Guild Wars 2

If we want an actual analogy here(not walking up to someone asking about their clothes)…It’s like asking a soldier if he is wearing body armor or a pillow in his shirt. Or like asking him if he’s got an automatic rifle or a bb gun that looks like one. Do you want to go to battle with a man using a bb gun pew pewing a dragon?

Ordika.9513:

Scrambles.2604:

lol, why is it rude for someone to see what gear your wearing? It may be the case that i simply cant put myself in your mindset, but privacy and rudeness in regard to looking at someones gear, in a game about acquiring gear, seems pretty absurd to me.

Agree to disagree.

It’s all about mindset here, the presumption that you should have access to someone else’s avatar. I personally find it rude so I personally hold myself to that standard. As such I would prefer it not be in the game, or at least if it is, then as has been suggested, make it opt out/in.

Also the game isn’t about acquiring gear, WoW/Rift style progression is about acquiring gear. Here once you have what you want you don’t have to acquire another piece of gear as long as you play (presumably unless ascended gear is expanded or added to).

Right, so the significance of your gear in GW2 is of less importance, compared to WoW/Rift. Which, i would imagine, would give you even less of a reason to be worried about someone inspecting you.

This game is about acquiring gear, but not about progressing stats through gear.

agree to disagree if you’d like. But my opinion comes from extensive experience in games with /inspect, and i can honestly assure you that the inclusion of an /inspect function has never taken away from my enjoyment of the game.

That said, i also don’t care what other people think about me.

If i did care about what people may or may not be thinking about me, then i could see how it would bother me if people may or may not be looking at my gear…aka may or may not be making assumptions about my personality based on gear.

penatbater.4710:

Scrambles.2604:

penatbater.4710:

Scrambles.2604:

lol, why is it rude for someone to see what gear your wearing? It may be the case that i simply cant put myself in your mindset, but privacy and rudeness in regard to looking at someones gear, in a game about acquiring gear, seems pretty absurd to me.

Try walking down the street demanding people to tell you where they got their clothes and tell me if it’s not rude. Same basic principle applies.

Is it rude to glance at their cloths and notice what theyre wearing, if it doesn’t effect them?

Also, we’re talking about the application in a video game, where real-world factors may not be as applicable. It would be different if i could right click someone on the street, but well….i cant.

Not to mention, in the current state, where you have to ask someone to ping their gear, is pretty much exactly the same as stopping someone on the street and asking them. Not that that is entirely rude, but it could be inconvenient for either party.

/inspect ~ being able to see what people are wearing, their brands, when they were bought etc WITHOUT their prior knowledge or consent.

pinging – asking people what they are wearing, giving them the appropriate knowledge and consent.

That’s the major difference, methinks.

“demanding” someone’s brand of clothes on the street still requires consent to get an answer. I’m not really sure what you’re trying to do here.

data.4093:

If we want an actual analogy here(not walking up to someone asking about their clothes)…It’s like asking a soldier if he is wearing body armor or a pillow in his shirt. Or like asking him if he’s got an automatic rifle or a bb gun that looks like one. Do you want to go to battle with a man using a bb gun pew pewing a dragon?

The purpose for asking what the person is wearing is another (equally important) issue. But the main issue they were discussing was the ethics in asking/knowing what someone is wearing, privacy issues not utilitarian issues.

penatbater.4710:

If a block feature with /inspect would be in place, what’s the difference then between that and pinging?

The difference is that folks that have inspection blocked can be harassed by random strangers for wanting to keep their build/gear private. Just ask the folks that get pulled over for having a tail light out and refuse to let the police take a look in their car for no reason. You are assumed to be guilty of something if you don’t allow folks to invade your privacy to satisfy their curiosity.

I think a one click ping for gear/builds would be awesome. I think it is a solution that would satisfy the dungeon runners and support friendly voluntary discussion of builds and gear setups.

I think the hurdle of having to actually ask someone to provide the information is a good thing. In my opinion, the ping should generate a clickable link that you could put into chat, on the forums, or into a mail message. That way, you could share it offline instead of having to interrupt what you’re doing.

Scrambles.2604:

penatbater.4710:

Scrambles.2604:

penatbater.4710:

Scrambles.2604:

lol, why is it rude for someone to see what gear your wearing? It may be the case that i simply cant put myself in your mindset, but privacy and rudeness in regard to looking at someones gear, in a game about acquiring gear, seems pretty absurd to me.

Try walking down the street demanding people to tell you where they got their clothes and tell me if it’s not rude. Same basic principle applies.

Is it rude to glance at their cloths and notice what theyre wearing, if it doesn’t effect them?

Also, we’re talking about the application in a video game, where real-world factors may not be as applicable. It would be different if i could right click someone on the street, but well….i cant.

Not to mention, in the current state, where you have to ask someone to ping their gear, is pretty much exactly the same as stopping someone on the street and asking them. Not that that is entirely rude, but it could be inconvenient for either party.

/inspect ~ being able to see what people are wearing, their brands, when they were bought etc WITHOUT their prior knowledge or consent.

pinging – asking people what they are wearing, giving them the appropriate knowledge and consent.

That’s the major difference, methinks.

“demanding” someone’s brand of clothes on the street still requires consent to get an answer. I’m not really sure what you’re trying to do here.

I only use demand because there’s no way for humans to know what the other person is wearing (unless they’re living in a cosmopolitan city and everyone is wearing branded clothes so people can ascertain what brand that person is wearing). But my second reply is more accurate. The difference lies in consent and permission. /inspect provides no consent and no permission, regardless if you personally allow it or not. pinging gives the user the respect of having the option to allow you to know what he’s wearing.

But if the block function does happen in /inspect, then it will serve the same function as pinging gear, and therefore render the proposed change useless.

Scrambles.2604:

agree to disagree if you’d like. But my opinion comes from extensive experience in games with /inspect, and i can honestly assure you that the inclusion of an /inspect function has never taken away from my enjoyment of the game.

That said, i also don’t care what other people think about me.

If i did care about what people may or may not be thinking about me, then i could see how it would bother me if people may or may not be looking at my gear…aka may or may not be making assumptions about my personality based on gear.

You assume my opinion is formed out of the void with no validity?

You assume I am crying every night because I didn’t get into someones all Zerker CoF1 run?

Agree to disagree simply means we both have valid arguments but won’t see eye to eye. So in that case the best thing for use to do is compromise and champion either a inspect feature with opt out/in or even better, a one button ping of gear and traits.

Ordika.9513:

Scrambles.2604:

agree to disagree if you’d like. But my opinion comes from extensive experience in games with /inspect, and i can honestly assure you that the inclusion of an /inspect function has never taken away from my enjoyment of the game.

That said, i also don’t care what other people think about me.

If i did care about what people may or may not be thinking about me, then i could see how it would bother me if people may or may not be looking at my gear…aka may or may not be making assumptions about my personality based on gear.

You assume my opinion is formed out of the void with no validity?

You assume I am crying every night because I didn’t get into someones all Zerker CoF1 run?

