Guild Wars 2

maddoctor.2738:

If I just put T4 dailies it’s assumed that I want to do the freaking dailies, not teach them. There is no need for “no newbies”, if I wanted to teach I’d put a “T4 daily training” instead.
When you want to train look for the word “training” in a listing, there were loads when the new Fractal was released because nobody had experience with it anyway.

And this right here is your problem. You assume that’s how everyone reads it. Sorry but T4 dailies means just that, T4 Dailies with no restrictions. You not communicating what you want is on you.

maddoctor.2738:

If I just put T4 dailies it’s assumed that I want to do the freaking dailies, not teach them. There is no need for “no newbies”, if I wanted to teach I’d put a “T4 daily training” instead.
When you want to train look for the word “training” in a listing, there were loads when the new Fractal was released because nobody had experience with it anyway.

It’s a reasonable point of view, but I wonder: how much more difficult would it be for you to add a few words? “T4 dailies, experienced only” tells me that it’s a group that cares how well people know the mechanics, whereas “T4 dailies” leaves it open to interpretation.

And we know that other people frequently interpret things differently from how we meant them (I don’t think we need any evidence beyond this entire thread).

Sociologically speaking, what we see in the whole exclusion/inclusion debate that makes the meter such a charged issue is that we have different groups with different values and different expectations. The problem comes when people whose play preferences are for a “one big happy family” group which also suits their desires for convenience (call them the A’s) encounter a different community with shared experiences which fuel shared desires for a specific type of play (the B’s). Essentially, the B’s desires can be hindered if the A’s assume that the B’s are like them, whereas the fulfillment of the A’s desires require the B’s to act like A’s. Needless to say, this is a recipe for conflict, regardless of the rudeness of lack thereof by members of either group.

Of course, A’s and B’s are not the only groups. There is a third group (the C’s) who prefer a laissez-faire approach similar to that espoused by A’s, but do not share the A’s desires to elevate convenience over that laissez-faire approach. However, there is a fourth group which creates conflict for the C’s. This comes in the form of fringe B’s (call them the D’s), also driven by convenience, who try to join the C’s and then change the C’s groups into the D’s idea of what a B group should be.

From the perspective of being responsible for one’s own experience, the C’s have recognized that A’s and B’s (or A’s and C’s) should not play together. C’s are generally going to welcome A’s because they have shared values, which means that A’s are unlikely to interfere with the C’s desires. Whether C’s are also driven by a “nice guy” fixation is largely irrelevant, although some certainly are.

B’s also take responsibility for their own experience by attempting to limit their groups to members of their sub-community. It’s this behavior, which is objected to mostly by A’s, which is most controversial. While some may dislike the way they go about it, these people are by and large attempting to build their own community. That their community is antithetical to that of the A’s, while perhaps too bad, is a natural outgrowth of the different desires of the two coupled with the unwillingness of the A’s to avoid groups whose attitudes and behavior they demonize.

A’s and D’s are generally not taking responsibility for what they want. If an A does take responsibility, he becomes a C, and tries to avoid the A’s. D’s? They are no more socially responsible than A’s and are also likely to engage in things like kicking C’s from their own groups, which is not a depth to which A’s go. D’s are the real kittens.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

It’s a reasonable point of view, but I wonder: how much more difficult would it be for you to add a few words? “T4 dailies, experienced only” tells me that it’s a group that cares how well people know the mechanics, whereas “T4 dailies” leaves it open to interpretation.

Then what is a “T4 training” group for?

Dashingsteel.3410:

It’s always funny to hear people complain they want challenging content. Wouldn’t it be more challenging to let a non meta player join you???? hmmmm

dps litmus tests are just sad and content that requires those things is sad as well

No, because that’s not challenging content. That’s challenging my patience to deal with a person who clearly does not share the same goals i do.

maddoctor.2738:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

It’s a reasonable point of view, but I wonder: how much more difficult would it be for you to add a few words? “T4 dailies, experienced only” tells me that it’s a group that cares how well people know the mechanics, whereas “T4 dailies” leaves it open to interpretation.

Then what is a “T4 training” group for?

Better question is why is someone training in T4.

That’s what t1-t3 are for.

TexZero.7910:

That’s what t1-t3 are for.

That’s true. According to the easy-mode-for-raids people, the multi-tier approach in fractals is great because players can “Train” at the lower tiers, which means inexperienced players shouldn’t exist at T4. Yet they do.

Astralporing.1957:

Harper.4173:

I feel you – keep fighting that good fight running your company.

See, that’s the problem right here. This is not work or business. It’s a game – an entertainment.

