User talk:Xeeron/suggestions/Dishonorable Combatant System 2.0

Ok, so you go for a piss, that's 3 dishonorable. You gotta do a shit real bad, that's 10 dishonorable. You get 500 points, which would be PISS EASY to get, you suddenly are left with not being able to PvP for 3 weeks. Sorry but this is a fucking retarded system, dishonorable was dumb anyway. Gtfo. Owut 19:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So your bladder has been under pressure for 20-30 some odd minutes, and you enter a PvP match anyway? And you do this so often that you manage to accumulate dishonorable over and over again?  The points and title track both decay naturally...  MA Anathe 19:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we can safely remove that delete notice. Feel free to look at that guy's talk page. Anyways, you can still use a bot to fool the system (ie sac yourself then heal yourself). Or heck, just have random behavior (which can probably slip by in CM/AB matches). While I like any idea to improve the dishonorable system, I think the only change needed to the current dishonorable system is a much bigger penalty. --8765 19:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the toilet reasons are not satisfactory. But similarly, if you get a phone call, or your cat tips water over your keyboard or your housemate dies.  Your team could continuously take you into battle and you'd end up with max dishonourable title and not be able to PvP for ages.  TBH the current system is ok.  Still no reason to put a delete notice like that.  Just because you don't agree with it Owut doesn't mean it isn't a good suggestion.- TheRave [[Image:User_TheRave_sig.png|talk]] (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this idea, it would make things like Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry much better. I would only change it so the Dishonorable title, once maxed, is always being shown, so the player would be unable to show anything else. Erasculio 20:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You only accrue dishonor points in the Competitive Missions, Random Arenas, and Alliance Battles. The only situation your team can take you back in repeatedly is in Alliance Battles.  I'm not sure if other team members can bring you into the AB once you receive Dishonorable - I've never tested it.  Shouldn't be able to, but it wouldn't be the first time something's gone wrong.  Assuming you can still be in a team in AB, but can't enter a mission, your team would have to wait progressively longer to pull you back in again and again - but the accumulation of points extending the dishonorable time period, the additional extension of duration, and the eventual kick off the Anet servers at 8 hours should prevent you from receiving more than ~80 ish title points, at which point dishonor would last somewhere around 3 hours.  The points would take forever to decay, though.  Increasing the rate of title decay would probably be necessary, in retrospect. Enough to soak up points from normal play issues, but to prevent leechers from using leeching as a consistent AFK farming method.
 * I disagree with the assessment of the current system. 1 leecher is present in about 80% of Aspenwood fights, 2-3 leechers in about 50%.  "Only" a quarter of the team is excessive, in my opinion.  The worst part that adds insult to injury is that many of these players are career leechers.  You see them day after day.
 * It's not as if I don't try to use the existing system. These is one of the worse matches for dealing with leechers, but it's a pretty common experience for me:
 * http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6999/nonreportingdr9.jpg
 * 1 report by me, 0 by the rest of the team. I've tried several strategies for getting other teammates to use the existing report system, and explained how, and most players just don't report.  In any case, I'm going to revise the title point decay rate to 1 per day as per your feedback.  MA Anathe 20:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I love this idea. I'm so sick of losing because of leechers. Need to use the restroom? Don't click "Enter Battle"! And unless you're answering the phone, door, and binging on tea every single match, shouldn't be a problem. However, maybe the dishonor countdown should be extended, just a tad. Great idea Ma Anathe. Mervil 17:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Too Harsh
This system is too harsh. Especially the way it adds up over time, although I think the severity of the penalty is indicative of how strongly people have come to dislike leeching and how little has been done about it. Things like answering the door, answering the phone, getting an internet disconnection, making a cup of tea between matches and not getting back in time etc would quickly make most accounts unplayable in a matter of weeks.

Leeching needs to have a more effective report system, without discouraging reporters with dishonour.

Reporting should also be made easier, maybe something along the lines of an actual button on the party menu to report someone, this would make reporting easier if players no longer have to type and likely get more reports.

Rewards for leechers need to be removed and this needs to be independent from the number of reports they get, the game needs to identify and punish them, the current number of reports disabling faction gain should also remain in place as a secondary precaution to penalise bots which leech and slip through the game's way of identifying a leecher.

Greater penalties need to be given to leechers who are repeatedly and intentionally leeching. This clearly does not happen or is very rare and selective and/or weak. Players are easily and frequently entering, leeching and being rewarded for it. The current system only prevents them from entering again, it doesn't actually punish them. So as it is, they have nothing to lose by leeching. This is a silly way to discourage leeching.