Welcome to the frustration I got to deal with yesterday. = D

Ordika.9513:

You assume my opinion is formed out of the void with no validity?

Yes.

Unless you can detail a situation where someone /inspected you, didn’t correspond with you as a result (so they inspected you and didn’t call you a noob for your gear), yet you still found it rude.

The only thing i can possibly imagine, would be from WoW, where it showed “Display target’s target.” So, if i targeted someone, and they have me targeted already, there is a possibility they may be inspecting me.

And usually, when someone says “agree to disagree” it really means “i’m done arguing with you.”

Scrambles.2604:

Ordika.9513:

You assume my opinion is formed out of the void with no validity?

Yes.

Unless you can detail a situation where someone /inspected you, didn’t correspond with you as a result (so they inspected you and didn’t call you a noob for your gear), yet you still found it rude.

The only thing i can possibly imagine, would be from WoW, where it showed “Display target’s target.” So, if i targeted someone, and they have me targeted already, there is a possibility they may be inspecting me.

And usually, when someone says “agree to disagree” it really means “i’m done arguing with you.”

Do you ever stop and think about how silly you sound when you say stuff like this? I’m sure to you, in your head, everything you say is a valid and well thought out point that is peer reviewed (by you), scientifically proven (by you), and the only correct line of thought. Well, congratulations: that’s just like 90% of the rest of these forums. The difference is, most people don’t embarrass themselves by extending those delusions of grandeur past their own mind and onto the internet.

I’m being completely honest here: you would get taken a lot more seriously if you ever stopped and realized “my opinion is just that”.

And besides that, you’ll have tough competition in comparing MMO experience. Some of us having been playing graphical MMOs for 16 years (since 1997), and if you count text based MMOs that shoots farther up.

Tolmos.8395:

Scrambles.2604:

Ordika.9513:

You assume my opinion is formed out of the void with no validity?

Yes.

Unless you can detail a situation where someone /inspected you, didn’t correspond with you as a result (so they inspected you and didn’t call you a noob for your gear), yet you still found it rude.

The only thing i can possibly imagine, would be from WoW, where it showed “Display target’s target.” So, if i targeted someone, and they have me targeted already, there is a possibility they may be inspecting me.

And usually, when someone says “agree to disagree” it really means “i’m done arguing with you.”

Do you ever stop and think about how silly you sound when you say stuff like this? I’m sure to you, in your head, everything you say is a valid and well thought out point that is peer reviewed (by you), scientifically proven (by you), and the only correct line of thought. Well, congratulations: that’s just like 90% of the rest of these forums. The difference is, most people don’t embarrass themselves by extending those delusions of grandeur past their own mind and onto the internet.

I’m being completely honest here: you would get taken a lot more seriously if you ever stopped and realized “my opinion is just that”.

And besides that, you’ll have tough competition in comparing MMO experience. Some of us having been playing graphical MMOs for 16 years (since 1997), and if you count text based MMOs that shoots farther up.

Forgive me if i have a background in research methodology.

I could say the same to you. Though your posts come off much more inflammatory, as in, you attack a people’s personalities, and not the ideas they’re trying to convey. If you want to debate properly you need to stop being so emotionally attached to the argument.

Scrambles.2604:

Ordika.9513:

You assume my opinion is formed out of the void with no validity?

Yes.

Unless you can detail a situation where someone /inspected you, didn’t correspond with you as a result (so they inspected you and didn’t call you a noob for your gear), yet you still found it rude.

The only thing i can possibly imagine, would be from WoW, where it showed “Display target’s target.” So, if i targeted someone, and they have me targeted already, there is a possibility they may be inspecting me.

And usually, when someone says “agree to disagree” it really means “i’m done arguing with you.”

That act in and of itself I find rude (I’m pretty sure I already said that), as I find it presumptuous and shows a sense of entitlement that you would subvert someones choice to demand information without their knowledge or consent. I don’t need to have had the happen to me to believe it to be so. It’s more an ethic/morality issue then an actual, this happened and therefore I condemn the act. There is a perfect example I could use but won’t because it will start a whole other kind of flame war that I am not going to start.

Agree to disagree may be used often times when people just want to dismiss someone, but that is not actually what it means. Since you don’t know me I’ll be 100% clear, I mean it in the sense that it is meant to be used. You have a valid argument, that I disagree with, I have a valid argument you disagree with. Neither will come to agreement so we can either just walk away from the impasse or figure out and champion a compromise.

I don’t know you so I won’t assume any knowledge or experience on your part, repay that kindness in turn to me and everyone else here who disagrees with you and maybe we can figure something out and actually suggest it to the devs.

Ordika.9513:

Scrambles.2604:

Ordika.9513:

You assume my opinion is formed out of the void with no validity?

Yes.

Unless you can detail a situation where someone /inspected you, didn’t correspond with you as a result (so they inspected you and didn’t call you a noob for your gear), yet you still found it rude.

The only thing i can possibly imagine, would be from WoW, where it showed “Display target’s target.” So, if i targeted someone, and they have me targeted already, there is a possibility they may be inspecting me.

And usually, when someone says “agree to disagree” it really means “i’m done arguing with you.”

That act in and of itself I find rude (I’m pretty sure I already said that), as I find it presumptuous and shows a sense of entitlement that you would subvert someones choice to demand information without their knowledge or consent. I don’t need to have had the happen to me to believe it to be so. It’s more an ethic/morality issue then an actual, this happened and therefore I condemn the act. There is a perfect example I could use but won’t because it will start a whole other kind of flame war that I am not going to start.

Agree to disagree may be used often times when people just want to dismiss someone, but that is not actually what it means. Since you don’t know me I’ll be 100% clear, I mean it in the sense that it is meant to be used. You have a valid argument, that I disagree with, I have a valid argument you disagree with. Neither will come to agreement so we can either just walk away from the impasse or figure out and champion a compromise.

I don’t know you so I won’t assume any knowledge or experience on your part, repay that kindness in turn to me and everyone else here who disagrees with you and maybe we can figure something out and actually suggest it to the devs.

I’m sorry but, “it’s rude because i think it is” doesn’t come off as valid. “its rude because it has inconvenienced me in the following ways…” would merit more credibility.

Scrambles.2604:

Tolmos.8395:

Scrambles.2604:

Ordika.9513:

You assume my opinion is formed out of the void with no validity?

Yes.

Unless you can detail a situation where someone /inspected you, didn’t correspond with you as a result (so they inspected you and didn’t call you a noob for your gear), yet you still found it rude.

The only thing i can possibly imagine, would be from WoW, where it showed “Display target’s target.” So, if i targeted someone, and they have me targeted already, there is a possibility they may be inspecting me.

And usually, when someone says “agree to disagree” it really means “i’m done arguing with you.”

Do you ever stop and think about how silly you sound when you say stuff like this? I’m sure to you, in your head, everything you say is a valid and well thought out point that is peer reviewed (by you), scientifically proven (by you), and the only correct line of thought. Well, congratulations: that’s just like 90% of the rest of these forums. The difference is, most people don’t embarrass themselves by extending those delusions of grandeur past their own mind and onto the internet.