Some people seem to really keep forgetting about it and think that everyone should treat it really seriously, as if it were a second job.

Different people are entertained in different ways. Your fun is not everybody else’s fun.
And if you want to hear something a little more odd or tragic I once knew a guy who at the launch of GW2 would make an account, deck it out, maybe build it a legendary and then sell it off.
He did this because of a disability and because it paid slightly more than most jobs he could hold.
He really had to get things done fast because it was literally putting food on his table.
It might sound odd or absurd but it was his way of making his way in the world.

Also – you have to consider that I might actually want to treat it as a second job. Maybe your life is stressful and you seek solace in a game for the purpose of relaxation.
Maybe someone else’s life is so stress-free that they seek structure and stress in a game.

cadmiumgreen.8712:

Deepcuts.9740:

You really have problems understanding english.
The poor soul said he just wants to have fun in game because he has enough problems in RL, managing his company.

And what we’ve seen in this thread over and over is different people bring with them different ideas of fun, different expectations of those they group with, and different goals. Harper seems to like his games when treated as srsbsns. Not really anything fundamentally wrong with that or Astralporing just wanting to relax in game.

The only problem is that when you want to play differently than the “it’s just a game relax and have fun (our way)” crowd you automatically become the devil.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

maddoctor.2738:

If I just put T4 dailies it’s assumed that I want to do the freaking dailies, not teach them. There is no need for “no newbies”, if I wanted to teach I’d put a “T4 daily training” instead.
When you want to train look for the word “training” in a listing, there were loads when the new Fractal was released because nobody had experience with it anyway.

It’s a reasonable point of view, but I wonder: how much more difficult would it be for you to add a few words? “T4 dailies, experienced only” tells me that it’s a group that cares how well people know the mechanics, whereas “T4 dailies” leaves it open to interpretation.

And we know that other people frequently interpret things differently from how we meant them (I don’t think we need any evidence beyond this entire thread).

The sad part is that you can write “exp only” and “meta comp, meta strats, no bads” and still get non-meta, non-optimal strat bads.
People don’t read. Don’t care what the LFG says and then get kicked. Then they go onto the forum and complain having no idea why they were kicked.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Sociologically speaking, what we see in the whole exclusion/inclusion debate that makes the meter such a charged issue is that we have different groups with different values and different expectations. The problem comes when people whose play preferences are for a “one big happy family” group which also suits their desires for convenience (call them the A’s) encounter a different community with shared experiences which fuel shared desires for a specific type of play (the B’s). Essentially, the B’s desires can be hindered if the A’s assume that the B’s are like them, whereas the fulfillment of the A’s desires require the B’s to act like A’s. Needless to say, this is a recipe for conflict, regardless of the rudeness of lack thereof by members of either group.

Of course, A’s and B’s are not the only groups. There is a third group (the C’s) who prefer a laissez-faire approach similar to that espoused by A’s, but do not share the A’s desires to elevate convenience over that laissez-faire approach. However, there is a fourth group which creates conflict for the C’s. This comes in the form of fringe B’s (call them the D’s), also driven by convenience, who try to join the C’s and then change the C’s groups into the D’s idea of what a B group should be.

From the perspective of being responsible for one’s own experience, the C’s have recognized that A’s and B’s (or A’s and C’s) should not play together. C’s are generally going to welcome A’s because they have shared values, which means that A’s are unlikely to interfere with the C’s desires. Whether C’s are also driven by a “nice guy” fixation is largely irrelevant, although some certainly are.

B’s also take responsibility for their own experience by attempting to limit their groups to members of their sub-community. It’s this behavior, which is objected to mostly by A’s, which is most controversial. While some may dislike the way they go about it, these people are by and large attempting to build their own community. That their community is antithetical to that of the A’s, while perhaps too bad, is a natural outgrowth of the different desires of the two coupled with the unwillingness of the A’s to avoid groups whose attitudes and behavior they demonize.

A’s and D’s are generally not taking responsibility for what they want. If an A does take responsibility, he becomes a C, and tries to avoid the A’s. D’s? They are no more socially responsible than A’s and are also likely to engage in things like kicking C’s from their own groups, which is not a depth to which A’s go. D’s are the real kittens.

This is incredibly spot on and one of the best post written in this thread for sure.
As I’ve tried to explain before – it does boil down to the issue of personal responsibility and trying to find a place where you can enjoy the game and do your own thing with people that are the same as you are.

In a sense that’s building community I guess.
If there’s something I really enjoy in this game is playing it with people that are very similar to myself. If there’s something I hate is playing with people that are very different from myself.

