Votekick AFK Leeches - Solution for abusing

[CryoSpecter]

The one issue I see here is how players get flagged as AFK. If this system WERE to be implemented (and all in all, it's the best suggestion I've seen thus far), DE would need to adjust AFK markers from the current system (I don't know the details, but adjustments that don't penalize Mesa's for starters, as that has been a recurrent example here).

As for the bounty scenario you presented, unfortunately I don't believe that's a bug, but a failed attempt at an AFK counter-measure. The idea from what I can gather is that by putting the hostage at the person farthest away (aka presumably the leecher) they are forced to participate to not fail the mission. If your squad is actually active and someone is just lagging behind, then this isn't a problem. If you haven't walked away from your computer, it also shouldn't be a problem. However, in some cases, it fails (which is why this is a discussion people keep having).

One solution I have adopted for leechers in bounties (albeit not an ideal or even good solution) is that as long as I'm hosting, I can leave squad without issue and leave the leechers to fend for themselves. And even if I'm not hosting, I can still leave and create my own instance picking up where I left off for the most part. I wouldn't mind seeing that in regular missions either, but I don't know the process for implementing that system throughout the entire game either (and I think it would need some polish before we could do that as well).

[tastic]

40 minutes ago, Sajochi said:

 How to deal with afks and leechers:

1. Block the bugger

2. Take a screenshot using F6 showing where they are to send to support. 

3. Quit mission and squad up with the cool people.  Send screenshot to support after mission. 

Takes all of a few little clicks. Blocking them means you're no longer gonna see them, unless they somehow join to a third party or you're not the host. The screenshot taken also has meta data that can be tracked easily by support to prove of the offending player is actually doing the things you claim. 

Your system can still be abused. It has a very obvious flaw.

There is no black listing for matchmaking, ignoringthem just means you cant see them type in chat and are greyed out to indicate they are ignored.

@op it will never happen, we have been after DE to add this feature for years and all they gave us was the report option which is after the fact so said leech has won

[(XBOX)Tucker D Dawg]

An alternative would be in game reporting that requires no maintenance by DE, is self healing, etc

• You can select/click a players name and report them for AFK (only a single report per mission)
• Each report lasts 1 week at which point it expires.
• Each player gets their rewards/Max(ActiveReports-3,1) - basically all their credits pickups kuva standing - everything- divided by the the number of active reports against them minus 3
• A player is notified that they were reported or can see how many reports they have active against them.

the minus 3 is to minimize a bunch of cyberbullies from just reporting someone they don't like

So if people get reported, they will get less and less rewards. (all numbers could be tweaked.

 

[(XBOX)JYNxYoshii]

Create a script for a person's action input to monitor AFK status, along with a few other bits to detect repetitive or scripted movement, then automatically kick them from the game after three to five minutes or just give players a vote.

[DreisterDino]

Well, an option to blacklist players i dont want to play with would be a welcome solution aswell.

[ikkabotz]

Rarely can I think of any scenario in Warframe being desperate enough to kick a leech and often can I see newer players needing a carry.

[chaotea]

2 hours ago, JuicyButthurt said:

There's a difference between a single bit to mark whether a player is marked by any of 3 assassins and keeping sum of their whole playtime history.

Not asking for play history. In fact, i never mentioned it.

They would only need to track the number of times reported for afk'ing.

[chaotea]

1 hour ago, (Xbox One)Tucker D Dawg said:

An alternative would be in game reporting that requires no maintenance by DE, is self healing, etc

• You can select/click a players name and report them for AFK (only a single report per mission)
• Each report lasts 1 week at which point it expires.
• Each player gets their rewards/Max(ActiveReports-3,1) - basically all their credits pickups kuva standing - everything- divided by the the number of active reports against them minus 3
• A player is notified that they were reported or can see how many reports they have active against them.

the minus 3 is to minimize a bunch of cyberbullies from just reporting someone they don't like

So if people get reported, they will get less and less rewards. (all numbers could be tweaked.

 

This is the exact thing i was suggesting. Though giving a limit on how many active reports you can put on people per player would stop people using it to vent rage.