I’m being completely honest here: you would get taken a lot more seriously if you ever stopped and realized “my opinion is just that”.

And besides that, you’ll have tough competition in comparing MMO experience. Some of us having been playing graphical MMOs for 16 years (since 1997), and if you count text based MMOs that shoots farther up.

Forgive me if i have a background in research methodology.

I could say the same to you. Though your posts come off much more inflammatory, as in, you attack a people’s personalities, and not the ideas they’re trying to convey. If you want to debate properly you need to stop being so emotionally attached to the argument.

lmao. And your faux condescension doesn’t come off as inflammatory?

Outstanding.

I’ll say this- while I doubt you are… IF you talk the way you do because you are a troll, you are my hero. Hands down, you are doing a great job of coming across in the worst possible way while actually looking like you don’t mean it. But, I unfortunately I seriously doubt that.

Ordika.9513:

I had no idea you where “pushed” to play with anyone. You might want to take umbrage with whomever is forcing you to play with people you don’t want to and not push for a tool that will probably not solve the issue of you being forced to play with people you don’t want to.

It would only become if the person who was denied took it upon themselves to start pestering me about it. But I have said the /inspect with a block feature is ok, but won’t solve the issue most people want it for (to prevent leeches in their group), as ping basically serves the same function and if they can lie via ping they will figure a way around inspect.

Worse player-checking tools you have, more likely you end up with wrong people.
But I actually I agree with you, ultimately, it’s my own choice. Similarly it’s everyone’s own choice even with proper inspect tools.

Do you also want chat disabled? How do you manage if someone asks you to ping your gear?

The very point of inspect is that you can recheck your team constantly, if you happen to suspect that something is wrong.
Do you already have an idea how to cheat inspect? Or just talking?

Scrambles.2604:

Ordika.9513:

Scrambles.2604:

Ordika.9513:

You assume my opinion is formed out of the void with no validity?

Yes.

Unless you can detail a situation where someone /inspected you, didn’t correspond with you as a result (so they inspected you and didn’t call you a noob for your gear), yet you still found it rude.

The only thing i can possibly imagine, would be from WoW, where it showed “Display target’s target.” So, if i targeted someone, and they have me targeted already, there is a possibility they may be inspecting me.

And usually, when someone says “agree to disagree” it really means “i’m done arguing with you.”

That act in and of itself I find rude (I’m pretty sure I already said that), as I find it presumptuous and shows a sense of entitlement that you would subvert someones choice to demand information without their knowledge or consent. I don’t need to have had the happen to me to believe it to be so. It’s more an ethic/morality issue then an actual, this happened and therefore I condemn the act. There is a perfect example I could use but won’t because it will start a whole other kind of flame war that I am not going to start.

Agree to disagree may be used often times when people just want to dismiss someone, but that is not actually what it means. Since you don’t know me I’ll be 100% clear, I mean it in the sense that it is meant to be used. You have a valid argument, that I disagree with, I have a valid argument you disagree with. Neither will come to agreement so we can either just walk away from the impasse or figure out and champion a compromise.

I don’t know you so I won’t assume any knowledge or experience on your part, repay that kindness in turn to me and everyone else here who disagrees with you and maybe we can figure something out and actually suggest it to the devs.

I’m sorry but, “it’s rude because i think it is” doesn’t come off as valid. “its rude because it has inconvenienced me in the following ways…” would merit more credibility.

Not in the slightest.

I believe murder is wrong. I have never had a immediate family member (great great grandfather was well before I was born), friend, or close acquaintance murdered. Yet I can still believe it to be wrong. Personal experience is not a prerequisite for opinion, it may refine or even change it, but is not require to shape it.

I am not comparing inspect and murder so lets not go down that road, only showing the personal experience is not needed to shape opinion.

Now you say you will only accept my opinion if I can show personal experience, fair enough, but that does not invalidate my argument. It only confirms you disagreement.

Ordika.9513:

Scrambles.2604:

Ordika.9513:

Scrambles.2604:

Ordika.9513:

You assume my opinion is formed out of the void with no validity?

Yes.

Unless you can detail a situation where someone /inspected you, didn’t correspond with you as a result (so they inspected you and didn’t call you a noob for your gear), yet you still found it rude.

The only thing i can possibly imagine, would be from WoW, where it showed “Display target’s target.” So, if i targeted someone, and they have me targeted already, there is a possibility they may be inspecting me.

And usually, when someone says “agree to disagree” it really means “i’m done arguing with you.”

That act in and of itself I find rude (I’m pretty sure I already said that), as I find it presumptuous and shows a sense of entitlement that you would subvert someones choice to demand information without their knowledge or consent. I don’t need to have had the happen to me to believe it to be so. It’s more an ethic/morality issue then an actual, this happened and therefore I condemn the act. There is a perfect example I could use but won’t because it will start a whole other kind of flame war that I am not going to start.

Agree to disagree may be used often times when people just want to dismiss someone, but that is not actually what it means. Since you don’t know me I’ll be 100% clear, I mean it in the sense that it is meant to be used. You have a valid argument, that I disagree with, I have a valid argument you disagree with. Neither will come to agreement so we can either just walk away from the impasse or figure out and champion a compromise.

I don’t know you so I won’t assume any knowledge or experience on your part, repay that kindness in turn to me and everyone else here who disagrees with you and maybe we can figure something out and actually suggest it to the devs.

I’m sorry but, “it’s rude because i think it is” doesn’t come off as valid. “its rude because it has inconvenienced me in the following ways…” would merit more credibility.

Not in the slightest.

I believe murder is wrong. I have never had a immediate family member (great great grandfather was well before I was born), friend, or close acquaintance murdered. Yet I can still believe it to be wrong. Personal experience is not a prerequisite for opinion, it may refine or even change it, but is not require to shape it.

I am not comparing inspect and murder so lets not go down that road, only showing the personal experience is not needed to shape opinion.

Now you say you will only accept my opinion if I can show personal experience, fair enough, but that does not invalidate my argument. It only confirms you disagreement.

Ok. sorry it doesn’t have to be personal experience, though that would help your case. Because it’s my personal experience vs your personal inexperience.

I just can’t fathom how, /inspecting someone, in a way that doesn’t inconvenience that person or myself, in a way that the person being inspect may not even know it’s happening is considered so rude that it merits omiting the /inspect all together.

Wethospu.6437:

Worse player-checking tools you have, more likely you end up with wrong people.
But I actually I agree with you, ultimately, it’s my own choice. Similarly it’s everyone’s own choice even with proper inspect tools.

Do you also want chat disabled? How do you manage if someone asks you to ping your gear?

The very point of inspect is that you can recheck your team constantly, if you happen to suspect that something is wrong.
Do you already have an idea how to cheat inspect? Or just talking?

I like you, you are willing to debate and give credence to others opinion (and I do not say that sarcastically I really mean that).