The problem as I see it based on your analysis is that the A’s use the existence of the D’s to justify the fact that – as another brave poster said earlier – the rights of B’s are less than the rights of A’s and their enjoyment and capacity to have fun “matters less”.

Conner.4702:

maddoctor.2738:

If I just put T4 dailies it’s assumed that I want to do the freaking dailies, not teach them. There is no need for “no newbies”, if I wanted to teach I’d put a “T4 daily training” instead.
When you want to train look for the word “training” in a listing, there were loads when the new Fractal was released because nobody had experience with it anyway.

And this right here is your problem. You assume that’s how everyone reads it. Sorry but T4 dailies means just that, T4 Dailies with no restrictions. You not communicating what you want is on you.

Exactly right.
If you want your preferences catered for, then you have to actually state your preferences.

The problem is that some people are so used to having their preferences catered for that when it stops happening they feel their “rights” are “mattering less” than others (looks pointedly at the post above), when really they’re just mattering as much as everyone else’s.

Rashagar.8349:

If you want your preferences catered for, then you have to actually state your preferences.

Nah that’s not enough, take a look:

Harper.4173:

The sad part is that you can write “exp only” and “meta comp, meta strats, no bads” and still get non-meta, non-optimal strat bads.
People don’t read. Don’t care what the LFG says and then get kicked. Then they go onto the forum and complain having no idea why they were kicked.

And besides, fractals have nice multiple tiers of difficulty, so inexperienced players shouldn’t exist at higher levels. They get training through those amazing tiers of difficulty after all. And second, when a group is for training then it is advertised as such, meaning a group not advertised for training, is not for training.

Rashagar.8349:

The problem is that some people are so used to having their preferences catered for that when it stops happening they feel their “rights” are “mattering less” than others (looks pointedly at the post above), when really they’re just mattering as much as everyone else’s.

You mean people who think it’s fair to join any group they want, and that group is expected to take them in so as not to hurt their precious feelings? All while completely ignoring the feelings of the other people in that same group.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

Harper.4173:

I know you would prefer (like anyone else) to be accepted into a group that does well even if you do poorly – but that’s not really fair to them is it?

It is fair to them. It is called tolerance. First it recognizes that people are people and they have feelings.

maddoctor.2738:

Rashagar.8349:

If you want your preferences catered for, then you have to actually state your preferences.

Nah that’s not enough, take a look:

Harper.4173:

The sad part is that you can write “exp only” and “meta comp, meta strats, no bads” and still get non-meta, non-optimal strat bads.
People don’t read. Don’t care what the LFG says and then get kicked. Then they go onto the forum and complain having no idea why they were kicked.

And besides, fractals have nice multiple tiers of difficulty, so inexperienced players shouldn’t exist at higher levels. They get training through those amazing tiers of difficulty after all. And second, when a group is for training then it is advertised as such, meaning a group not advertised for training, is not for training.

Stating your preferences doesn’t guarantee that they’re going to be catered for, but it’s a necessary first step.

You just seem to constantly be trying to justify why only people who don’t share your preferences should need to state them, presumably because you believe that your preferences are the default, when they’re not.

maddoctor.2738:

Rashagar.8349:

The problem is that some people are so used to having their preferences catered for that when it stops happening they feel their “rights” are “mattering less” than others (looks pointedly at the post above), when really they’re just mattering as much as everyone else’s.

You mean people who think it’s fair to join any group they want, and that group is expected to take them in so as not to hurt their precious feelings? All while completely ignoring the feelings of the other people in that same group.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

Harper.4173:

I know you would prefer (like anyone else) to be accepted into a group that does well even if you do poorly – but that’s not really fair to them is it?

It is fair to them. It is called tolerance. First it recognizes that people are people and they have feelings.

Any group that hasn’t stated their preferences is free to be joined by anyone, because they haven’t specified to the contrary.

How is this difficult? It’s like 3 extra words. You’ve used hundreds here trying to justify not using these three extra words.

Rashagar.8349:

You just seem to constantly be trying to justify why only people who don’t share your preferences should need to state them, presumably because you believe that your preferences are the default, when they’re not.

I don’t know why you continue to believe that not-training group should explicitly state that it is not a training group. A training group, is a training group, a non-training group is a non-training group. There is no middle ground.

Rashagar.8349:

Any group that hasn’t stated their preferences is free to be joined by anyone, because they haven’t specified to the contrary.

They haven’t specified it’s an “all welcome” group or a “training group” either. There is a reason on the LFG the casual runs are advertised as such. And you are missing the point, even with those unnecessary extra words, players will still join groups that aren’t for them anyway. It’s a moot point.

maddoctor.2738:

Rashagar.8349:

Any group that hasn’t stated their preferences is free to be joined by anyone, because they haven’t specified to the contrary.