I do think though that the rage reporting / trolling should be kept in mind for the punishments. Having rewards devided by number of reports isnt great. Instead have a system where each match where reported by one or more players gives you 1 'reported point'. Playing a full game without getting reported gives you -1 'Reported Point'. If you have more than 5 'RP' you get your AFK timer cut sharply. If it goes beyond 10 you get less priority in matchmaking.

Something like that.

[(XBOX)Tucker D Dawg]

Just now, chaotea said:

This is the exact thing i was suggesting. Though giving a limit on how many active reports you can put on people per player would stop people using it to vent rage.

I do think though that the rage reporting / trolling should be kept in mind for the punishments. Having rewards devided by number of reports isnt great. Instead have a system where each match where reported by one or more players gives you 1 'reported point'. Playing a full game without getting reported gives you -1 'Reported Point'. If you have more than 5 'RP' you get your AFK timer cut sharply. If it goes beyond 10 you get less priority in matchmaking.

Something like that.

I was thinking Player A could only report Player B once (or only have one active report - spam reporting someone does nothing).  Hitting the things they farm goes directly to the cause of the problem. If AFK farming (and any leeching including fishing during public bounties eg) is not at all advantageous, people wouldn't do it.  AFK timers, or any programmatic detection is doomed to fail or quickly be defeated.

 

[chaotea]

23 minutes ago, (Xbox One)Tucker D Dawg said:

I was thinking Player A could only report Player B once (or only have one active report - spam reporting someone does nothing).  Hitting the things they farm goes directly to the cause of the problem. If AFK farming (and any leeching including fishing during public bounties eg) is not at all advantageous, people wouldn't do it.  AFK timers, or any programmatic detection is doomed to fail or quickly be defeated.

 

I play a fair bit of Dota2, and they have a similar reporting system, where you can report people for afking, leaving early or abusive behaviour. But so often you get people, often not even people on your team, saying "Report 'Mr X' cause hes a noob'.

Making it so only 1 report is required prevents mass team reporting. Your not getting hit 3 times for 1 afk for example (which could be a genuine accident. We've all had to rush off to get the phone or answer the door), but instead those that consistently afk farm get hurt.

Giving each player a limited pool of reports rewards the genuine reporters, as the tickets would get refunded the moment the reported player gets penilised. On the other hand, if someone rage reports you, and you never get to the penilasion stage, the rage reporter looses out on that available report.

Making it a point system means that being reported occasionally out of spite isnt going to hurt you, but afking and then doing a few not afk missions isnt a solution either. You'd have to do 50% properly.

 

[xBelgabor]

vor 47 Minuten schrieb chaotea:

Not asking for play history. In fact, i never mentioned it.

They would only need to track the number of times reported for afk'ing.

As soon as punishments come into play you need accountability, a simple counter definitely doesn't do it, you need some kind of match record and indication who reported.

Because if they implement a system like that troll reporters need to be punished at least as hard as actual afkers.

[chaotea]

1 hour ago, xBelgabor said:

As soon as punishments come into play you need accountability, a simple counter definitely doesn't do it, you need some kind of match record and indication who reported.

Because if they implement a system like that troll reporters need to be punished at least as hard as actual afkers.

You should read my original comment rather than just the latest reply.

Still, to save you the effort, ill quote it:

" Of course to prevent abuse of this system, people should get a limited amount of report tickets. Should action be taken against a reported individual, you get your tickets back. "

So troll reporters get punished by seeing their limited amount of reports disappear for ever.

[xBelgabor]

vor 1 Minute schrieb chaotea:

You should read my original comment rather than just the latest reply.

Still, to save you the effort, ill quote it:

" Of course to prevent abuse of this system, people should get a limited amount of report tickets. Should action be taken against a reported individual, you get your tickets back. "

So troll reporters get punished by seeing their limited amount of reports disappear for ever.

I read that, that is not a punishment though, just a prevention for them trolling too much. People abusing such a system need to be banned temporarily. And you still need accountability so people can protest tickets against them.

