a new player?
Well the original idea was lent from Unreal and FPS games in general. If I remember my old UT:GOTY days right such anti camping system worked on the basis of a char moving or not. While this works nice for an FPS it won't work for a park and shoot approach of a carrier commander.
The problem with all those system like kick vote scoring and such is that put either artificial boundries, which are either hard to cope with for certain people, or are easily cheated, or are even easier abused (as for the vote ... pray that when you get in line with 3 people from one fleet that they don't kick you for the "lulz" 2 seconds before the loot bags are dished out).
As I said, there is no easy choice as human beings are involved and they tend to find the loop holes in everything. And yes they want to use it to harm you ... as simple as that.
I'm not sure how you decide that peeps are not participating or what makes you certain that you are correct. Granted, I have played plenty of the missions where it wasn't apparent to me what everyone else was doing, but I trust that since they also have something to gain by participating that they are. Perhaps they are not as effective as you are, but that doesn't necessarily indicate that they aren't trying. On the Azure Nebula, I've found that having 1 or 2 peeps sneak in to take care of the tractor beams while everyone else is engaging the Tholians allows you to free the ship long before you would be able to destroy all of the Tholian ships. Since the goal is to free the maximum number of ships and thereby maximize the benefit to everyone, why is that a problem?
there was a solution a while back, rather then figure it out
and learn how it worked, the devs gave in to all the complaining
and they removed it.
but that was part of the devs fault for not pointing out how the
new system worked. if they put it back in and put in a tutorial
on how the new system works i am pretty sure it would work out
if they decided to bring it back.
Comments
All I see you say is ''suck it up''.
I for one won't do so, if I see an AFKer, I sit next to them until they move and encourage the team to do the same.
No.. Not really.
I generally leave early enough for another to pop in..
Plus I should have mentioned I do not do ANY borg PvE anymore. I am referring to Colony Invasion and Fleet Alert maps. Which have no leaving penalties... no reason to feed the leech.
Your Javelin deals 125417 (89066) Disruptor Damage(Critical) to Tholian Recluse. > lol
Thank you ^^
We need more people like this that do not just feed the worms while saying.. "Oh well"
Your Javelin deals 125417 (89066) Disruptor Damage(Critical) to Tholian Recluse. > lol
I know it's against the TOS to call out another player in the forum, but I wonder if that applies to calling out a fleet. I guess it's time to look at the TOS.
it could have been a one man fleet and all the other in it was alts..
really being afk is not against the TOS..
they arent going to do anything about it.. its been an ongoing thing for months.
[12:44] Vessel One of Two Unimatrix 01 deals 1019527 (1157678) Kinetic Damage to you with Plasma Energy Bolt Explosion.
for some dumb reason we cant point out any player by name, or fleet. *sigh*
So don't bother, or you.. a legitimate player with a legitimate complaint.. about an azz will get spanked by a volunteer moderator.
Seems fair.
Your Javelin deals 125417 (89066) Disruptor Damage(Critical) to Tholian Recluse. > lol
I was referring to the TOS as it relates to calling out a fleet, not to the AFKers. Sorry for the confusion.
urniv821:
I thought as much which is why I didn't mention any names. But I am recording those players in-game information in the hopes that one day it will prove useful, if only to myself.
As far as solutions, "Vote to Kick" will be abused and "DPS Monitoring" would be unfair to those who are new or just don't get it yet. However... Since we can only fire at enemies perhaps it would be possible to implement the following:
X% of players right-click on AFK/Leecher to access player information.
There is a button titled "Report AFK"
This causes the game to monitor weapons fire.
If weapons fire equals less than X, no reward is given.
AFK/Leecher is thwarted while other players are still able to continue with the mission.
Additionally, to really encourage AFK/Leechers to contribute to mission success, their "cut" is divided between the active players in said mission.
Can anyone see a flaw in that plan that I am missing?
I mean, we'd still have Griefers, but I believe this would be an improvement by at least an order of magnitude.
This part i like. That not only will they get no reward, but that the rest of the team gets the leechers reward on top of their own.
Additionally i think it's funny that so many people's response to leeching is apparently to leech themselves or to rage quit. Whatever happened to being mature and just reporting them before continuing on with the mission? By leeching yourself, you just double the initial problem, and by leaving you still make things bad for those that actually want to run the mission(unless done so early enough to be replace as someone said earlier).
It's always funny to me when people flip out over the littlest things like some one not doing something, yet defend or ignore when Cryptic breaks the game, refuses to make finish art assets, or charge $30 for a tiger(NW). People have some strange priorities...
Has there been any mention of that the Anti-AFK actions would be, or is it still a vague comment from an ask cryptic?
^ Exactly my point. Just report and move on. Leaving isn't the solution, if you left so early that a new person got in then the supposed AFKer could have still just been loading in.
I've said this sooooo many times, that if someone(s) are indeed leaching. Warn the others to only keep the basic part of said mission from a total fail, wait for 15mins total from the time you first started the mission to expire and leave. It won't give you the hour penalty, trust me I do this all the time when I spot a leecher. I sit in wait usually cloaked, warn the others of the situation with said player(s) to do the same provided things don't have to be killed to prevent a failure, and after a few mins warn them to leave and than I leave. Whammo no penalty!!! I know 15mins sounds like a waste of time, but figure it helps cut down on the leeching opportunity and is much better turn around time than 1 hour!!! Oh and almost forgot if you can manage to do it draw as many enemies over to the leacher, and try to encourage them to attack him. Than everyone leaves!!!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
So leaving because you don't want to keep encouraging someone to leech and you don't want to keep playing a mission that will take longer because of said leecher makes someone as bad as a leecher?