They haven’t specified it’s an “all welcome” group or a “training group” either. There is a reason on the LFG the casual runs are advertised as such. And you are missing the point, even with those unnecessary extra words, players will still join groups that aren’t for them anyway. It’s a moot point.

It’s not a moot point it’s a perfect example of elitism right here.

maddoctor.2738:

Rashagar.8349:

You just seem to constantly be trying to justify why only people who don’t share your preferences should need to state them, presumably because you believe that your preferences are the default, when they’re not.

I don’t know why you continue to believe that not-training group should explicitly state that it is not a not-training group. A training group, is a training group, a non-training group is a non-training group. There is no middle ground.

Skill and experience isn’t a binary state.
Therefore a middle ground must exist.
Your way may not be the way that all “non-training” groups play.

Conner.4702:

It’s not a moot point it’s a perfect example of elitism right here.

When people still join groups that are not for them is a perfect example of elitism?

maddoctor.2738:

Rashagar.8349:

Any group that hasn’t stated their preferences is free to be joined by anyone, because they haven’t specified to the contrary.

They haven’t specified it’s an “all welcome” group or a “training group” either. There is a reason on the LFG the casual runs are advertised as such.

You realise that what you’re saying here is that your preferences are used to being catered to.
I refer you to one of my previous posts.

Rashagar.8349:

Your way may not be the way that all “non-training” groups play.

And? I never said anything about using dps meters or even meta builds in a simple “T4 dailies” group. I said about expecting players to already know how to do T4 fractals, and not go in and attack Subject 16 while he has the shield up and wipe the group.
I never said someone advertising a “T4 dailies” should kick people if they don’t do enough dps, or if they don’t play the meta builds. You are confusing two different things

Rashagar.8349:

You realise that what you’re saying here is that your preferences are used to being catered to.
I refer you to one of my previous posts.

An “all welcome” group is preference too.

maddoctor.2738:

Rashagar.8349:

You realise that what you’re saying here is that your preferences are used to being catered to.
I refer you to one of my previous posts.

An “all welcome” group is preference too.

Yes, a preference which they have stated in the LFG.

maddoctor.2738:

Rashagar.8349:

Your way may not be the way that all “non-training” groups play.

And? I never said anything about using dps meters or even meta builds in a simple “T4 dailies” group. I said about expecting players to already know how to do T4 fractals, and not go in and attack Subject 16 while he has the shield up and wipe the group.
I never said someone advertising a “T4 dailies” should kick people if they don’t do enough dps, or if they don’t play the meta builds. You are confusing two different things

I haven’t said anything about them either here.
All I’ve said is if you have preferences and want them respected, other people need to know what they are first.
You shouldn’t assume that they’re universal.

Dashingsteel.3410:

It’s always funny to hear people complain they want challenging content. Wouldn’t it be more challenging to let a non meta player join you???? hmmmm

You’re confusing “annoying” for “challenging”.

Rashagar.8349:

I haven’t said anything about them either here.
All I’ve said is if you have preferences and want them respected, other people need to know what they are first.
You shouldn’t assume that they’re universal.

And yet you never replied about the part of the fairness.
Is it fair to assume that others will keep you into your team, no matter how good you are?
Putting what they want above what the rest of the group wants?

maddoctor.2738:

Rashagar.8349:

I haven’t said anything about them either here.
All I’ve said is if you have preferences and want them respected, other people need to know what they are first.
You shouldn’t assume that they’re universal.

And yet you never replied about the part of the fairness.
Is it fair to assume that others will keep you into your team, no matter how good you are?
Putting what they want above what the rest of the group wants?

If the rest of the group has also joined a group that didn’t specify it’s preferences in the LFG, how do you know what the rest of them want?

Rashagar.8349:

If the rest of the group has also joined a group that didn’t specify it’s preferences, how do you know what the rest of them want?

Preferences don’t matter in this case, if you take your time to read the quoted post, preferences were never part of the equation, nor what the LFG listing stated.

maddoctor.2738:

Rashagar.8349:

If the rest of the group has also joined a group that didn’t specify it’s preferences, how do you know what the rest of them want?

Preferences don’t matter in this case, if you take your time to read the quoted post, preferences were never part of the equation, nor what the LFG listing stated.

You’ve been quoting my own posts about how people should state their preferences in the LFG, so how does this comment of your’s make any sense to you?

Rashagar.8349:

You’ve been quoting my own posts about how people should state their preferences in the LFG, so how does this comment of your’s make any sense to you?

