Talk:Leech

"nothing can be done to protect against leechers"

This is not true, there are actually a number of steps that Arena Net can take to make leeching less of a problem.

Examples:

1) Add a feature to prevent the game from automatically assigning you to a team with someone in your Ignore list. Or add a new personal list specifically for that purpose - e.g. Lamer/Enemy list. Every player would have their own Lamer/Enemy list.

Optional: after being added, lamers stay in the Lamer list for 30 days and then automatically get removed. Players can reset the 30 day count by re-adding the lamer at any point in time.

2) Perhaps players who end up on lots of other player's ignore/lamer lists should get titles.

Examples: Lamer of Cantha, Somewhat Ignored, Mostly Ignored, Very Ignored, Mostly Ignored, or Outcast of Aspenwood (could depend on the location you were added to someone's list).

3) Detect players who don't contribute to the battle at all - e.g. don't use any skills on enemies or allies. And then give them titles if they persist - Idler, Thumb Twiddler, Deserter etc.

If players use bots that actually use skills then a sufficiently advanced bot might be better than some non-leeching players. ;)

Anonymous 13:11, 14 October 2006 (CDT)


 * All of those are very poor solutions. First of all, ANet will not allow players to penalize each other, they are very wise in knowing that the average 14 yr old population of the game would heavily abuse that. As far as deteding idleness, that would mean that all bonders would get that title. There are very firm policies that ANet sticks to that would make the prevention of leeching impossible. All the policies you are suggesting are based on making leeching scandalous. They refuse to do that even for people who were found guilty of an offense (like if you report a scammer, they will not tell you if they agree he is a scammer or not). So, yeah.. These are not good solutions.
 * The bottom line is, a leecher WILL mess you up, whether he gets punished or not. As soon as you go into an 8 member mission and you only have 7, you are already in trouble. Everything from that point on is not going to alleviate that. You're seeking retribution, which will not really pay you back for the 25 minutes you wasted on a mission and failed because of the leecher. --Karlos 13:31, 14 October 2006 (CDT)
 * ANet does allow players to penalize each other already with the Ignore list.
 * So don't have the titles then. I never said all the suggestions should be implemented.
 * I think you really don't get it. What is the problem if all the 14 year olds you grumble about add you to THEIR Lamer list and you NEVER ended up in the same random team as them in Aspenwood or Random Arena? Wow what a disaster that would be right?
 * (By the way, nonleeching bonders WILL use skills on allies - e.g. binding an NPC, but that's not important - see below)
 * Finally the main suggestion is 1). And that's the only one that's needed. It WILL work and is fairly easy to implement given a competent programmer. Go ahead show me why 1) won't work. People intolerant of noobs will put them on their lists, but then the noobs will be better off playing with people more tolerant of them.
 * It would be simple..if a player hasn't moved for 1 minute, they don't gain faction.Entheos Geon 14:44, 14 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Then they will write a simple script to sidestep left to right -_- &mdash; Skuld 04:01, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Wow I guess I wasn't clear. Look if the game refuses to automatically assign you to a team with people you consider leechers/lamers ( or with people who consider _you_ a lamer/leecher) that will mostly solve the problem. How else should I be explaining this?
 * The comment tree indicates i'm talking to the person one tab to the left - entheos &mdash; Skuld 05:41, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * One problem would be the ability to ignore everyone in a staging area but your own arranged team and thereby bypass the randomization of teams. a civilian 02:07, 9 March 2007 (CST)

_____________________________________________________________

Does EULA or the player agreement say anything about leeching without the use of bots? cuz i see alot of ppl leech but not afk they will talk but stand there and do nothing
 * If they did odds are there wouldn't be too many of them around but alas there are so ANet prolly doesn't give a rat's booty :'( --DragonWR12LB 20:11, 1 January 2007 (CST)


 * Everyone knows ANet has completely forgotten about the existence of Cantha and does not CARE about leechers in Aspenwood, even IF they are clearly bots (such as 1 well-known Kurzick leecher that spams heal party all game). Further proof that they don't care about Aspenwood lies in the still-existing stuck turtle bug, ability to take the mines from the base, spammage of Carrier's Defense even when it's NOT trying to move, making it impossible to kill with a melee... The list goes on. The only reason they had the New Year's thing was to attempt to convince people that they care, though they obviously do not --Gimmethegepgun 18:37, 21 February 2007 (CST)


 * I once leeched off of an Alliance battle...(I thought the teams were reset before each match *I didn't play alliance battles a lot before*, but when I returned to my computer, I had gained 3,000 Luxon faction mysteriously o_O)*I forgot to sign* Theta Republic 01:55, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Shamelessly reposting what I post in 7/22/07's update discussion: I think we need to lose the randomness and turn FA and JQ (If anyone played it...) into a more AB style. Allow players to form their own teams with a max of four, and then merge two waiting teams into a full team of eight when the match begins (and split them accordingly when it ends). I don't know why Anet ruined the losing faction for AB, noone ever leeches there, cause you'll get kicked immediately after the match, and people'll yell out that you're a leecher. Not only that, but I don't have any experience with botting, but it'd probably be a bit harder to bot a group invite and conceal the fact that you're a bot when they ask you to ping your skills or something than it would be to just hit "Enter Battle." Allowing us to choose teams would immensely cut down on the leecher/leaver population, as well as make more coordinated players (for example, people will actually join with a purpose to serve the group as a whole! Gasp!). And if you're worried all this will destroy the randomness and each side will be two warriors, two elementalists, two necromancers, and two monks, you're wrong. First, two teams would be randomly assigned with each other. Second, look at AB: they can all choose their groups, but PUGs are far from being dead. On the upside, as it'd be a new thing, and I'm sure everyone who plays at Fort are sick of PUGs, Fort would probably have less PUGs than AB. To summarize, I don't think a touchy and potentially abusable /votekick system is necessary, just let us pick our teams and kick the leechers. I think that'd pretty much pwn leechers. What do you guys think? DancingZombies 13:07, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Bzzz. All Kurzick teams would consist of 4 Monks/Paragons/Rits (and thefore of 8 m/p/rt after merging) and the Luxons would never ever breach a gate if the teams are at equal skill, because healing trumps damage and healing/protting is all the Kurzicks really have to do. There is enough coordinated PvP already, Aspenwood/Quarry are supposed to be random. Not to mention one side-effect you already touched upon: If you are NOT a bot and the team doesn't like your skill bar or doesn't know what the build is supposed to do, they will just as well kick you. Bad times for build diversity. --[[Image:Roland_icon.png]]Roland of Gilead (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I like DancingZombies idea. -- frvwfr2  (talk)(contributions) 23:51, 14 July 2007 (CDT)


 * I wonder how many times every Kurzick in FA is a leecher? Those must be the exciting matches... Urock 00:33, 4 September 2007 (CDT)