Feedback talk:User/Guild Wars 3 perhaps/How to Stop the 'Bots and Leechers Once and For All

Eliminating the reward to the losing team won't do much to stop them. They may think that they still have a chance to win if they don't help. If this is what you want, then the best way to do it would be to have a set reward for the losing/winning teams, and then just allot it proportional to the work they did. There would also need to be a buffer to account for the skill level differences. The better players might just run off with all the glory/kills, and the less experienced players don't get as much of a reward because of that, and they will not be happy to run into other players, especially on their own team, which is what Anet wants to avoid. Kormon Balser 21:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The allotting of a reward proportional to the work they did is a good suggestion; provided ArenaNet can come up with an implementation that would still deny a reward to anyone who didn't contribute to the effort. This would stop leechers who just sit there inert in the team base. But it would still reward 'bots; so we'd still be cursed with their presence.

As far as:

...the better players running off with all the glory/kills, and the less experienced players don't get as much of a reward because of that...

They still get a reward for whatever personal kills and control point captures they manage to score in the round (or whatever other means may exist for scoring points in a PvP round; destroying Trebuchets, causing damage to opponents, repairing Trebuchets, etc.). They just don't get an extra team reward if their team loses; but they don't walk away empty-handed, either.

And this is appropriate; more experienced players are rewarded a bit extra for their skill, less experienced players still get some reward (and an opportunity to learn and hone their skills), and 'bots and leechers get nothing. Well, 'bots would still get points for kills and captures but nothing extra if their team loses. This would decrease the likelyhood that people will program 'bots for PvP in GW2 because there's no guaranteed reward for little to no effort, unlike the win-win situation that exists now in GW1.

I agree there's no perfect system, but the current system that rewards anyone for just simply standing in the team base and doing nothing is broken beyond broken. My suggestion would prevent 'bots and leechers from exploiting that flaw with very little impact to those who are actively participating in the round. Though the less experienced may not receive a team reward, I would argue that the cost:benefit of no longer having to endure the frustration of 'bots and leechers more than makes up for that.

Look at it from the other side. If you're a team of less experienced PvP players, the odds are slim that your team is going to win the round anyway. Add a 'bot and/or leecher to your team, and you're practically guaranteed to lose. I'd rather have a chance - no matter how slim - of winning rather than entering a round only to be disheartened at seeing 2 or 3 'bots or leechers on my team and knowing that we're going to lose. Now my only choices are grin-and-bear it through a losing round for 10 minutes (or whatever the PvP round length is in GW2) or leave and get dishonorable status. This whole scenario would - to my way of thinking - be more of a turn-off to players wanting to participate in PvP as compared to a system of "get an extra reward if you win/get no extra reward if you lose (but at least there's no 'bots and leechers)". Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but I would definitely choose the latter scenario over the former.

Another method for addressing disparities in skill level is to implement a system I saw in another game; have ranked PvP games. There would be several different types. One would be a free-for-all open to anyone of any level and any degree of PvP experience. Another would only be open to those players who've played X number of PvP rounds, made X number of kills or control point captures, or earned X experience in PvP. And these could be further sub-divided; one game is open to those who've made 100 kills but less than 200 or 10,000 experience but less than 20,000 experience, another is open to those who've made 201 kills but less than 300 or some equivalent amount of experience earned, etc. Lastly, you would have PvP games open to those who are are new/have little experience in PvP. Of course, this could be abused by someone who is an experienced PvP-er by creating a new character. But that's easy enough to counter by applying PvP earned experience across an entire player account to prevent them from entering games reserved for the less experienced.

Regardless of the various methods, solutions, and suggestions for change, it's obvious that a change - some kind of change - needs to be made if we want to avoid the same situation in GW2 that we find ourselves in GW1. If nothing else, just let me go rogue on the 'bots and leechers on my own team so I can kill them off. That in itself would bring a smile to my face. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 22:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, here is the beautry of PvP in GW2: It's hot-joinable! What could happen is, if a player is unactive for x number of minutes, they are booted out of the match, and replaced by another player. You could even give them Dishonorable status for being booted multiple times as well. Incredibly simple, wouldn't require too much more work than OGW's dishonor system, and would help against would be bots and leechers. [EDIT:Bots might not be affected as much ^^"] Derikvyreflame 22:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The easiest solution (well, it'd only really effect leechers, but as far as i'm aware they're the main issue), would be to check the character activity at either set intervals (every 5 mins of a match) or at the end of a game. Basicaly unless the user does a minimum amount of activity they'd be given nothing, and flagged/banned for leaching. The threshold wouldn't even need be all that high. Just check there's some movement away from the base, maybe casting a few skills etc. 90.200.214.70 23:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's whhat I'm thinking too. However, waiting until the end of the game will keep the leecher IN the game, putting their team at a disadvantage. It'd be better to kick them from the team once the timer has run out, to minimalize the disadvantage the team has. Derikvyreflame 01:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Derikvyreflame. I had forgotten about the hot-joinable option in GW2 PvP. That would work well; if a player is inactive, they're auto-booted. Of course, the challenge then becomes defining "inactive".