My comments were about a very specific listing on the LFG and a very specific situation, that is a T4 daily run. Runs that are not the normal are usually advertised as such, including training runs, if it’s not stating it’s a training run, then it’s not a training run. For some reason you want it stated like “T4 dailies, not a training run!” and no matter how many times you say it, it will still be illogical to me.

Besides that, your argument of “accurately stating your preferences” falls flat because even with more complex listings, we still get the same results. The problem here is not that people aren’t accurately stating their preferences, which is what you are turning it into, because in reality they do, and it fails. The question is what happens afterwards.

Is it fair to intrude on others and expect them to play with you, even if they don’t want to? That’s the big question.

It’s somewhat difficult to enter a running and almost finished discussion… but here are my points.

For me, dps meters are god sent. Especially arcdps with its ability to estimate dps from all other players in my group.

I use it to compare myself to the other party members. As damage dealer, I feel the challenge to get to the top of the dps list. If someone else enters the group that makes more damage than me, challenge accepted – I try to get better.
One day, we filled a guild group with someone from lfg. Someone commented privately that the guest is acting strange, but I was able to tell him: “well, he may act strange, but at the last boss he dealt more damage than any of us”.

With dps meter, I am able to see in most cases why some encounter is difficult at times and dead easy at the next run. I am able to see if it is myself or someone else who makes this difference. If the problem is myself, I know I have to improve. This is something nobody else is able to tell me. The game isn’t able to tell.

If other people use dps meters for finding causes to kick other players, I don’t care. I don’t use it for this. For me it is an invaluable tool for estimating myself and strictly myself.

Harper.4173:

The sad part is that you can write “exp only” and “meta comp, meta strats, no bads” and still get non-meta, non-optimal strat bads.

Then it’s clearly the joining people’s fault. Anybody has the right to create LFG with whatever requirements they want, no matter howstringent (or nonsensical) they might be – and those requirements should be respected.

I can also understand, that some kinds of requirement can sort of be assumed (unless explicitly waived) in some kinds of content. Civility and good behaviour for any content. Some sort of basic competence, and at least reading/watching the fight beforehand for raids. Some fractal experience and knowing the normal mode for CM’s. Having the required AR for the tier for fractals in general. Anything above that however should be either stated in LFG, or clearly communicated at the very beginning. If you didn’t do that, then the only choice later on is to either be really, really polite in explaining (and hoping the other side will understand), or leaving the group.

Now, if you did state your preferences beforehand, and the player that joined happens to not fulfill them, kick away.

maddoctor.2738:

Rashagar.8349:

You’ve been quoting my own posts about how people should state their preferences in the LFG, so how does this comment of your’s make any sense to you?

My comments were about a very specific listing on the LFG and a very specific situation, that is a T4 daily run. Runs that are not the normal are usually advertised as such, including training runs, if it’s not stating it’s a training run, then it’s not a training run. For some reason you want it stated like “T4 dailies, not a training run!” and no matter how many times you say it, it will still be illogical to me.

To top that off, most t4 daily runs explicitly state “exp”. Unless you somehow read that as “experienced at training”, the intent seems quite clear to me.

Astralporing.1957:

Now, if you did state your preferences beforehand, and the player that joined happens to not fulfill them, kick away.

Now here is a couple of different situations.
1) You advertise a training run let’s say for Vale Guardian.
People join, they fill the important slots of it, you get two PS Warriors. You are at 9/10 and another PS Warrior joins, maybe you didn’t have the time to update your listing. None of the PS Warriors can swap to another build. All of them fulfill the preferences. Do you kick the one PS (to be fair, the last one to join)

2) You advertise for a daily fractal run. People join, including a healer Druid. The last person to join is another support build, let’s say a support Tempest. None want to swap their builds, going in with 2/5 support builds isn’t very good, in fact on many fractals even one support isn’t needed. Do you kick a support if neither wants to swap?

3) In an anyone welcome group, you get that one person who is always on the ground, dead. He begins to drag the team down, ignoring mechanics, wiping the entire group and refusing to change because “That’s how he wants to play”. That person is holding 4 people back and their fun is diminished by having him drag them down. Is it appropriate to kick said person?

4) In the opposite situation that 3. You join an all welcome group and that terrible person keeps harassing team members. The team succeeds in the encounters but that guy still goes at it. Do you kick said person or take his insults and move on?

maddoctor.2738:

Rashagar.8349:

You’ve been quoting my own posts about how people should state their preferences in the LFG, so how does this comment of your’s make any sense to you?