[Spectre-8]

Here is a better solution , create your own squad and stop whining .

Edited February 23, 2018 by Spectre-8

[Fallen_Echo]

17 hours ago, JuicyButthurt said:

Mesa cannot shoot because the player needs to press 5 keys in sequence while the popup floats over the screen

How about just not put this checker into the afk system?

Lets keep it simple:

1)The players can initiate a vote to kick the afk ones.

2)The vote can be held once per 30 minutes

3) Three votes are needed for it to be successfull

4) The vote is initiated with a chat command where the voters must write in /afkkick username (to not make it easy for trolls)

5) The votewindow has 2 tickable option, afk or not.

6) The accused can vote here to prove hes not afk. If that happens a basic button sequence comes up what he has to complete to prove hes not afk.

7) While the vote goes on the game is freezed.

8) If the accused fails to prove hes not afk both times hes kicked.

9) If the accused only fails one step the vote resets and can be initiated instantly again. If the accused fails just one step here hes kicked.

10) If the vote fails it gets on a timer of 30 min before can be initiated again.

[Kimimoto]

18 hours ago, DonGheddo said:

Terrible ideea, such a system can be abused really bad ^^ 

How?

[LabMan95]

hace 3 horas, Spectre-8 dijo:

Here is a better solution , create your own squad and stop whining .

Here's an even better solution: play the game because it's fun. If you don't play the game, you miss out on rewards. That's how every game goes. If you aren't at the very least trying to contribute, you shouldn't get anything. Today alone, in the 10 matches I've played, I've been paired with 4 afk'ers, all of them with a macro set to spam melee so they don't get caught by the afk timer. It has become an epidemic, and it has to be stopped, before it gets too out of control (which it's already gotten kind of out of hand)

[[DE]Grzegorz]

3 hours ago, Fallen_Echo said:

Lets keep it simple:

1)The players can initiate a vote to kick the afk ones.

2)The vote can be held once per 30 minutes

3) Three votes are needed for it to be successfull

4) The vote is initiated with a chat command where the voters must write in /afkkick username (to not make it easy for trolls)

5) The votewindow has 2 tickable option, afk or not.

6) The accused can vote here to prove hes not afk. If that happens a basic button sequence comes up what he has to complete to prove hes not afk.

7) While the vote goes on the game is freezed.

8) If the accused fails to prove hes not afk both times hes kicked.

9) If the accused only fails one step the vote resets and can be initiated instantly again. If the accused fails just one step here hes kicked.

10) If the vote fails it gets on a timer of 30 min before can be initiated again.

...once again, define AFK state in actual gameplay terms instead of some esoteric term and I'll point out another few reasons why it would only lead to more abuse.

 

Maybe instead of being so dead-set on penalizing AFK players focus on doing so the other way around by reinforcing positive behaviour in the game. Give players in-mission challenges and duplicate convergence orb to provide permanent or timed bonuses to resource amounts, droprates and XP gains that could possibly stack to offer greater bonuses. This won't get rid of afk players completely, but it certainly will make leeching far less tempting and efficient tactic.

Edited February 23, 2018 by JuicyButthurt

[RistN]

 

21 hours ago, Sziklamester said:

It won't work. Imagine a scenario, where you are the only player who plays the game and the others afking. How would you kick those if you need 3 votes atleast?

Even better....What if 3 people that afk whole time vote kick one player that did all the work.Possibilities of exploiting vote kick are limitless.

[Lyricallee]

23 hours ago, DreisterDino said:

 

-when all 3 people voted yes, give the person who is accused for being afk a chance to prove he is not afk: Popup a window for 5 to 10 seconds on which he has to click manually

 

I think the most annoying leeches aren't actually afk, they are just not doing anything. They will click the button and continue on.  As a representative experience, I was in Akaad with a person using Ivara on a wire for leeching, they didn't bother even reviving a person who died underneath them and they had done 0 damage to anything.  When we called them out on it, they responded rudely.  This is usually what happens if you ask them to put some work in, they do respond, just negatively.  