For example, a player guarding a control point in anticipation of a future attack but which is not currently under contention may just be standing around not doing much for a little bit. But that doesn't mean they aren't active participants; they're still performing a vital function for the team and will be active at some later point. I wouldn't want to see someone like that kicked from the game nor do I want to put the onus on them to remember to move or use a skill every few seconds or minutes just to prevent an auto-kick.

Of course, for the classic leecher who just remains motionless in the team base, it will be easy to determine they aren't actively participating in the round. In which case they're auto-kicked and replaced with another player. So this system would address leechers.

Where it falls a little short is with the 'bots. They won't be detected as being "inactive" under this proposed system. But neither are they truly contributing to the success of the team; if they do, it's only be coincidence. The 'bots are really just a clever leecher's response to being kicked/reported. They figured the counter to that is to program a 'bot that still moves and uses skills but isn't truly contributing to the team effort. In this way, they avoid being reported (at least the more cleverly programmed ones do) and still gain the free faction they came for in the first place; regardless of whether their team wins or loses.

So your suggestion may eliminate the leechers but we're back to being plagued by 'bots again. My suggestion addresses the cause of the problem - a system that rewards players in PvP win OR lose - and which is currently being exploited in GW1 to the nth degree. For example, I played Jade Quarry the other night and every opposing team for at least a solid hour was ALL 'bots; not a single human player at the controls. When it gets that bad, you know something is wrong at the very core of how that aspect of the game is designed. I'm trying to get to the heart of that problem and address that intrinsic flaw rather than attempting to simply counter the more superficial symptoms. I want 'bots and leechers gone; not just reduced in their annoyance factor...GONE. The only way to truly accomplish that is to deny them the free rewards for doing nothing. When 'botting and leeching is no longer rewarded, the 'bots and leechers will simply go away on their own. If you don't want somebody begging for a free lunch, the solution is simple; don't give out any free lunches. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 02:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Very good point, GW3P ^^. I agree with your idea of reducing the rewards for the losing team, but still giving points for participating. This has been done successfully in many FPS multiplayers, such as through the Halo: Reach credits system. (Ye I kno, I used a COMPLETELY different genre of game as an example, but someone on A-Net has described the new multiplayer as being akin to FPS, so i think it fits ^^). I think this system would work great, and coupled with an inactive-booting system would help keep the playing-players playing, and keeping the leeching-leechers, the deliberate or circumstancial, out. Now, obviously a system like this, where after five minutes of inactivity a player is kicked, would be fairly problematic.

Perhaps a more fair, and team based solution, would be to have a sort of voting system. After five minutes or so of inactivity, a warning is displayed on the character's screen. At the same time, a small, non-obtrusive bubble pops up on your team's screens. It explains that there is an inactive player, and gives each player the choice to cast the vote to either kick or forgive. If, during this voting process, the player returns, and becomes active again, it is canceled, no matter how far into the voting process the team was. Although this would give a bit more power to the players, there is very small room for abuse, as the player will have been inactive and not actively contributing. It all depends on the team at that point.

Now, how do we define "inactive?" Well, to define it, perhaps we should define "active" first. A player is active if he is on the game currently, participating in helping the team out. Thus, a player running around the map, scouting for ther players and capturing posts, is active. A player who is stationary, but healing a teammate, is active. A player who is on a rooftop and firing at enemies from afar is active. A player who is stationary, guarding a post, being efficient and not wasting their skills in case an enemy pops up, but is communicating with their team Via chat, relaying information, is active.

In each situation, although they are not necessarily performing all available tasks, they are still participating and playing a part, no matter how minor. Thus, I believe the following criteria should be met to be considered "inactive":

• Player is stationary.
• Player is not using skills.
• Player is not communicating/talking in chat.

Now, the bots are still a problem. There is no exact, mechanical way of stopping bots, beyond somehow disallowing thridparty programs altogether and monitoring inputs, etc. As I doubt this will happen, the only possible way I can see of combatting bots is having a report system, similar to the OGW. It would be up to the team, but if they noticed someone exhibiting bot behavior, they may file a report. Obviously, you shouldn't be able to spam reports on the same or multiple people, so there should atleast be a daily/hourly limit of some kind. Once A-Net has received the report, they then monitor the activities of the reported player, and by testing the movements and responses of the player, can determine whether or not they are a bot.

Thus, by my reasoning, give rewards for participation and victory, but not for losses. Allow for a vote-kick if a player has not been active (moving, using skills, or talking) for ~5 minutes. Provide a reporting system that gives A-Net a heads up to plalyers exhibitting suspicious behavior.

I am very glad you created this suggestion. Bots and leechers are a major problem in most, if not all games, including the original Guild Wars. If Arena Net can make GW2 more deterrant of bots and leechers, it would be that much greater of a game. Derikvyreflame 03:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Scuse, but my computer lags a good bit, but I enjoy PvP on occasion. It's not fair to auto-kick me cause my compute is being slow.-- Necro Shea Mo 00:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You have to think about this: technically, if your computer is too slow for you to contribute to teamplay, is that fair to your team to have to hold the weight for you, who's computer is too slow to even move? It seems almost selfish to want to get credit for doing nothing and leaving your team at a disadvantage, despite the circumstances. If your network is slow, then I am truly sorry, and you have every right to enjoy the game. However, you must think maturely about it: is that a reason to hinder the other players?

