How to solve the problem of XP leaches? Players who do nothing all match!

[silvershadows]

To be quite frank, you're kind of leeching. It doesn't take an overwhelming force to chase one fighter off a satellite, and turrets buy you a lot of time on an undefended satellite. It would only take a single gunship or decent fighter to chase someone off a satellite. Coming in with 2 fighters to your 1 would ensure you didn't have a chance to defend it. The enemy showed no interest in the satellite and your team had to play handicapped because of you. There is no reason anyone should leave any match(that they didn't join midway or something) with zero damage and zero assists.

 

Not true, I can take out all 3 turrets on a satellite in under 30 seconds, and chasing me off does NOT work - I will put all power to shields and circle under and weave in and out of the fins while screaming for help if I have to, but I will NOT leave a satellite if I am the only one there.

 

If 2 fighters had shown up, I would have likely downed one of them WHILE circling the satellite anyway. I'm not a crappy pilot. Two people aren't going to chase me away, try more like five people

[Yorumi]

Not true, I can take out all 3 turrets on a satellite in under 30 seconds, and chasing me off does NOT work - I will put all power to shields and circle under and weave in and out of the fins while screaming for help if I have to, but I will NOT leave a satellite if I am the only one there.

 

If 2 fighters had shown up, I would have likely downed one of them WHILE circling the satellite anyway. I'm not a crappy pilot. Two people aren't going to chase me away, try more like five people

 

You have an overinflated sense of your own worth. You've basically declared yourself the greatest pilot in all of GSF. I've defended a satellite from 4 people before, they were terrible pilots. I've also lost a satellite to one pilot who was a real ace. One on the one hand you want to claim you're 5x better than everyone else in GSF and on the other you say you can't get back to a satellite in 30 seconds.

 

If no one is attacking the satellite they don't even know you're there, if they are then you wouldn't have zeros across the board. Parking on a satellite that's not being attacked isn't all that productive, the same thing can be accomplished with a sensor beacon and you'd be able to actually contribute to the battle going on. If you're are great as you claim you shouldn't have any trouble exerting pressure on one satellite while defending another.

[silvershadows]

You have an overinflated sense of your own worth. You've basically declared yourself the greatest pilot in all of GSF. I've defended a satellite from 4 people before, they were terrible pilots. I've also lost a satellite to one pilot who was a real ace. One on the one hand you want to claim you're 5x better than everyone else in GSF and on the other you say you can't get back to a satellite in 30 seconds.

 

Uhhh. I think you're misreading what I said, or you lack comprehension of it, or something along those lines. What I'm saying is 1 or even 2 bandits isn't going to be enough to make me bug out and let them get a free cap. I'd have to be insane to allow that rather than hug the satellite while yelling for help if I need it. If I thought I was the 'greatest pilot in all of gsf', then I would certainly never call for help.

 

If no one is attacking the satellite they don't even know you're there, if they are then you wouldn't have zeros across the board. Parking on a satellite that's not being attacked isn't all that productive, the same thing can be accomplished with a sensor beacon and you'd be able to actually contribute to the battle going on. If you're are great as you claim you shouldn't have any trouble exerting pressure on one satellite while defending another.

 

A sensor beacon? I'd have to be flying a scout to do that, silly. I'd also have to be flying a scout to get back to a satellite before it's taken when none of my other team members respond to turrets dying. Since I play a defense-built strike fighter, I tend to play defense.

 

But then again you go ahead and have fun leaving sats so you can get 3 capped while you tell yourself that your damage numbers matter when you lose anyway. I'm sure that it means something - anything.

 

 

PS - Also, since it was one match out of 300, I'm not too overly concerned about being a 'leech', but thank you for your opinion, it was at least good for a snicker~

Edited December 26, 2013 by silvershadows

[Yorumi]

Uhhh. I think you're misreading what I said, or you lack comprehension of it, or something along those lines. What I'm saying is 1 or even 2 bandits isn't going to be enough to make me bug out and let them get a free cap. I'd have to be insane to allow that rather than hug the satellite while yelling for help if I need it. If I thought I was the 'greatest pilot in all of gsf', then I would certainly never call for help.