[Oreades]

On 2/22/2018 at 6:51 AM, elcion said:

Back when I played Maplestory, auto macro hogging map with afk farm is a really big problem. One of the server gave you as another player an option to prompt a captcha-like window popup in front of the other player for them to complete in order to prove they're not afk farming. And it worked.

+1. I think there are different aspects to think about in a proposed change, but this one I already have witnessed a solid system that WORKED. So yeah.

Here is the thing tho ..... t here is NO AFK farming in warframe. Regardless of what people keep saying or using "AFK" farming to justify whatever changes they think will cure the non existent AFK farming.

Warframe already has an inactivity timer which means if they don't move they get denied rewards. Now in theory they could be using a macro to keep themselves moving just enough to dodge the timer. However because of Warframes indeterminate nature there would be no way for them to know exactly where in the mission they where or set up a reliable macro to accomplish a task as complicated as joining Kuva missions. PoE bounties..... maybe but there is still a lot of uncertainty that would need to be accounted for. So my money is that most of the people are actually there, they are just leeches. So tossing a Captcha at them isn't going to accomplish anything because filling out an occasional captcha is not going to outweigh not having to do anything to get free loot. 

In the end it will just be a hindrance to actual players who will potentially end up on the end of the troll stick getting "Prove you're real" Captchas thrown at them repeatedly during missions. I honestly don't think there is an automated out that will work that won't be abused to no end to troll actual players.I can just imagine Do the Captcha becoming a regular thing/meme when you are trying hack terminals..... 

If anything they should start off by implementing a more intuitive and integrated reporting system. 

I wouldn't think it would be that hard to integrate a reporting system that could verify the report by submitting a mission "playback" at the end of the game for someone at DE to actually review. IF someone lands enough verifiable reports, then ban them. 

Cause I do agree there is nothing more vexing than watching someone on the Map screen just sitting at the Cetus gate doing the pee-pee dance to dodge the inactivity timer, knowing that your only two options are to either quit out even tho you might be almost done with the bounties before you noticed. Or to just suck it up and finish knowing that you just fed some leech a bunch of free loot. Compounded by the fact that it is just a pain in the butt to report people in Warframe cause I'm pretty sure (tho I could be wrong) that it all has to be done through Zendesk. 

Which means you have to take screenshots or record video, log into the Zendesk and spend a bunch of time submitting a ticket....... 

[Himenoinu]

On 2/22/2018 at 2:05 PM, JuicyButthurt said:

Resource and mod drops from enemies are an anti-afk on their own as anything to alleviate that would fall under botting  (which on itself is illegal in this game), design the game to be hard to AFK for benefits instead of tacking on mechanics that hardly get their job done while being annoying to general populace.

Only one solution I can think of, that is: the mission rewards only people who are on the extraction pad when the timer reaches 00:00. The downside is that new players will almost always not make it to the end when veterans just blaze through (or when the ocassional #$&(% just rushes alone through elevators and stuff like that).

It can lead to either a schism in the community (between the rushers and those who like to look for sculptures or god knows what), but it certainly won't reward leechers and afk'ers. Then again, we all have an experience with players who are actively playing, but without impacting the mission in the slightest way (kinda there only for the company and the giggles).

So then, unless the afk'ing is actually ruining the mission in some way (and yeah, captives should follow the person that freed them, not the host or whoever else), easiest is to just /ignore the player at the end of the run.

Oooor, one could have the option not to kick, but to report the player for afk'ing/leeching and, if enough reports pile up on an account over a 12-24 hours period or so, that said account has a temporary 4-24 hour ban from public missions. Here, it's kinda difficult for someone to abuse the system, since it's reports/day, not just number of reports and the chance of the same team being formed XX games in a row is quite slim.

 

2 hours ago, Oreades said:

In the end it will just be a hindrance to actual players who will potentially end up on the end of the troll stick getting "Prove you're real" Captchas thrown at them repeatedly during missions.

Had this in some games (Aion comes to mind) and it was annoying like hell. It wouldn't help much to weed out the leechers, but it will definitely frustrate the active players :D

Edited February 23, 2018 by Himenoinu