But, perhaps you'll get lucky, and your team is sympathetic. That's where the vote-kick comes in. If a team recognizes a lag on your part, they might forgive this and wait for you to reconnect or whatever. But, the team should have a choice to play with a laggy, uncontributing player or not.

I am sorry if this came across as harsh, but that's the reality: If it is so bad that you can't move, chat, or use skills for a full 5 minutes, and you aren't able to play and make contributions, then you shouldn't be playing, atleast until you can get your connection fixed, because that is pretty much leeching. You won't be getting enjoyment out of the game if it's freezing up, and your team probably won't appreciate it either.

My suggestion to you, and other people who have that laggy of a connection, is to figure out what the problem with your connection is, and find a way to fix it. Not only will you get the most enjoyment out of the game if you are able to experience it smoothly (and actually, you know, PLAY it), it will be less pressure on the people you are playing with if you are actually helping out.

Again, this is not meant to be aggressive, nor is it a personal attack; it is merely the truth. Derikvyreflame 16:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Going back to the original idea, perhaps the team reward could work as some kind of multiplier applied at the end of the match. Not just a fixed value like 1.2x, though; something that relates to the team's effort as a whole (leechers non-inclusive) so that players which did not contribute, and got 0 points, are not affected by the multiplier. It might even be possible to keep a (lower) team reward for the losing team. Jarak 15:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea from a leecher-based perspective. It's strikes a fair balance by denying any leecher a reward without taking away a team reward for those players who were active (even on the losing side).

Unfortunately, 'bots will still be rewarded because they will still score some points (even if those points aren't being scored in the name of cooperative team play with a common objective). Consequently, they, too, would manage to get a team reward multiplier (even if their team loses). Then we're back to 'bot plague again.

My argument is that as soon as a situation is created in which a reward is earned win OR lose, then someone will create a 'bot to exploit it. Which then ruins that aspect of PvP for those of us who are playing it legitimately.

So I'm trying to deconstruct the mechanics of how and why 'bots (and leechers) are created in the first place. The conclusion I keep coming to is it's the result of a system that rewards players regardless of their level of effort or whether they win or lose. I'm not saying this is the only conclusion that can be drawn or that mine is necessarily correct. But as far as I'm able to reason it out, it's the conclusion I keep coming back to over and over. Thus the solution - as far as I can tell - is to stop handing out free rewards.

I realize this means the losing side doesn't get a team reward. But I'd rather that than being plagued by 'bots and leechers. I'm certainly open to other suggestions and realize there is probably no perfect solution. But the moment a reward is given for free, it will be exploited and that portion of the game will be ruined. So how do we stop 'bots and leechers while not depriving the active participants on the losing side of a team reward? I don't have an answer if those are the given conditions, but I'm certainly interested in hearing what other people have to say. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 21:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ideally the game's auto cheat detection would detect every 'bot and none would make it as far as PvP. The problem with that being that it's impossible to create an automatic 'bot detector that would work perfectly. My only other thought is: 'What do other online services use to prevent 'bots from accessing them?' Answer: reCaptcha. Why not add a Captcha test to the start of every PvP match ? - Ok, maybe not every PvP match; make it 'smart' so that the Captcha is only issued if you've been doing a lot of PvP in one session or other 'bot-like behavior. Possibly even create a vote system similar to issue a Captcha to a player. If the person running the 'bot can't leave the computer unattended without the risk of the 'bot being kicked it removes the point of having a 'bot at all. I can see a lot of people not liking this though, having seen the hatred aimed towards Captcha's, so it's really not a good solution; let alone a perfect solution. Jarak 03:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

WOW! Excellent suggestion. I, personally, think it's the perfect solution. I realize it means taking an extra few seconds to type in the Captcha text every time a player enters a PvP round, but I'm more than willing to do that if the benefit is never having to put up with 'bots again. And, yes, I think it should be every match. Otherwise, the 'bot programmers will figure out a way around the Captcha test if they only have to do it once or infrequently. Then, implement some of the additional suggestions made by others above of detecting inactive players to get rid of the leechers and I think we'd have a near-perfect anti-leeching, anti-botting solution. And we could even go back to rewarding the losing side in a PvP match. Everybody wins (except the 'bots and leechers). Simple yet effective; great suggestion, Jarak. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 23:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that A.net did say they're going to prevent leechers from getting rewarded. They started developing their own system, although I haven't seen it described anyway, but I trust them. So no worries, they are covering this problem. DoorMoon 16:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, DoorMoon, for the update. That's great news that ArenaNet is taking this issue seriously. If you ever come across an interview or video that confirms this, would you mind linking to it from here? Guild Wars 3 perhaps 19:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)