DO NOT nerf faction gains when you lose to be less than they already are. That was the dumbest leeching countermeasure yet. All it did was make players more frustrated when they lost because of the leeching and caused leeching to hurt players even more through frequent losses. Leechers were merely rewarded less for leeching, but still rewarded.

58.106.42.67 23:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice
This idea looks darn near perfect. It addresses every issue on the table. I especially like the passive approach of the system not having to rely on arbitrary or unreliable player reports. I vote for immediate adoption. Nice work. Flipper 02:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Dishonor for non-contributing
Dishonor for non-contributing in it's current suggested form would be flawed I think. Bonding is one potential strategy that could get unfairly disadvantaged by a 60 second non-activity timer, even though the player may well be contributing. The real problem I can see arising though is in the case of amber runners in Fort Aspenwood. I've had unusual circumstances where I've been doing shuttle runs completely unchallenged for several minutes. No damage sustained, but with a run buff, a drop bundle and several gate triggers being used I'd say I was performing a valuable service to the team in rebuilding Kurzick gates. Such circumstances need to be taken into consideration when devising ideas for dishonour revisions. -- WarBlade 06:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a fairly good point. On the Kurzick end, I'm used to frequent gate reclamation and interference when amber running, but there are occasionally matches where that's not the case.  An accelerated, unconditional natural decay rate would offset those matches, I think.  Perhaps 1 point lost every 90 seconds, which would limit you to 1 point every 3 minutes effectively in that situation, and 3 points per full round.  Then it'd take 4-5 full rounds to actually build and keep 10 points if your only source is from the 60-second timer, and even one round of full contribution anywhere between those would wipe out your point count. MA Anathe 17:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ideas make the game not worth playing anymore..
Why play at all? Why evacuate every right we have as players to refuse playing if others are just plain bad and just want everyone else to stay stranded with them fighting their lost battles? Ya'll impose all kinds of punishments and yet fail to realize the sense of purpose in playing games: to have FUN. PvP is so horribad right now with the Dishonor System that any more negative changes will push me over the edge! Matter of fact, I'm seriously reconsidering whether I should even pick up a copy of GW2 when it comes out (if I know it's going to end up in the same condition as GW1). Why play to cause one's self to get stressed out? I thought gaming was supposed to be fun and pleasurable? GW1 has been turned into a flippin' purgatory! --Ulterion 02:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaving isn't significantly affected, unless you make a habit out of doing it many, many times, repeatedly. If your goal is to put together a quality preset team to roll bad teams, then play ... PvE.  Working with whatever you can get is part of the defining feature of the randomized team settings. MA Anathe 17:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with that logic, is that PVP ceases to be FUN.. when you're the only one playing it. What this forum is for is to bounce ideas to assist the development team in solving complex PVP play issues such as leeches, botting, etc. Doing 'something' is better than doing 'nothing', as doing nothing solves.. well, nothing. If the dev team had all the answers, don't you think they'd have already implemented them by now? They don't have the answers, so they depend on forums like these to provide guidance and suggestions for game improvements. The makers of GW are people too, just like the rest of us, prone to errors, ego, good design and bad, and constructive feedback. As for GW2 ending up like GW1.. well, if the problems can be fixed here and now, then GW2 won't have these same problems. Flipper 23:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Accelerated Base Decay Rate
I think this could probably be scrapped, the needed math adjustments folded into the other points in some way. My reasoning is because with a system like this, it has the best chance of adoption if you keep it simple. The simpler the better. Remember the programmers already have a laundry list of fixes in addition to GW2 content to work on, so whatever you propose needs to be able to be done during a 15 min. coffee and donut break :) I would focus on 1 or 2 key points, maximum 3 and no more than that. Flipper 23:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have two bots.
They do nothing but stand in spawn and cast Word of Healing on each other every ten seconds.

Alternatively, I have one bot that does nothing but cast Word of Healing on the nearest NPC. --76.25.197.215 03:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a still-existing /report system, and it covers both leeching and botting. This change isn't meant to eliminate human input, but to supplement it by discouraging most leechers (and most people can't even script their own bots) and stacking punishments for repeat offenders automatically.  MA Anathe 03:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * /report doesn't work now, why do you think it would work then? Also, most Diablo 2 players can't script their own bots, but that hardly stops them from botting.  This wouldn't solve the problem for very long. --76.25.197.215 03:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)