 

I never said you'd leave, they can kill you. Two fighters means they can keep you exposed from cover at all times. You're claiming you can hold a satellite from 4 or 5 fighters, unless they suck, BS.

 

But then again you go ahead and have fun leaving sats so you can get 3 capped while you tell yourself that your damage numbers matter when you lose anyway. I'm sure that it means something - anything.

 

One of two things happened here, either your team was better than the enemy because they won while being a man down, or they needed help and you didn't contribute. You are proud of parking on top of a satellite that was completely uncontested for an entire match and never once thought to leave it even after you would have been pulling ahead in points.

 

Whether you like it or not in that scenario you contributed as much as someone who went afk. You can try to insult me all you want but fact is you didn't contribute to the team.

[abercromb]

Satellite defence is not a waste of a player. There are only three satellites in the matches, hold two and you win. Killing a lot of the other teams players and getting an ego stroke from it is great. But to me if you don't win matches I see it as a waste.

 

I've sat next to a Satellite all match and had no one attack it. I've been next to a satellite all match and fought constantly to stop the other team taking it. I've also flown around the map attacking the other team in any place I could. All of them are valid tactics and part of what makes up a team. No matter how skilled you are as a player.

 

What is not a valid tactic is sitting at the start not caring how your teams does apart from completing your daily in one match if your side wins. At best that player is reducing the chance of that team winning, at worst that player is the cause of the loss by giving an unfair advantage to the other team. If you get more than one of these leaches on your side in the match then it is game over for your team and most likely you will be farmed all game. That's why when I see that we have won 1000/100 I don't think how great, how skilled we are as players and how bad are they. But how many leaches did they get lumbered with. Check the scores at the end and it's pretty obvious who those players are.

Edited December 26, 2013 by abercromb

[Yorumi]

Satellite defence is not a waste of a player. There are only three satellites in the matches, hold two and you win. Killing a lot of the other teams players and getting an ego stroke from it is great. But to me if you don't win matches I see it as a waste.

 

It's one thing to sit at a satellite till the turrets spawn, it's also good to say there when people are attacking it. Sitting at a completely unchallenged satellite isn't helping. No one even knows someone is there so how are they suddenly going to attack the instant you leave. It's also not very far to go one satellite over.

 

This is not about ego, parking on top of a satellite that no one is even looking at for an entire match is just not contributing to the battle going on.

[Dustotepp]

This is not about ego, parking on top of a satellite that no one is even looking at for an entire match is just not contributing to the battle going on.

 

I disagree with this tactically, but I think you should start a new topic so we can argue about it without hijacking the thread.

[leptons]

I would not want to see a lone guard on an uncontested satellite punished - they are providing a real value. A scout with rocket pods can clear all three turrets in less than 15 seconds and push the node to neutral in less than 30 seconds.

 

That said, in the match described you should at some point pull the goalie and try and get a second node or you will end up with one of those 1000-400 losses.

[wishingwell]

There is one person on JC who does this all the time. I know he's had several people report him using the "inappropriate behavior" ticket, but he still managed to spend at least several hours on the 24th doing this nonstop.

 

I think there should just be an AFK timer and an AFK zone like there is in warzones. Make the zone extend to the point where the opposing team will get blasted by the ship turrets and make the timer long enough so a slow ship piloted by someone who doesn't know how to use thrusters can make it out. I would prefer to see it self-managed like that over a vote kick system or a no-reward system (which I think would punish people who either tried, but are new/poor pilots, or who spent the match defending with little opposition).

[silvershadows]

I never said you'd leave, they can kill you. Two fighters means they can keep you exposed from cover at all times. You're claiming you can hold a satellite from 4 or 5 fighters, unless they suck, BS.

 

 

 

One of two things happened here, either your team was better than the enemy because they won while being a man down, or they needed help and you didn't contribute. You are proud of parking on top of a satellite that was completely uncontested for an entire match and never once thought to leave it even after you would have been pulling ahead in points.

