Talk:Fort Aspenwood

Archive

---

August 2007 - May 2008

Nov 2008 - Dec 2008

Jan 2009 - May 2009

July 2010 - Sep 2011

Leeching problems

I love Fort Aspenwood but I absolutely loathe the leechers that it attracts like flies around youknowwhat.
I appreciate that the developers have added the dishonorable hex which even affects those who are idle and not necessarily reported, but it is not enough. The leechers are a nuisance for the following reasons:

• Free faction (Zaishen Keys) at the expense of the legitimate players (off to school/work with a click bot on the "Enter Mission" button and return home to full Balthazar and Imperial Faction bars),
• They make it impossible for the team to resign (and therefore compelled to stay for 10 mins achieving next to nothing),
• Other players are so reluctant to use the /report features despite it being clearly explained in the text box upon entering the match. This leaves those who do /report with dishonor points.
• They signifigantly reduce the team's liklihood of winning,
• Reporting them via NCSoft support tickets is not so fruitful.
  

I'd like if the dev team would do something more fundamental to resolve this issue and not employ such symptomatic 'patchwork' approaches. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by VannilaExtract (talk) at 13:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC).

My idea would be to use a similar system as the one on Random Arenas. If a person is considered to be a leecher (by the server if he doesn't do certain things, such as moving a bit more around or by other players if they report him) then he/she be removed from that instance and returned to the outpost, and another player waiting to be added in place, if it is possible. I said similar to RA because there, on a new battle, if there is a free spot (such as from a player who left, another waiting one is added. I also said "if possible" because in RA, new players are added at the start of the match and not during the match, so I do not know if that will be achieved here. Magnum 14:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

FA does have a system that gives Dishonor to players who are idle for an extended period but to run an "Enter Mission" script still means that the leecher comes home at the end of the day to filled faction bars. I'd like to see leeching disincentivized by means of stornger punishments or by compensating the remainder of the team with some kind of faction bonus for their inconvenience. VannilaExtract 15:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Idk if any of you have ever played Castle Wars in runescape - but in there they have the system if someone logs out/gets banned etc, then they're replaced midgame by someone in the outpost/waiting area - they'd get less points than someone who has been there the whole time but its pretty good as systems go. Chieftain Alex 17:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"Free faction (Zaishen Keys) at the expense of the legitimate players (off to school/work with a click bot on the "Enter Mission" button and return home to full Balthazar and Imperial Faction bars)" This is also a problem in JQ and probably can be fixed if ArenaNet were to make players solve a CAPTCHA before being able to click the "Enter Mission" button. --99.232.78.45 07:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr Alex got my point. That was my idea. Also, the leechers, when they leave this way, will get no faction at all, except for the small amounts received per kill. Magnum 08:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

By not punishing this behaviour, they're implicitly allowing it. Does this mean that I have their blessing to afk-leech all day too? I sure would like these rewards for nothing. VannilaExtract 23:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Draws

→ moved from Talk:Fort Aspenwood (Luxon)

Very old topic but they should change it so no one wins if it becomes a draw between Gunther dead and God's Vengeance bar filling up--184.8.108.1 23:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, even if there's no visible difference, there is always a minute (read: very small) time difference between which one happens first. ~FarloTalk 23:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

These two lines appear to contradict each other, can this be disambiguated?

- Turtles are resistant to interrupts; it may take up to 3 interrupts to stop a siege attack. Alternatively, a single knock down caused by a melee attack will stop a siege attack.

- Turtles cannot be knocked down, except with Juggernaut Toss. Any other knock downs will be counted as interrupts.

-- Jmuzz 14:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think they are consistent. The second line says that non J-Toss KDs work as interrupts; the first line says that melee attack KDs (i.e. non-J-Toss KDs) will stop (i.e. interrupt) the siege attack. However, there's no reason to invite confusion by the terminology. I'd combine them into a single statement, something like:

"Turtles are resistant to interrupts; it can take up to three attempts to stop a siege attack. Alternatively, such attacks can be prevented using a melee knock down skill — although Turtles cannot be knocked down (except by Juggernaut Toss), they will still be interrupted."

(I'm assuming the basic facts in the original quotes are accurate.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

With Stonefist insignia you knock them down, if only for a second, and without the animation of them falling over. But it's a real knock down, skills that require a knocked down foe will trigger on it. Atleast if I remember correctly. Kurtan 20:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)