The chat thing is again a bit of reductio ad absurdum, but as I gave an answer for this before I’ll do so again. You can turn off channels in chat, and stick to only guild party speech. Unwarranted intrusion can already be controlled there; via chat channels, custom chat windows, and ignore features. Basically if you stick with map chat, be willing to accept the filth there, but again choice is involved.

As for getting around inspect. I have a full set of Zerker gear, I equip that and get in the group. Once I am in I change my gear to the MF gear and then turn off inspect. Now you can check and see I am blocking you now and either auto kick me, or ask hey can you unblock so I can check again. I say sure, then quickly equip my Zerker gear and allow you to inspect me again.

The rub is I could run the full Zerker gear and block you once I am in the group just so I don’t forget to turn off inspect after the run. You’ll decrease the leeches, but not completely get rid of them. Only solution for that is running with people you know.

Scrambles.2604:

Ok. sorry it doesn’t have to be personal experience, though that would help your case. Because it’s my personal experience vs your personal inexperience.

I just can’t fathom how, /inspecting someone, in a way that doesn’t inconvenience that person or myself, in a way that the person being inspect may not even know it’s happening is considered so rude that it merits omiting the /inspect all together.

It goes back to permission and consent. /inspect has none, and most people feel a violation of privacy when their consent and permission isn’t given, not to mention feel disrespected. It isn’t a matter of them having anything to hide, it’s a matter of respect, of asking them first rather than assuming that you have the right to see it in the first place.

penatbater.4710:

If a block feature with /inspect would be in place, what’s the difference then between that and pinging?

Assume for a second that a ping-all-equipped existed. In GW1 this was done through party chat. I think it would be done through chat in GW2 also. In GW2, parties can chat no matter where they are. Once someone joined a pug, they could be asked to ping all equipped no matter where they are. Inspect requires you to be close enough to them to click on their portrait and select inspect. For the initial check, this could be even more convenient.

It would not allow for “secret” inspects during a run (or at any other time). However, one could simply ask them to ping-all now and if the person took long enough to replace 13+ pieces, then I know what I’d conclude.

IndigoSundown.5419:

penatbater.4710:

If a block feature with /inspect would be in place, what’s the difference then between that and pinging?

Assume for a second that a ping-all-equipped existed. In GW1 this was done through party chat. I think it would be done through chat in GW2 also. In GW2, parties can chat no matter where they are. Once someone joined a pug, they could be asked to ping all equipped no matter where they are. Inspect requires you to be close enough to them to click on their portrait and select inspect. For the initial check, this could be even more convenient.

It would not allow for “secret” inspects during a run (or at any other time). However, one could simply ask them to ping-all now and if the person took long enough to replace 13+ pieces, then I know what I’d conclude.

Ping-all gear is acceptable to me. Only because they’re building up on existing tools. ping-all is still vastly different from /inspect imo.

IndigoSundown.5419:

penatbater.4710:

If a block feature with /inspect would be in place, what’s the difference then between that and pinging?

Assume for a second that a ping-all-equipped existed. In GW1 this was done through party chat. I think it would be done through chat in GW2 also. In GW2, parties can chat no matter where they are. Once someone joined a pug, they could be asked to ping all equipped no matter where they are. Inspect requires you to be close enough to them to click on their portrait and select inspect. For the initial check, this could be even more convenient.

It would not allow for “secret” inspects during a run (or at any other time). However, one could simply ask them to ping-all now and if the person took long enough to replace 13+ pieces, then I know what I’d conclude.

You could also make it a personal requirement that they be in front of you when they hit the ping all equipped button.

Ordika.9513:

You could also make it a personal requirement that they be in front of you when they hit the ping all equipped button.

Kind of hard with different servers and all. You could go into the dungeon instance and ask for a ping there and then I guess.

I’m all for a ping all (armor, traits, weapons, trinkets etc) function if we can’t get an inspect. I’d just like inspect more. Even if it’s optional.

Bright.9160:

Ordika.9513:

You could also make it a personal requirement that they be in front of you when they hit the ping all equipped button.

Kind of hard with different servers and all.

Very true, which is why I am not a fan of cross server stuff (aren’t we suppose to be at war with these other multi-verse interlopers anyway).

Your edit makes for a good fix to the issue.

Well if everyone can get behind the compromise of a ping-all-equipped button (which is basically the equivalent to a opt out/in inspect function) then would this be a sufficient compromise to take to the devs?

Ordika.9513:

As for getting around inspect. I have a full set of Zerker gear, I equip that and get in the group. Once I am in I change my gear to the MF gear and then turn off inspect. Now you can check and see I am blocking you now and either auto kick me, or ask hey can you unblock so I can check again. I say sure, then quickly equip my Zerker gear and allow you to inspect me again.

That is one of those unfortunate situations of “if someone wants to do something bad enough, they will”. It’s like a home with an alarm in it- sure, the alarm is a great deterrent, but someone who just wants to smash their way in and grab your TV before the 30 second timer ends to set off the alarm could very well do so. You can make it harder for them, but actually stopping that is impossible.

EXCEPT for Arenanet, who could lock everyone into whatever armor they are wearing at the start of the dungeon. But the rage and tears that would result from that would cause blood to leak from the header of these forums…

Tolmos.8395:

EXCEPT for Arenanet, who could lock everyone into whatever armor they are wearing at the start of the dungeon. But the rage and tears that would result from that would cause blood to leak from the header of these forums…

Maybe because sometimes people want/need to change armors for specific encounters, which is a pretty viable tactic.

What you’re essentially saying is “Well, I don’t want inspect. But I have an idea here: instead of inspect, let’s just completely destroy a pretty important game mechanic, just because I don’t want inspect.”

Bright.9160:

Tolmos.8395:

EXCEPT for Arenanet, who could lock everyone into whatever armor they are wearing at the start of the dungeon. But the rage and tears that would result from that would cause blood to leak from the header of these forums…

Maybe because sometimes people want/need to change armors for specific encounters, which is a pretty viable tactic.

What you’re essentially saying is “Well, I don’t want inspect. But I have an idea here: instead of inspect, let’s just completely destroy a pretty important game mechanic, just because I don’t want inspect.”

I think he was just saying that the only way to 100% guarantee someone stays in the gear they used to get into the dungeon is to lock equipment once the dungeon has started. I cannot say if he really thinks this is a good idea, but I do agree it is the only 100% guaranteed way to prevent people from getting around inspect/ping checks.

Bright.9160:

Tolmos.8395:

EXCEPT for Arenanet, who could lock everyone into whatever armor they are wearing at the start of the dungeon. But the rage and tears that would result from that would cause blood to leak from the header of these forums…

Maybe because sometimes people want/need to change armors for specific encounters, which is a pretty viable tactic.

What you’re essentially saying is “Well, I don’t want inspect. But I have an idea here: instead of inspect, let’s just completely destroy a pretty important game mechanic, just because I don’t want inspect.”