 

Whether you like it or not in that scenario you contributed as much as someone who went afk. You can try to insult me all you want but fact is you didn't contribute to the team.

 

What are you talking about?

 

We were never going to pull ahead in points, we capped 1 sat at the start, they capped the other two, my team was getting very few kills and getting torn apart.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting this thing about me being proud, either - as I said, one match out of 300 this happens, and you're calling me a leech like you know anything about me other than that I had one terrible match in which I sat at the satellite to avoid the annoyance of a 3 cap.

 

You're making an awful lot of assumptions here, none of which are rooted in fact - it can take 2 fighters a VERY long time to down me if I am playing defensively - this is more due to my ship build than anything else. You are obviously speaking from the point of view of a scout. Not everyone flies a scout.

 

Kindly stop making presumptuous statements regarding something you obviously have formulated an opinion about as if you were actually there when you, in fact, were not~

[GooseGrims]

There is one person on JC who does this all the time. I know he's had several people report him using the "inappropriate behavior" ticket, but he still managed to spend at least several hours on the 24th doing this nonstop.

 

I think there should just be an AFK timer and an AFK zone like there is in warzones. Make the zone extend to the point where the opposing team will get blasted by the ship turrets and make the timer long enough so a slow ship piloted by someone who doesn't know how to use thrusters can make it out. I would prefer to see it self-managed like that over a vote kick system or a no-reward system (which I think would punish people who either tried, but are new/poor pilots, or who spent the match defending with little opposition).

 

i like that idea alot better than vote to kick, but they can still fly to the left or ride ends of the map and hide behind a cliff or meteor, but at the same time that would open them up to being picked off by anyone not just gunships, could work.

[GooseGrims]

What are you talking about?

 

We were never going to pull ahead in points, we capped 1 sat at the start, they capped the other two, my team was getting very few kills and getting torn apart.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting this thing about me being proud, either - as I said, one match out of 300 this happens, and you're calling me a leech like you know anything about me other than that I had one terrible match in which I sat at the satellite to avoid the annoyance of a 3 cap.

 

You're making an awful lot of assumptions here, none of which are rooted in fact - it can take 2 fighters a VERY long time to down me if I am playing defensively - this is more due to my ship build than anything else. You are obviously speaking from the point of view of a scout. Not everyone flies a scout.

 

Kindly stop making presumptuous statements regarding something you obviously have formulated an opinion about as if you were actually there when you, in fact, were not~

 

both of your e-peens are HUGE, now pls stop fighting here and either create a new topic about guard tactics or stick to the topic, thank you.

[Yorumi]

What are you talking about?

 

We were never going to pull ahead in points, we capped 1 sat at the start, they capped the other two, my team was getting very few kills and getting torn apart.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting this thing about me being proud, either - as I said, one match out of 300 this happens, and you're calling me a leech like you know anything about me other than that I had one terrible match in which I sat at the satellite to avoid the annoyance of a 3 cap.

 

You're making an awful lot of assumptions here, none of which are rooted in fact - it can take 2 fighters a VERY long time to down me if I am playing defensively - this is more due to my ship build than anything else. You are obviously speaking from the point of view of a scout. Not everyone flies a scout.

 

Kindly stop making presumptuous statements regarding something you obviously have formulated an opinion about as if you were actually there when you, in fact, were not~

 

The other team's strategy was clearly to take two satellites, and completely ignore the 3rd. You can stop putting words in my mouth because I've been talking about this one example you've given in which you leeched. I also primarily fly a starguard or a pike, I usually only fly my scouts for the 3x req. You say your team couldn't take another satellite and they were fighting with a handicap because you wern't helping. You admit your holding the satellite didn't change the outcome of the battle. The only thing that had the potential to change the outcome was to go help your team take a second satellite.

 

Going back and forth on this is piontless, and there's no need for us to derail the thread farther, but parking on top of a totally uncontested satellite isn't contributing, and I think they should trigger the same afk flags any system would put in place.

 

both of your e-peens are HUGE, now pls stop fighting here and either create a new topic about guard tactics or stick to the topic, thank you.