That is just a messed up opinion.
If everyone quit when someone tries to leech the leeching would stop because the leechers would not get any rewards. Keep playing the missions when someone is leeching just encourages someone to leech and the problem will never go away.
the solution there was to time how long they stood in one place, and once it was too long, all players in the game got a warning about it and could gang up on him, vote the player out of the map, and some servers even banned players for it automatically.
So if the problems are as opposite and they are similar, then the only solution to AFK is to do the same thing, but exactly opposite...
-TL/DR-
count how long a player stays out of combat rang from the rest of the team, or in a required mission zone (like the end room of Stasis), for 60 seconds then everyone playing is warned of the player being afk - if the player doesn't get back with the group after another 30 or seconds, they are flagged as afk.
when a player is flagged as AFK, their cool down time for that STF is doubled - and everyone else in the team has their cool down timer cut in half.
- Using Khitomer in Stasis as the continuing example here, all players would have to stay within combat range of each other all the way until the nodes are cleared, then the player who goes to the room will be exempt.
Me playing UT2k4 (red guy) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz0DnP7wXnU
I think there is no easy solution to this problem, since every solution mentioned so far tends to be unfair in one or another way towads people who are not afk but might be seen so using that logic, or the logic was to easily to fool.
In my eye the best solution (and still far from being perfect) would be a new grouping logic and a queue flag. This flag could be set by me when I play together with people in PVE. They have to answer the flagging request just like a friend request, though it isn't one.
Now the grouping logic would look for people I have flagged once I started a new queue and preferably throw me together with those when they play the same mission.
That way I could ensure to play with people I have played well with already and minimize the chance of getting teamed with an afker.
It doesn't eliminate the chance though. Also the flagging request might be turned down for no reason leaving the chance unused (some people are just strange sometimes).
Also it would create a whole new lot of database entries for the accounts whose impact on the performance I cannot judge.
10k DPS Vesta threads: 1; 2
If 3 out of the 5 people want someone off the team they can, its simple and after having an argument with some complete tool saying "im not afk im busy doing other things" while he stood there and did nothing.
I think its needed all the more.
I like browserxl solution, and it reminds me of the match making logic of some FPS games on consoles. After you are done with a match, you can flag someone as good, bad or not at all. Good players get queued with you more, and you avoid bad players get avoided for... lets say 6 months. If a player is persistently flagged as a bad player, say after 50/flags in X time, the player is removed from the queue system for Y time, as well as an anonymous explanation as to why. (Ninja looting, AFK, failed mission, ect.)
The number would need to be quite high for queue ban though, to prevent griefing on a small scale and having newbie players who just needs gear and training get banned by elitist.
No. Your fun makes everyone else's fun wrong by default.
but i am guessing if the game allowed this to be added it would have by now..
im guessing its much hard then it seems..
a vote to kick would be nice.. but its not going to happen either.. or it already would have been added as well.
its going to be a growing problem tho.. so they might do something about it someday.
[12:44] Vessel One of Two Unimatrix 01 deals 1019527 (1157678) Kinetic Damage to you with Plasma Energy Bolt Explosion.
So your only solution is to give the leecher the rewards he came for while making some pointless report of him?
There is nothing more to do against it. I just hope those guys get punished.
Something like new option "dont want to play with payer". If you choose it you wont be put in the team wiht that player for maybe 1 week. If you choose this opiton second, trird, fourth time that one week will become 2 weeks, 3 weeks...
That would only be half the truth. I would have to play at least with them once so that I know they have been a bad experience to play with. And if I remember correctly, I have rarely encountered the same person twice when I pugged. I liked kyetos addition to the system to rate the player as good, bad or neutral, which would serve all purposes.
Though I think a ban would be counter productive, since it is easily abused (just like the votekick).
so team leaders can have the ability to vote kick players.
and if more then one person has the item it should randomly choose
who should be leader.
and vote kicking success or failure to kick will determine your importance
as a moderator and result to not make you a team leader.
but the idea can be twicked for obvious reasons.
I don't understand , if you are commanding pets and shooting , how could you get kicked for non activity? Although i like the flag system idea. How about having to get a minimum score within a certain period of time and if not the afker gets warped out for a new player?
Captains, we only need one active thread about AFK at a time.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Well the original idea was lent from Unreal and FPS games in general. If I remember my old UT:GOTY days right such anti camping system worked on the basis of a char moving or not. While this works nice for an FPS it won't work for a park and shoot approach of a carrier commander.
The problem with all those system like kick vote scoring and such is that put either artificial boundries, which are either hard to cope with for certain people, or are easily cheated, or are even easier abused (as for the vote ... pray that when you get in line with 3 people from one fleet that they don't kick you for the "lulz" 2 seconds before the loot bags are dished out).
As I said, there is no easy choice as human beings are involved and they tend to find the loop holes in everything. And yes they want to use it to harm you ... as simple as that.
Sometimes ''mega merges'' makes a conversation that was going on, even if similar, get lost in the big mumbo jumbo.
Which can be as annoying as duplicate threads. >.>
no, we need a solution :rolleyes:
10k DPS Vesta threads: 1; 2
there was a solution a while back, rather then figure it out
and learn how it worked, the devs gave in to all the complaining
and they removed it.
but that was part of the devs fault for not pointing out how the
new system worked. if they put it back in and put in a tutorial
on how the new system works i am pretty sure it would work out
if they decided to bring it back.