Yeah, there comes a point where trying to ensure that people won’t be kittens creates more problems than it solves — which is why I’m willing to settle for ping-all, or inspect w/ opt-out.

Scrambles.2604:

Ordika.9513:

Scrambles.2604:

How do you consider /inspect intrusive? Every game i’ve played that had /inspect, i honestly couldn’t tell you how many times i’ve been inspected. It could’ve been zero times or it could’ve a thousand times. I will never know because it has never intruded on my personal being.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Yes – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

The tree falling causes the oscillation of pressure through the air, just because no one is there doesn’t mean this didn’t happen.

So how is it intrusive, that person still looked at your character without your permission. Just because you don’t know it happened doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. What your arguing is whether or not someone was inconvenienced by it, which they may or may not end up being.

Seems much less inconvenient then being asked to ping your gear. What bothers you about people seeing your gear? If someone looks at your gear, without you knowing, and doesn’t do anything as a result, what’s the issue? I wont accept oscillating air pressure as an answer, unfortunately.

I mean, they can already get an idea of what you’re wearing just by looking at you. Maybe you should suggest an image blur so people can’t see what your character looks like, since you’ll just look like low-rez pixels.

Hmm… bet’cha can’t, thanks to the liberal use of T-stones.

An /inspect would be a bad addition to GW2. If you give someone a tool to make an idiot of themselves with, rest assured, they will.

Ordika.9513:

Bright.9160:

Tolmos.8395:

EXCEPT for Arenanet, who could lock everyone into whatever armor they are wearing at the start of the dungeon. But the rage and tears that would result from that would cause blood to leak from the header of these forums…

Maybe because sometimes people want/need to change armors for specific encounters, which is a pretty viable tactic.

What you’re essentially saying is “Well, I don’t want inspect. But I have an idea here: instead of inspect, let’s just completely destroy a pretty important game mechanic, just because I don’t want inspect.”

I think he was just saying that the only way to 100% guarantee someone stays in the gear they used to get into the dungeon is to lock equipment once the dungeon has started. I cannot say if he really thinks this is a good idea, but I do agree it is the only 100% guaranteed way to prevent people from getting around inspect/ping checks.

You are correct. And no, I don’t think it’s a good idea. I was just adding that in there because I didn’t want to make the blanket statement of “This is impossible to stop”, when it wasn’t. If the problem really did get out of hand and folks demanded a fix for it, Arenanet could do something about it. Doesn’t mean I’d like the idea.

Without reading this enormous thread I will say the following:
-I do not want an inspect feature to peak at people’s gear. This promotes the gear grind mentality of “I better have l33t stuff orelse I’ll be booted from this fractal group!” This game has teetered on that type of gameplay for a while now. This would surely push it over the edge.
-I would be OK, possibly, with a talent spec inspect. Thats it.

Ordika.9513:

The chat thing is again a bit of reductio ad absurdum, but as I gave an answer for this before I’ll do so again. You can turn off channels in chat, and stick to only guild party speech. Unwarranted intrusion can already be controlled there; via chat channels, custom chat windows, and ignore features. Basically if you stick with map chat, be willing to accept the filth there, but again choice is involved.

As for getting around inspect. I have a full set of Zerker gear, I equip that and get in the group. Once I am in I change my gear to the MF gear and then turn off inspect. Now you can check and see I am blocking you now and either auto kick me, or ask hey can you unblock so I can check again. I say sure, then quickly equip my Zerker gear and allow you to inspect me again.

The rub is I could run the full Zerker gear and block you once I am in the group just so I don’t forget to turn off inspect after the run. You’ll decrease the leeches, but not completely get rid of them. Only solution for that is running with people you know.

Point was that people can whisper you regardless of inspect and stay stupid stuff. If you keep inspection off I don’t see how it could be any different than what we have now.

One way to stop cheating is to add a little icon which shows up if gear has been changed since last inspect.

cesmode.4257:

-I would be OK, possibly, with a talent spec inspect. Thats it.

And what would be a talent spec inspect? Something that let’s people track other people’s progression and experience? Yeah, that will surely prevent people from being gated from certain groups…

Even I (and I’m pro-inspect) think that’s a horrible idea.

nexxe.7081:

Saying that inspecting gear/builds, is elitism, is wrong. By not having a useful feature, it’s producing bad players. You’re actually helping the community at large by promoting well-built builds and gear combinations. Why would anyone want the opposite?

First, no worries, it won’t be added-ANet does want the opposite. Second, it’s TOTALLY the opposite-/inspect would standardize builds and gear in the long run throughout the community, and many people still learning or not as experienced (which is OK, BTW-everybody is entitled to be new) will copy the supposedly “superior” builds, infesting your supposedly “leet” party with inexperience, and in the case of many Berserker’s builds, which not everybody can handle, no matter how “effective” they are or math “proves” them to be, will actually SLOW down your purported “efficient” run.

If you want “efficiency”, there’s plenty of players like that-ask for them on LFG, as you are entitled to your playstyle and to play with like-minded peers. Don’t ask for tools the game doesn’t require, that will ultimately divide and pollute the community, as well as utterly demolish diversity and playstyle freedom. ANet won’t add it anyway, and you already can party with your “pro-gear”-minded friends already.

VOLKON.1290:

Scrambles.2604:

Ordika.9513:

Scrambles.2604:

How do you consider /inspect intrusive? Every game i’ve played that had /inspect, i honestly couldn’t tell you how many times i’ve been inspected. It could’ve been zero times or it could’ve a thousand times. I will never know because it has never intruded on my personal being.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Yes – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

The tree falling causes the oscillation of pressure through the air, just because no one is there doesn’t mean this didn’t happen.

So how is it intrusive, that person still looked at your character without your permission. Just because you don’t know it happened doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. What your arguing is whether or not someone was inconvenienced by it, which they may or may not end up being.

Seems much less inconvenient then being asked to ping your gear. What bothers you about people seeing your gear? If someone looks at your gear, without you knowing, and doesn’t do anything as a result, what’s the issue? I wont accept oscillating air pressure as an answer, unfortunately.

I mean, they can already get an idea of what you’re wearing just by looking at you. Maybe you should suggest an image blur so people can’t see what your character looks like, since you’ll just look like low-rez pixels.

Hmm… bet’cha can’t, thanks to the liberal use of T-stones.

An /inspect would be a bad addition to GW2. If you give someone a tool to make an idiot of themselves with, rest assured, they will.

The usefulness of the tool has nothing to do with how dedicated people are to making an idiot of themselves using it.

If someone is an idiot, rest assured they will make an idiot of themselves no matter what tool they use.

Dismissing an extremely useful tool just because idiots will try and abuse it is very bad design. There’s tons of useful things in the game currently that could potentially be abused by a big enough idiot. That doesn’t make those things any less useful.

Also: the game itself can’t enforce discriminatory actions. For example, some groups already discriminate by requiring you to link your gear. Does that mean we should not have the ability to link items? Of course not. As another example, some groups discriminate by requiring you to be a certain class. Does that mean we should not have the ability for you to see what class someone is? Of course not. Likewise, some people may discriminate by inspecting your gear and kicking you if your gear is insufficient. Does that mean we should not have the ability for you to inspect? Of course not.