My comments were about a very specific listing on the LFG and a very specific situation, that is a T4 daily run. Runs that are not the normal are usually advertised as such, including training runs, if it’s not stating it’s a training run, then it’s not a training run. For some reason you want it stated like “T4 dailies, not a training run!” and no matter how many times you say it, it will still be illogical to me.

Besides that, your argument of “accurately stating your preferences” falls flat because even with more complex listings, we still get the same results. The problem here is not that people aren’t accurately stating their preferences, which is what you are turning it into, because in reality they do, and it fails. The question is what happens afterwards.

Is it fair to intrude on others and expect them to play with you, even if they don’t want to? That’s the big question.

But I didn’t even quote your original comment, why are you making it sound like I’m the one turning it into a different argument or something when so far you’ve tried addressing this point

If you want your preferences catered for, then you have to actually state your preferences.

Rashagar.8349:

other people need to know what they are first.

by saying… honestly I’ve scoured your responses to me and I can’t even find a coherent point you’re trying to make, you keep just saying “this new thing is what I’m really talking about” as if it isn’t you that’s responding to me. If you don’t dispute my point or don’t want to talk about it then I don’t know why you’re quoting me constantly, then all you’re actually doing is attempting to deflect it.

But since we’re here:
*reads your new shpeal fully again *
*takes a deep breath *
Right! Firstly

My comments were about a very specific listing on the LFG and a very specific situation, that is a T4 daily run. Runs that are not the normal are usually advertised as such, including training runs, if it’s not stating it’s a training run, then it’s not a training run. For some reason you want it stated like “T4 dailies, not a training run!” and no matter how many times you say it, it will still be illogical to me.

maddoctor.2738:

The problem here is not that people aren’t accurately stating their preferences, which is what you are turning it into, because in reality they do, and it fails.

No, the problem is that “they” (the people I’m talking about), think that they’re accurately stating their preferences (for example by just saying “T4 Daily”) when they’re actually not. What they are doing is making assumptions that their preferences are the default preferences (which they aren’t, necessarily) or that their way to clear content is the default way (which it isn’t, necessarily). Then if someone deviates by daring to not be a mind reader they (again, the “they” I’m talking about) kick them without communicating anything or realising that it might be themselves that are in the wrong. And even if their way is “the default” (because I am entirely uninterested in people coming along to quote this post just to justify to themselves that their ideas of default are the correct ideas of default that everyone else should adhere to), other people might have different ideas to your’s of what “the default” is.

In short:

Runs that are not the normal

Your definitions of normal might not be other peoples’ definitions of normal.

if it’s not stating it’s a training run, then it’s not a training run

You seem to be working under the belief that those are the only two states that exist, either someone is doing it your way or they should be in a training run. The options aren’t only “training run” and “normal run” if nothing else because your idea of normal might be abnormal.
As I said before, skill/experience/knowledge is not a binary state. Some people are continuously learning things as they play. You might even benefit from being one of them =P (Sorry that was probably mean but I think I’ve expended saintly levels of patience here already)

You always add ‘exp only’, so all the people who are experienced at being carried feel wanted.

Rashagar.8349:

No, the problem is that “they” (the people I’m talking about), think that they’re accurately stating their preferences (for example by just saying “T4 Daily”) when they’re actually not.

But in reality they are stating their preferences clearly. They don’t have a training run, otherwise it would’ve been stated as such. It’s not rocket science, if it doesn’t have “Training” in the listing then it’s not training.

You seem to be working under the belief that those are the only two states that exist, either someone is doing it your way or they should be in a training run. The options aren’t only “training run” and “normal run” if nothing else because your idea of normal might be abnormal.

What are those other mysterious states then?

or that their way to clear content is the default way

Oh and I forgot this. I’m not sure when you got the idea about doing the content in a specific way from anything I’ve ever posted. I only pointed the difference between a training and a not-training run, nothing about using potions, food, meta builds or anything else. My simple distinction was between training and not training

You said earlier:

Your way may not be the way that all “non-training” groups play.

and I answered:

And? I never said anything about using dps meters or even meta builds in a simple “T4 dailies” group. I said about expecting players to already know how to do T4 fractals, and not go in and attack Subject 16 while he has the shield up and wipe the group.
I never said someone advertising a “T4 dailies” should kick people if they don’t do enough dps, or if they don’t play the meta builds. You are confusing two different things

I don’t care how non-training groups play because that was never part of my argument to begin with.

maddoctor.2738:

Rashagar.8349:

No, the problem is that “they” (the people I’m talking about), think that they’re accurately stating their preferences (for example by just saying “T4 Daily”) when they’re actually not.

