This is still a design issue when one or two antisocial players can ruin the game for an entire map. Obviously if a large group starts reporting you, odds are you’ve done something to warrant it.
What makes them anti social?
The fact that they don’t want to stand around in a ball and spam 1 for hours on end?
That they’d rather finish an event?
Confusing argument is confusing.
It’s the equivalent of destroying the sand castle of dozens of people.
Dozens of people like to have fun in one way (farming an event), then there is one or 2 other people who come and ruin it for everybody.
Considering that a game is meant to have fun, who is right and who is wrong?
My money is on those ruining the fun of a large amount of people being wrong. It’s not against the ToS, it’s not a bannable offence, but in the end of the day, they are ruining the fun of a large amount of people, so it’s morally wrong. It is indeed being INCONSIDERATE and selfish, i.e. antisocial. That’s regardless of how the game is supposed to be played.
I think that the best way for Anet to fix this is to make it so farmers will gather around an area designed to be farmed. Dry Top seemed to be that, but it seems that the lack of champs and the lack of scaling makes it unappealing for farmers. The only event I can think of that scales and spawn champs in the basket event. There needs to be more events like that and they also need to be on a short timer with a reward for succeeding so people will want to extend them but also win them.
This is still a design issue when one or two antisocial players can ruin the game for an entire map. Obviously if a large group starts reporting you, odds are you’ve done something to warrant it.
What makes them anti social?
The fact that they don’t want to stand around in a ball and spam 1 for hours on end?
That they’d rather finish an event?
Confusing argument is confusing.
It’s the equivalent of destroying the sand castle of dozens of people.
Dozens of people like to have fun in one way (farming an event), then there is one or 2 other people who come and ruin it for everybody.
Considering that a game is meant to have fun, who is right and who is wrong?
My money is on those ruining the fun of a large amount of people being wrong. It is indeed being INCONSIDERATE and selfish, i.e. antisocial. That’s regardless of how the game is supposed to be played.
Maybe you would have a point if the people building the sand castle weren’t blocking access to the water at the beach. Which in your analogy is what the people farming these events are doing. And then they are telling the people who want to play in the water to go else where to do so.
And this in no way makes them anti social. It’s still a really odd accusation to make.
“It is indeed being INCONSIDERATE and selfish, i.e. antisocial. That’s regardless of how the game is supposed to be played.”
Not unlike telling people who want to finish their living story (some of which paid money to do so) that they need to go else where and THEIR farming spot is more important? Let’s talk about being selfish..
Still being neither inconsiderate or selfish makes a person anti social. If that’s the case then the fail farmers fit that bill just as much and if not more so than the people you claim are ruining their fun.
This is the logical conclusion using your argument.
This is still a design issue when one or two antisocial players can ruin the game for an entire map. Obviously if a large group starts reporting you, odds are you’ve done something to warrant it.
What makes them anti social?
The fact that they don’t want to stand around in a ball and spam 1 for hours on end?
That they’d rather finish an event?
Confusing argument is confusing.
It’s the equivalent of destroying the sand castle of dozens of people.
Dozens of people like to have fun in one way (farming an event), then there is one or 2 other people who come and ruin it for everybody.
Considering that a game is meant to have fun, who is right and who is wrong?
My money is on those ruining the fun of a large amount of people being wrong. It is indeed being INCONSIDERATE and selfish, i.e. antisocial. That’s regardless of how the game is supposed to be played.
Maybe you would have a point if the people building the sand castle weren’t blocking access to the water at the beach. Which in your analogy is what the people farming these events are doing. And then they are telling the people who want to play in the water to go else where to do so.
And this in no way makes them anti social. It’s still a really odd accusation to make.
“It is indeed being INCONSIDERATE and selfish, i.e. antisocial. That’s regardless of how the game is supposed to be played.”
Not unlike telling people who want to finish their living story (some of which paid money to do so) that they need to go else where and THEIR farming spot is more important? Let’s talk about being selfish..
Still being neither inconsiderate or selfish makes a person anti social. If that’s the case then the fail farmers fit that bill just as much and if not more so than the people you claim are ruining their fun.
This is the logical conclusion using your argument.
No, that is your argument. My argument lies in the numbers and in the intent. Those trolls go in and purposefully ruin the fun of dozens of people for the lulz, i.e. destroy their sand castles. I’m not talking about those who want to complete their LS.
Here is the definition of “anti-social” from Wikipedia. Maybe that will enlighten you. “Anti-social behaviours are actions that harm or lack consideration for the well-being of others. Anti-social behaviour is labelled as such when it is deemed contrary to prevailing norms for social conduct.”
Which is exactly what the people who come in and disrupt the farms “for the lulz” are doing, and being.
When a group of people feel like they have a right to lock down a piece of content to suit their desire then you know something is wrong and needs to change.
And yet, if that “desire” fits with the perceived “intended design” of the content, then suddenly everybody is a-ok with locking down the content.
The problem, as I’ve said before, is ultimately conflicting gameplay goals with a clear “winner” and “loser.” These events are the perfect place to spawn such conflict because they are binary “complete” (1) or “fail” (0). There is no in-between where players can find compromise.
Which would be fine if all of the events were most beneficial when completed, but that obviously isn’t the case.
This argument will always exist in game until ANET finally start to take their game seriously and use the hammer to punish those that seek to abuse it.. whatever side of the argument .. .. if not its just endless circle of event>exploit>abuse>nerf>event>exploit>abuse>nerf……
Lots of posts, but I’m sure this thread has served its purpose and was answered back months… well, ok, days ago.
Do mass reports work? No.
Could someone get suspended for fake reports? Yes.
Could a group get nabbed for intentional griefing through false reports? Yes.
Do you guarantee you’ll nab each and every person or group submitting a false or mob report? Probably not.
Bottom line: Report reasonable, play reasonably, and all is well.