BlasiuS.8961:

VOLKON.1290:

Scrambles.2604:

Ordika.9513:

Scrambles.2604:

How do you consider /inspect intrusive? Every game i’ve played that had /inspect, i honestly couldn’t tell you how many times i’ve been inspected. It could’ve been zero times or it could’ve a thousand times. I will never know because it has never intruded on my personal being.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Yes – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

The tree falling causes the oscillation of pressure through the air, just because no one is there doesn’t mean this didn’t happen.

So how is it intrusive, that person still looked at your character without your permission. Just because you don’t know it happened doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. What your arguing is whether or not someone was inconvenienced by it, which they may or may not end up being.

Seems much less inconvenient then being asked to ping your gear. What bothers you about people seeing your gear? If someone looks at your gear, without you knowing, and doesn’t do anything as a result, what’s the issue? I wont accept oscillating air pressure as an answer, unfortunately.

I mean, they can already get an idea of what you’re wearing just by looking at you. Maybe you should suggest an image blur so people can’t see what your character looks like, since you’ll just look like low-rez pixels.

Hmm… bet’cha can’t, thanks to the liberal use of T-stones.

An /inspect would be a bad addition to GW2. If you give someone a tool to make an idiot of themselves with, rest assured, they will.

The usefulness of the tool has nothing to do with how dedicated people are to making an idiot of themselves using it.

If someone is an idiot, rest assured they will make an idiot of themselves no matter what tool they use.

Dismissing an extremely useful tool just because idiots will try and abuse it is very bad design. There’s tons of useful things in the game currently that could potentially be abused by a big enough idiot. That doesn’t make those things any less useful.

Also: the game itself can’t enforce discriminatory actions. For example, some groups already discriminate by requiring you to link your gear. Does that mean we should not have the ability to link items? Of course not. As another example, some groups discriminate by requiring you to be a certain class. Does that mean we should not have the ability for you to see what class someone is? Of course not. Likewise, some people may discriminate by inspecting your gear and kicking you if your gear is insufficient. Does that mean we should not have the ability for you to inspect? Of course not.

Rather, yes of course we shouldn’t. Because it empowers those who would misuse the tool. Don’t give a monkey a handgun, I’d say-it “won’t end well”, as our Sylvari friend would say.

Feel free to disagree; I don’t see how individuals at the opposite end of this argument will ever change their opinion, and to each their own. This kind of threads are rather useless when it comes down to prove “who’s right”. It’s a game, let’s just be OK with the idea that people are allowed to dissent.

Star Ace.5207:

BlasiuS.8961:

VOLKON.1290:

Scrambles.2604:

Ordika.9513:

Scrambles.2604:

How do you consider /inspect intrusive? Every game i’ve played that had /inspect, i honestly couldn’t tell you how many times i’ve been inspected. It could’ve been zero times or it could’ve a thousand times. I will never know because it has never intruded on my personal being.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Yes – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

The tree falling causes the oscillation of pressure through the air, just because no one is there doesn’t mean this didn’t happen.

So how is it intrusive, that person still looked at your character without your permission. Just because you don’t know it happened doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. What your arguing is whether or not someone was inconvenienced by it, which they may or may not end up being.

Seems much less inconvenient then being asked to ping your gear. What bothers you about people seeing your gear? If someone looks at your gear, without you knowing, and doesn’t do anything as a result, what’s the issue? I wont accept oscillating air pressure as an answer, unfortunately.

I mean, they can already get an idea of what you’re wearing just by looking at you. Maybe you should suggest an image blur so people can’t see what your character looks like, since you’ll just look like low-rez pixels.

Hmm… bet’cha can’t, thanks to the liberal use of T-stones.

An /inspect would be a bad addition to GW2. If you give someone a tool to make an idiot of themselves with, rest assured, they will.

The usefulness of the tool has nothing to do with how dedicated people are to making an idiot of themselves using it.

If someone is an idiot, rest assured they will make an idiot of themselves no matter what tool they use.

Dismissing an extremely useful tool just because idiots will try and abuse it is very bad design. There’s tons of useful things in the game currently that could potentially be abused by a big enough idiot. That doesn’t make those things any less useful.

Also: the game itself can’t enforce discriminatory actions. For example, some groups already discriminate by requiring you to link your gear. Does that mean we should not have the ability to link items? Of course not. As another example, some groups discriminate by requiring you to be a certain class. Does that mean we should not have the ability for you to see what class someone is? Of course not. Likewise, some people may discriminate by inspecting your gear and kicking you if your gear is insufficient. Does that mean we should not have the ability for you to inspect? Of course not.

Rather, yes of course we shouldn’t. Because it empowers those who would misuse the tool. Don’t give a monkey a handgun, I’d say-it “won’t end well”, as our Sylvari friend would say.

Feel free to disagree; I don’t see how individuals at the opposite end of this argument will ever change their opinion, and to each their own. This kind of threads are rather useless when it comes down to prove “who’s right”. It’s a game, let’s just be OK with the idea that people are allowed to dissent.

Following your metaphor: So guns shouldn’t exist because if you give them to monkeys they will misuse them? tsk tsk, horrible logic.

But horrible logic aside, being able to link gear and see the class of other people aren’t “handguns”, they’re more like hammers and screwdrivers i.e. useful tools.

BlasiuS.8961:

Star Ace.5207:

BlasiuS.8961:

VOLKON.1290:

Scrambles.2604:

Ordika.9513:

Scrambles.2604:

How do you consider /inspect intrusive? Every game i’ve played that had /inspect, i honestly couldn’t tell you how many times i’ve been inspected. It could’ve been zero times or it could’ve a thousand times. I will never know because it has never intruded on my personal being.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Yes – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

The tree falling causes the oscillation of pressure through the air, just because no one is there doesn’t mean this didn’t happen.

So how is it intrusive, that person still looked at your character without your permission. Just because you don’t know it happened doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. What your arguing is whether or not someone was inconvenienced by it, which they may or may not end up being.

Seems much less inconvenient then being asked to ping your gear. What bothers you about people seeing your gear? If someone looks at your gear, without you knowing, and doesn’t do anything as a result, what’s the issue? I wont accept oscillating air pressure as an answer, unfortunately.

I mean, they can already get an idea of what you’re wearing just by looking at you. Maybe you should suggest an image blur so people can’t see what your character looks like, since you’ll just look like low-rez pixels.

Hmm… bet’cha can’t, thanks to the liberal use of T-stones.

An /inspect would be a bad addition to GW2. If you give someone a tool to make an idiot of themselves with, rest assured, they will.

The usefulness of the tool has nothing to do with how dedicated people are to making an idiot of themselves using it.

If someone is an idiot, rest assured they will make an idiot of themselves no matter what tool they use.