But in reality they are stating their preferences clearly. They don’t have a training run, otherwise it would’ve been stated as such. It’s not rocket science, if it doesn’t have “Training” in the listing then it’s not training.

You seem to be working under the belief that those are the only two states that exist, either someone is doing it your way or they should be in a training run. The options aren’t only “training run” and “normal run” if nothing else because your idea of normal might be abnormal.

What are those other mysterious states then?

Why are you pretending that your experiences are “reality” and other people’s experiences are not?

And you literally listed a third option a couple of posts up! They can’t be that mysterious to you.

maddoctor.2738:

Rashagar.8349:

No, the problem is that “they” (the people I’m talking about), think that they’re accurately stating their preferences (for example by just saying “T4 Daily”) when they’re actually not.

But in reality they are stating their preferences clearly. They don’t have a training run, otherwise it would’ve been stated as such. It’s not rocket science, if it doesn’t have “Training” in the listing then it’s not training.

That assumption is such entitlement. And this is why I advocate not being lazy and writing in the group demands. If you’re just putting in “T4 Daily” then you have no right to whinge when non-meters or non-metas show up.

It’s 12 extra keystrokes for crying out loud: “, meta/meter”.

“T4 Daily, meta/meter”. That is not hard.

You’d type way more if you were looking for “PS condi war” or “chronotank”, so it’s not like being clear is all that difficult.

Rashagar.8349:

Why are you pretending that your experiences are “reality” and other people’s experiences are not?

I’m not pretending anything.

Rauderi.8706:

And this is why I advocate not being lazy and writing in the group demands. If you’re just putting in “T4 Daily” then you have no right to whinge when non-meters or non-metas show up.

Yay another one! Already answered that and I don’t understand why it’s creating such a misunderstanding in the first place. If you type “T4 Daily” you have to accept all the players that join, if they are meta or non-meta, if they are using a dps meter or not. I even said it earlier:

And? I never said anything about using dps meters or even meta builds in a simple “T4 dailies” group. I said about expecting players to already know how to do T4 fractals, and not go in and attack Subject 16 while he has the shield up and wipe the group.
I never said someone advertising a “T4 dailies” should kick people if they don’t do enough dps, or if they don’t play the meta builds. You are confusing two different things

Should I put it in my signature? The one and only thing I said is when someone says “T4 Daily” it excludes training. That’s like the one and only thing I said, how the run will go, if it’s meta, if it uses meters, if it’s a casual everyone welcome group or not, wasn’t in the argument to begin with. The “T4 Daily” is only there to distinguish between a training and a not-training run, that’s it. IF you want to use meters or meta builds then of course you will have to write it down and make it known.

The original comment for reference, the one that made people so worked up about it:

Although when you type “T4 dailies” you shouldn’t distinguish between professions and take any that might join, that doesn’t mean you will teach anyone the mechanics of any fight. That’s what groups with “training” in their name are for.

I’d love to hear everyone’s perspective on this:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/DPS-meter-really/page/9#post6712984

With the basic question:
Is it ever OK to kick someone even if they meet the advertised preferences of a group?

maddoctor.2738:

Rashagar.8349:

Why are you pretending that your experiences are “reality” and other people’s experiences are not?

I’m not pretending anything.

Well the only alternative to you pretending it is you actually believing it, which is too baffling a possibility to consider. =P

I will never ever understand this debate.

In any game not just Guild Wars 2,
everyone agrees that if the content requires a tank, and the tank on your team cannot hold aggro or stop faceplanting, eventually you will need to replace them with a tank that can do their job.

If you bring a healer, or support and they do not have any boon sharing, don’t run a group heal, and also lack water field its most likely that they will not be the teams healer for long. Again this isn’t a Guild Wars thing, this is any team, role based game ever made!

But for some reason half the community in these games thinks it’s 100% OK for the DPS in a team to flat out not do their job.

There are many fights that require a base level of DPS to complete, especially in the Meta that we have built. If a DPS is not reaching that level the only way to see that is with a DPS meter. Again this is not a Guild Wars thing.

If a DPS isn’t doing their job, I just cannot fathom why players are OK with letting that go. There is no other role in any team based game that we would be OK with this. Can you imagine if this was about health bars and the boon UI? Can you imagine if Healers/support players wanted them gone because players could use it to tell when they were not doing their jobs correctly, and discriminating against them kicking them from groups!

We wouldn’t put up with it. But for some reason, we allow this idea with DPS.

Rashagar.8349:

maddoctor.2738:

Rashagar.8349:

Why are you pretending that your experiences are “reality” and other people’s experiences are not?

I’m not pretending anything.