 

It is somewhat related because they're doing almost the exact same thing as any afker, and any system designed to catch afkers that could ignore this situation would just force afkers to sit on top of satellites instead. I suppose at that point they'd be acting as another turret but that's about it.

Edited December 26, 2013 by Yorumi

[GooseGrims]

Going back and forth on this is piontless, and there's no need for us to derail the thread farther, but parking on top of a totally uncontested satellite isn't contributing, and I think they should trigger the same afk flags any system would put in place.

 

 

 

It is somewhat related because they're doing almost the exact same thing as any afker, and any system designed to catch afkers that could ignore this situation would just force afkers to sit on top of satellites instead. I suppose at that point they'd be acting as another turret but that's about it.

 

i just dont want you guys to get this thread closed, it went from them not wantingto be afk'd for guarding and you 2 are derailing the thread. some of us want this afk problem fixed not get the thread closed cause 2 ppl cant get along and agree to disagree.

[KarmaForce]

I vote remove ground xp from GSF.

GSF doesn't add anything to the ground game, but it does take away from it since some people abandoned the ground game for it.

I'm even seeing toons with names related to the space combat which kinda shows they have no interest in the ground game.

There are people that almost exclusively play ground pvp, one they get to a higher level they try and play the PvE game and are completely clueless. GSF will make this problem worse.

[Yorumi]

i just dont want you guys to get this thread closed, it went from them not wantingto be afk'd for guarding and you 2 are derailing the thread. some of us want this afk problem fixed not get the thread closed cause 2 ppl cant get along and agree to disagree.

 

Well that's actually why it's important, because it would need to be decided what an afker is. Lets look at a vote kick system. So you look at the scoreboard and 5 minutes in you see someone with no kills, no assists, no damage, nothing, so they get kicked. Then you have the forum flooded with people complaining about being kicked for parking on an uncontested satellite.

 

If we use a system that says afkers get no req or credit for the match, same deal they complain about parking on satellites. If all anyone has to do to avoid an afk system is get a few objective points then every afker just flies to a satellite and parks completely negating any use the system gets.

 

If the only that matters about afking is where you do it then we've neutered the system and solved nothing. This thread is already showing you're either going to get a neutered system or quite a few people who don't think they're afking getting hit with it. So given all I think I think it's a discussion that needs to be had before any worthwhile solution to the afk problem can be devised.

[GooseGrims]

Well that's actually why it's important, because it would need to be decided what an afker is. Lets look at a vote kick system. So you look at the scoreboard and 5 minutes in you see someone with no kills, no assists, no damage, nothing, so they get kicked. Then you have the forum flooded with people complaining about being kicked for parking on an uncontested satellite.

 

If we use a system that says afkers get no req or credit for the match, same deal they complain about parking on satellites. If all anyone has to do to avoid an afk system is get a few objective points then every afker just flies to a satellite and parks completely negating any use the system gets.

 

If the only that matters about afking is where you do it then we've neutered the system and solved nothing. This thread is already showing you're either going to get a neutered system or quite a few people who don't think they're afking getting hit with it. So given all I think I think it's a discussion that needs to be had before any worthwhile solution to the afk problem can be devised.

 

and look at my post on page 4, i agree that vote kick was bad and agree'd with someone about their idea, maybe if you focused more on what was going on in the thread and less of the back and forth between you and the other person you would have seen that.

 

and that was my point, less of the back and forth about what tactics are better and more focus on the topic, how to solve the problem of ppl aking the match.

 

edit: and at the end of page 2 i point out how easily vote to kick can be abused.

Edited December 26, 2013 by GooseGrims

[Dustotepp]

Does this happen in warzones too? I don't think I have seen it, but I haven't looked. j

 

If it doesn't, then I think that doing the same "you must leave the safe zone area" thing would fix the problem.

[Yorumi]

and look at my post on page 4, i agree that vote kick was bad and agree'd with someone about their idea, maybe if you focused more on what was going on in the thread and less of the back and forth between you and the other person you would have seen that.

 

and that was my point, less of the back and forth about what tactics are better and more focus on the topic, how to solve the problem of ppl aking the match.