Dismissing an extremely useful tool just because idiots will try and abuse it is very bad design. There’s tons of useful things in the game currently that could potentially be abused by a big enough idiot. That doesn’t make those things any less useful.

Also: the game itself can’t enforce discriminatory actions. For example, some groups already discriminate by requiring you to link your gear. Does that mean we should not have the ability to link items? Of course not. As another example, some groups discriminate by requiring you to be a certain class. Does that mean we should not have the ability for you to see what class someone is? Of course not. Likewise, some people may discriminate by inspecting your gear and kicking you if your gear is insufficient. Does that mean we should not have the ability for you to inspect? Of course not.

Rather, yes of course we shouldn’t. Because it empowers those who would misuse the tool. Don’t give a monkey a handgun, I’d say-it “won’t end well”, as our Sylvari friend would say.

Feel free to disagree; I don’t see how individuals at the opposite end of this argument will ever change their opinion, and to each their own. This kind of threads are rather useless when it comes down to prove “who’s right”. It’s a game, let’s just be OK with the idea that people are allowed to dissent.

Following your metaphor: So guns shouldn’t exist because if you give them to monkeys they will misuse them? tsk tsk, horrible logic.

But horrible logic aside, being able to link gear and see the class of other people aren’t “handguns”, they’re more like hammers and screwdrivers i.e. useful tools.

And those hammers and screwdrivers are safer, albeit still open to abuse, than a handgun. Rather than implementing an inspect (assuming it does not have the ability to allow people to disable it), ANet could simply implement a cosmetic-only inspect and a better way to ping builds and gear for those who choose to. The easiest solution, of course, would be to just implement /inspect and allow players to choose one of three options: “Inspect Enabled”, “Inspect Cosmetic Enabled Only”, “Inspect Disabled” or something similar.

Mimir.4690:

BlasiuS.8961:

Star Ace.5207:

BlasiuS.8961:

VOLKON.1290:

Scrambles.2604:

Ordika.9513:

Scrambles.2604:

How do you consider /inspect intrusive? Every game i’ve played that had /inspect, i honestly couldn’t tell you how many times i’ve been inspected. It could’ve been zero times or it could’ve a thousand times. I will never know because it has never intruded on my personal being.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Yes – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

The tree falling causes the oscillation of pressure through the air, just because no one is there doesn’t mean this didn’t happen.

So how is it intrusive, that person still looked at your character without your permission. Just because you don’t know it happened doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. What your arguing is whether or not someone was inconvenienced by it, which they may or may not end up being.

Seems much less inconvenient then being asked to ping your gear. What bothers you about people seeing your gear? If someone looks at your gear, without you knowing, and doesn’t do anything as a result, what’s the issue? I wont accept oscillating air pressure as an answer, unfortunately.

I mean, they can already get an idea of what you’re wearing just by looking at you. Maybe you should suggest an image blur so people can’t see what your character looks like, since you’ll just look like low-rez pixels.

Hmm… bet’cha can’t, thanks to the liberal use of T-stones.

An /inspect would be a bad addition to GW2. If you give someone a tool to make an idiot of themselves with, rest assured, they will.

The usefulness of the tool has nothing to do with how dedicated people are to making an idiot of themselves using it.

If someone is an idiot, rest assured they will make an idiot of themselves no matter what tool they use.

Dismissing an extremely useful tool just because idiots will try and abuse it is very bad design. There’s tons of useful things in the game currently that could potentially be abused by a big enough idiot. That doesn’t make those things any less useful.

Also: the game itself can’t enforce discriminatory actions. For example, some groups already discriminate by requiring you to link your gear. Does that mean we should not have the ability to link items? Of course not. As another example, some groups discriminate by requiring you to be a certain class. Does that mean we should not have the ability for you to see what class someone is? Of course not. Likewise, some people may discriminate by inspecting your gear and kicking you if your gear is insufficient. Does that mean we should not have the ability for you to inspect? Of course not.

Rather, yes of course we shouldn’t. Because it empowers those who would misuse the tool. Don’t give a monkey a handgun, I’d say-it “won’t end well”, as our Sylvari friend would say.

Feel free to disagree; I don’t see how individuals at the opposite end of this argument will ever change their opinion, and to each their own. This kind of threads are rather useless when it comes down to prove “who’s right”. It’s a game, let’s just be OK with the idea that people are allowed to dissent.

Following your metaphor: So guns shouldn’t exist because if you give them to monkeys they will misuse them? tsk tsk, horrible logic.

But horrible logic aside, being able to link gear and see the class of other people aren’t “handguns”, they’re more like hammers and screwdrivers i.e. useful tools.

And those hammers and screwdrivers are safer, albeit still open to abuse, than a handgun. Rather than implementing an inspect (assuming it does not have the ability to allow people to disable it), ANet could simply implement a cosmetic-only inspect and a better way to ping builds and gear for those who choose to. The easiest solution, of course, would be to just implement /inspect and allow players to choose one of three options: “Inspect Enabled”, “Inspect Cosmetic Enabled Only”, “Inspect Disabled” or something similar.

But linking gear and seeing someone’s class are open to abuse, yet there are no “cosmetic-only” restrictions on those tools, so why would you do that for inspect?

There’s no need for any bizarre options on inspect, just like there’s no need for any bizarre options for linking gear or seeing someone’s class.

BlasiuS.8961:

But linking gear and seeing someone’s class are open to abuse, yet there are no “cosmetic-only” restrictions on those tools, so why would you do that for inspect?

There’s no need for any bizarre options on inspect, just like there’s no need for any bizarre options for linking gear or seeing someone’s class.

From the consensus of dissenters:

Because it is their choice to ping said gear, Inspect with no ability to disable takes the choice out of the hands of the inspectee, and isn’t choice better

BlasiuS.8961:

-snip-

If you choose to link your gear, whether publicly or in a party, then you are choosing to, and should be aware of the potential for abuse (granted, you may not be, but at least you were allowed to make that choice and not forced because someone can randomly inspect your gear whether you want them to or not). If you say, “Go ahead and inspect me”, then you have control. If you say, “No, sorry, you can’t look at my stats”, then at least you have that choice as well.

As for the class argument, I have no logical response, because it truthfully isn’t a logical argument and does not really apply to the /inspect request.

Ordika.9513:

BlasiuS.8961:

But linking gear and seeing someone’s class are open to abuse, yet there are no “cosmetic-only” restrictions on those tools, so why would you do that for inspect?

There’s no need for any bizarre options on inspect, just like there’s no need for any bizarre options for linking gear or seeing someone’s class.

From the consensus of dissenters:

Because it is their choice to ping said gear, Inspect with no ability to disable takes the choice out of the hands of the inspectee, and isn’t choice better

Actually, people abuse gear linking by “forcing” you to link gear (if you refuse, you get kicked). So the choice is out of the hands of the inspectee, and therefore really isn’t any different from inspect in terms of how easily it is abused and/or how easily it supports elitism.

Mimir.4690:

BlasiuS.8961:

-snip-

As for the class argument, I have no logical response, because it truthfully isn’t a logical argument and does not really apply to the /inspect request.