Well the only alternative to you pretending it is you actually believing it, which is too baffling a possibility to consider. =P

You should read my answer to Rauderi:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/DPS-meter-really/page/9#post6713099

That’s really my last post on that subject and I don’t have to elaborate any further, I hope.

maddoctor.2738:

Astralporing.1957:

Now, if you did state your preferences beforehand, and the player that joined happens to not fulfill them, kick away.

Now here is a couple of different situations.
1) You advertise a training run let’s say for Vale Guardian.
People join, they fill the important slots of it, you get two PS Warriors. You are at 9/10 and another PS Warrior joins, maybe you didn’t have the time to update your listing. None of the PS Warriors can swap to another build. All of them fulfill the preferences. Do you kick the one PS (to be fair, the last one to join)

Training run? The third ps can easily run as dps with just a slight change to traits and utils. Won’t be as efficient, but for learning mechanics it will do.

maddoctor.2738:

2) You advertise for a daily fractal run. People join, including a healer Druid. The last person to join is another support build, let’s say a support Tempest. None want to swap their builds, going in with 2/5 support builds isn’t very good, in fact on many fractals even one support isn’t needed. Do you kick a support if neither wants to swap?

No, why? Done many fractal daily runs in worse setups. Besides, i did not set any specific group requirements in that example, did i.

maddoctor.2738:

3) In an anyone welcome group, you get that one person who is always on the ground, dead. He begins to drag the team down, ignoring mechanics, wiping the entire group and refusing to change because “That’s how he wants to play”. That person is holding 4 people back and their fun is diminished by having him drag them down. Is it appropriate to kick said person?

Not really. Usually i try not to give “all welcome” tags unless i am relatively sure the group can carry one person. Often discussing the problems can help as well. In the worst case i’d leave the group however (though i had to go that far only once or twice in my history – from my experience such players usually give up long before i get to that point)

maddoctor.2738:

4) In the opposite situation that 3. You join an all welcome group and that terrible person keeps harassing team members. The team succeeds in the encounters but that guy still goes at it. Do you kick said person or take his insults and move on?

I did mention that civility is one requirement i assume is always in force, didn’t i? Though, to remain civil as well, i’d likely just leave such group very fast if the person wouldn’t moderate their behaviour after being kindly asked to do so.

Also, many of these problems could be solved by just talking about it before even starting the instance (again, i did mention that not all requirements need to be immediately in LFG, some can be stated separately at/just after the party forming phase – as long as they are stated before the actual run begins). In no case a kick would be required partway through the actual dungeon/fractal/raid run.

maddoctor.2738:

1) You advertise a training run let’s say for Vale Guardian…

2) You advertise for a daily fractal run…

3) In an anyone welcome group…

4) In the opposite situation that 3…

1) and 2) I would talk with people, usually that solves the problem. If none of them wants to or cannot switch, and nobody wants to leave, the last one gets kicked. I’ve never seen someone wanting to stay in the group fully knowing that he’s not welcome though.

2) and 3) Kick. Been there done that, not playing with toxic people. There are only two options, either the toxic person leaves or I leave.

maddoctor.2738:

Dashingsteel.3410:

It’s always funny to hear people complain they want challenging content. Wouldn’t it be more challenging to let a non meta player join you????

No. /15chars

What do you mean “No” Of course it would!

Astralporing.1957:

Also, many of these problems could be solved by just talking about it before even starting the instance (again, i did mention that not all requirements need to be immediately in LFG, some can be stated separately at/just after the party forming phase – as long as they are stated before the actual run begins). In no case a kick would be required partway through the actual dungeon/fractal/raid run.

This is true. Of course, the LFG doesn’t have enough space to type more complex listings and some extra communication after the group is formed is always nice.
I find it interesting that you are willing to leave the group instead of kicking the offending person.

maddoctor.2738:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

It’s a reasonable point of view, but I wonder: how much more difficult would it be for you to add a few words? “T4 dailies, experienced only” tells me that it’s a group that cares how well people know the mechanics, whereas “T4 dailies” leaves it open to interpretation.

Then what is a “T4 training” group for?

What difference does it make? The purpose of choosing words is to communicate ideas to each other. Clearly, people misunderstand LFG/LFM and some of the time, it’s down to the absence of a few words.

So again, how much trouble is it for folks to add a few words to their LFG? It won’t prevent joiners who fail to read LFG and it won’t prevent people who haven’t mastered as much as they think, but will help some people to find or avoid a group.

Personally, I think finding out our “fifth” is a poor match for our group is less efficient than spending a few seconds typing a few more letters. Your mileage might vary.