 

edit: and at the end of page 2 i point out how easily vote to kick can be abused.

 

Well I kind of did address your point though not in a direct quote I suppose. If they are forced to leave the safe zone that's great, but considering most of the fighting happens still a good bit from the safe zone they can move 1m from it and park. You don't even need to park, you could still be afk just fly forward until you crash or get shot. Hitting ready every few minutes isn't hard, and these afkers still have to hit launch to get into the queue. If they're botting it's just as easy to automate ready as launch, and if they're semi-afk just click the button.

 

If BW wants to get automated logs of people clearly afking and then go in an ban them fine by me but that seems rather unlikely. If a system is too easily beaten it's not effective and solves nothing. The system can't be neutered but also can't be so complex it's too hard to implement. It needs to make it hard enough to overcome that it's just easier to play the game.

[GooseGrims]

Well I kind of did address your point though not in a direct quote I suppose. If they are forced to leave the safe zone that's great, but considering most of the fighting happens still a good bit from the safe zone they can move 1m from it and park. You don't even need to park, you could still be afk just fly forward until you crash or get shot. Hitting ready every few minutes isn't hard, and these afkers still have to hit launch to get into the queue. If they're botting it's just as easy to automate ready as launch, and if they're semi-afk just click the button.

 

If BW wants to get automated logs of people clearly afking and then go in an ban them fine by me but that seems rather unlikely. If a system is too easily beaten it's not effective and solves nothing. The system can't be neutered but also can't be so complex it's too hard to implement. It needs to make it hard enough to overcome that it's just easier to play the game.

 

but if they make an area they have to leave or get kick out of the match, that opens them up to being killed at the very least which ive noticed from the ppl i kill chasing me, most players seem to take it personal lol. no it wont solve the problem but i highly doubt we are going to get one that is 100% effective.

 

or going back to the afk time out, idk if its possible but if they can make it so turning your ship will recognize you as not being afk cause even if your parked at a sat your turn at least once in a while, but again that game be exploited pretty easily too.

 

maybe they could do a combination of features to detect afkers?

[TUXs]

As for the kick button others have mentioned, not sure I like that. It is hard to chat in a match and you can't click on the map to see player names unless your dead. So how would it work?

 

It needs to be automated, not initiated by players. Things it could look for is just automated play like:

- "automated firing" (pattern to the shooting)

- few or steady shots fired (obviously macro'd)

- under 2% hit rate

- lack of "maneuvers" (they typical zigzagging that all ships do while fighting)

- being within 16m of objectives

- never playing/going near an objective

[abercromb]

After a bit of thought. I would welcome a timer on players staying near the starting base.

 

The problem is not so much players AFK or just sitting there doing nothing. But where they sit. The base ships are set up to destroy any enemy that approaches. This makes these leaches immune to attack by anything but a gunship that gets close enough (not seen that happen more than once). It's a mechanic problem that these players are using to exploit dailies.

 

So if players got kicked for staying more than a certain time near the base ship it would solve this issue. They would have to move and then be open to attack from enemy ships. It would be a take part and fight or die all the time. The timer would have to be short though. Say 1 min to avoid the players just moving once or twice.

[Lymain]

After a bit of thought. I would welcome a timer on players staying near the starting base.

 

Yeah, I think that's a good place to start at least.

[Yorumi]

So if players got kicked for staying more than a certain time near the base ship it would solve this issue. They would have to move and then be open to attack from enemy ships. It would be a take part and fight or die all the time. The timer would have to be short though. Say 1 min to avoid the players just moving once or twice.

 

My real concern over this is does it help or make things worse? Even though it's small, leeches would become free points for the other side. I just don't think the solution is to turn them from useless members to useless members feeding free points to the enemy. This also only works for one single type of match, if we get things like a death match, or a non-objective point match afkers become a devastating liability.

[Dustotepp]

I just don't think the solution is to turn them from useless members to useless members feeding free points to the enemy.

 

I have not noticed this happening in Warzones. If it doesn't happen in Warzones, then I think that making people move out of the spawn area is enough. Otherwise, people would be doing this in Warzones.