Yes it does apply, as they are both useful tools that can be open to abuse and elitism. Examples of people who abuse being able to see someone’s class: you get people who say “NO RANGERS” for a dungeon, see that you’re a ranger (because they can see your class, without your consent I might add), and kick you. Or you get people that say “ZERK WARRIOR ONLY” for a dungeon, see that you’re not a zerk warrior, and kick you, etc.

BlasiuS.8961:

Ordika.9513:

BlasiuS.8961:

But linking gear and seeing someone’s class are open to abuse, yet there are no “cosmetic-only” restrictions on those tools, so why would you do that for inspect?

There’s no need for any bizarre options on inspect, just like there’s no need for any bizarre options for linking gear or seeing someone’s class.

From the consensus of dissenters:

Because it is their choice to ping said gear, Inspect with no ability to disable takes the choice out of the hands of the inspectee, and isn’t choice better

Actually, people abuse gear linking by “forcing” you to link gear (if you refuse, you get kicked). So the choice is out of the hands of the inspectee, and therefore really isn’t any different from inspect in terms of how easily it is abused.

Personally, I would rather be kicked after finding out that the players want to know my gear before getting kicked by being judged on my gear.

BlasiuS.8961:

Yes it does apply, as they are both useful tools that can be open to abuse and elitism. Examples of people who abuse being able to see someone’s class: you get people who say “NO RANGERS” for a dungeon, see that you’re a ranger (because they can see your class, without your consent I might add), and kick you. Or you get people that say “ZERK WARRIOR ONLY” for a dungeon, see that you’re not a zerk warrior, and kick you, etc.

I am not sure what tool you are talking about? /inspect is a tool. The little symbol that indicates your class is not a tool – it’s an icon.

BlasiuS.8961:

Actually, people abuse gear linking by “forcing” you to link gear (if you refuse, you get kicked). So the choice is out of the hands of the inspectee, and therefore really isn’t any different from inspect in terms of how easily it is abused and/or how easily it supports elitism.

No, if you choose to not link your gear and get kicked that is a consequence of the choice, it does not negate the choice to not link gear.

Generally speaking the people looking for inspect as a manner of ‘gearscore’ ask before forming and usually tell you what they are looking for. Ergo you don’t link you don’t get invite and generally don’t care either.

This weekend i had horrible experience with FotM lvl 48 daily, one guy advertised for heavy classes only so we end up with 3 guards, 1 warrior (guy who posted on lfg) and his friend elementalist. We did it in about 1h30min without wipe, what a horrible horrible experience. Just imagine what would gear inspection do…….

Sovta.4719:

This weekend i had horrible experience with FotM lvl 48 daily, one guy advertised for heavy classes only so we end up with 3 guards, 1 warrior (guy who posted on lfg) and his friend elementalist. We did it in about 1h30min without wipe, what a horrible horrible experience. Just imagine what would gear inspection do…….

I am not entirely sure if you are pro or anti-inspect, but based on the sarcasm I am going to assume that you are pro. And if that’s the case (or maybe this is the point you were trying to make), then gear inspection may have not allowed that group to form because you may have passed judgment on this amazing group before giving them the chance to show that you guys worked really well together. But I could misinterpreting the tone of your post. :P

Ordika.9513:

BlasiuS.8961:

Actually, people abuse gear linking by “forcing” you to link gear (if you refuse, you get kicked). So the choice is out of the hands of the inspectee, and therefore really isn’t any different from inspect in terms of how easily it is abused and/or how easily it supports elitism.

No, if you choose to not link your gear and get kicked that is a consequence of the choice, it does not negate the choice to not link gear.

I’m sure there are a small amount of people who don’t want inspect simply for the sake of privacy. However the most common fear in this thread by a large margin is from the consequence of being kicked, not the choice of whether to reveal gear. They are people who are afraid that they will be kicked from a dungeon group because of /inspect revealing their inadequate gear. And whether you get kicked because you refused to link your inadequate gear, or whether you get kicked because the group/group leader inspected and saw your inadequade gear, the result is the same.

And so while inspect has an invasion of privacy angle to it, it is no different than linking gear or seeing someone’s class in terms of how easily it is abused and/or how easily it supports elitism.

Mimir.4690:

BlasiuS.8961:

Yes it does apply, as they are both useful tools that can be open to abuse and elitism. Examples of people who abuse being able to see someone’s class: you get people who say “NO RANGERS” for a dungeon, see that you’re a ranger (because they can see your class, without your consent I might add), and kick you. Or you get people that say “ZERK WARRIOR ONLY” for a dungeon, see that you’re not a zerk warrior, and kick you, etc.

I am not sure what tool you are talking about? /inspect is a tool. The little symbol that indicates your class is not a tool – it’s an icon.

tool, icon, feature, mechanic, etc. I don’t care what you call it, I’m not here to discuss semantics. The point is they both let you see information about a character.

Mimir.4690:

Sovta.4719:

This weekend i had horrible experience with FotM lvl 48 daily, one guy advertised for heavy classes only so we end up with 3 guards, 1 warrior (guy who posted on lfg) and his friend elementalist. We did it in about 1h30min without wipe, what a horrible horrible experience. Just imagine what would gear inspection do…….

I am not entirely sure if you are pro or anti-inspect, but based on the sarcasm I am going to assume that you are pro. And if that’s the case (or maybe this is the point you were trying to make), then gear inspection may have not allowed that group to form because you may have passed judgment on this amazing group before giving them the chance to show that you guys worked really well together. But I could misinterpreting the tone of your post. :P

I am not pro (they left this game long long time ago) i just tried to say how some things are needed in this game for some content (i would say harder content, but there isn’t many of it) so we don’t end up on 3h+ runs cause of some MF leech or undergeared players (yes, gear helps, this is MMORPG and it was about gear always, i’m against gear treadmill, i don’t want new tier of gear but you need gear for some content and it’s not like super hard to get)
Arenanet needs to realise (or NCSoft) that so called “casual” players are not going to give them big profit in long terms. We need harder content, LFG tool, new challenging open world zone without lagging (so basicly we need more overflows for players) and rewards to be apropiate for level of difficulty. We don’t need gear treadmill and no i’m not wow fanboy.

Sovta.4719:

Arenanet needs to realise (or NCSoft) that so called “casual” players are not going to give them big profit in long terms.

Why not?

Uruz Six.6594:

Sovta.4719:

Arenanet needs to realise (or NCSoft) that so called “casual” players are not going to give them big profit in long terms.

Why not?

Cause it’s impossible, that is why all those f2p games are mostly p2win, cause there are many players who will pay hundreds of dollars MONTHLY just to be better then others. I’m not saying that gw2 needs p2w, i hate it, but they need something in gameshop for hardcore players too (i’m not hardcore, but i am smart enough to know they are the core of any MMO, even casual based) PvP had great potential for that and just imagine how much money arenanet would made by streaming, organizing tournaments……… (sponsors, sponsors, sponsors)