Guild Wars 2

Just wondering if Anet has ever responded to any of the previous siege troll threads. Now that seasons have started some of the servers have probably started seeing siege trolls. I’m on TC and most people on TC probably know who the siege troll is. I’ve started recording him and I’m wondering if that can help in any way for Anet to do something or is this not a priority at the moment (which pretty much means we don’t care to me). Honestly I would like a response from Anet because it seems like they don’t really care about WvW. Seasons and WvW changes in the feature pack just seem like a half-baked(gotta get past the carebear filter) way to maintain the WvW population and somewhat stop them from going to AA. They made such a big deal out of this feature pack for WvWers as if it was going to revolutionize it. At this point it seems like I’m just waiting for that final nail in the coffin for me to completely bail on GW2. inb4 gib gold plis

Their stance hasn’t changed, from what I’ve read. No, they haven’t responded or taken action vs the previous cases of siege trolls. They did take action vs the ones that posted pictures/videos of them, with their names in it though.

Its an unfortunate fact of wvw, there are trolls everywhere, they know they are not breaking any rules using supply, and being a jerk is not against eula, since they are not using abusive language, so really anet’s hands are tied, they cant simply ban someone for doing something legal, as crappy as their actions are

I really don’t believe these are single individuals acting alone on their own behalf. This is part of an elaborate system that has a “win at all costs” attitude. An account that is intentionally bought and paid for to drive players away from the game. I highly doubt that blends well with anets business model.

I started another thread here titled “Wouldn’t pay another 5 cents for this game” due to experiencing this problem.

some of them are individuals who are angry with people on the server and get revenge this way, some just decide to work on that title, whatever their reason is, they are nolife trolls

I feel like the only red post we’re going to see is going to say that the two posts have been merged :P and Anet is just going to sweep this under the rug.

Is not new that they dont care about WvW, they dont hear any suggestions and is amazing how 1 single person can ruin the game for so many just trolling with impunity

Anet, I would like ask for your team to consider the post about WvW siege trolls. My family and I have several GW2 accounts so we are frequent players. The actions of siege trolls directly and negatively affect the Honorable play style of my family, myself, and others. There are many people who have sent you information on the WvW siege trolls. I have read the responses to this problem and read statements about how their actions are not against the rules. I for one am very disappointed if this is factual. I have personally witnessed Flashbangx(Now) continuously draining supplies by building arguably useless siege, which has had adverse affects on TC using the supply to mount effective battles and defenses. This undermines the fun of all who just want to enjoy the game as intended. Flashbangx(Now) and those like this player have no Honor when playing in this manner. You have the power, please find a way to solve this highly destructive method of game play.
Thank you for your time.

There are no trolls, only differing styles of play…. :/

X T D.6458:

some just decide to work on that title

Everyone has that title, and its been that way for a long, long time precisely because ANet didn’t want unsuspecting players to indiscriminately waste supply building siege trying to get the title.

Samis.1750:

I started another thread here titled “Wouldn’t pay another 5 cents for this game” due to experiencing this problem.

Please tell me how anet is going to tell the difference between:
-a person building useless siege with malicious intent
-a person building useless siege because they don’t know better

We had this problem on BG some time ago with a person named Manual Breathing.

Anet Devs have told us in the past to report that person for spamming.

Edit: Yes they came and took care of it personally, it took about a day.

Deli.1302:

Samis.1750:

I started another thread here titled “Wouldn’t pay another 5 cents for this game” due to experiencing this problem.

Please tell me how anet is going to tell the difference between:
-a person building useless siege with malicious intent
-a person building useless siege because they don’t know better

>Implying that after a year or more of emptying our keeps of supply throughout the entirety of every season, walking golems off cliffs, turning our trebs toward walls, building 10+ ballistas or flame rams around supply huts whenever he gets the chance, that this individual still “doesn’t know better.”

Thanks for the laugh.

Deli.1302:

Samis.1750:

I started another thread here titled “Wouldn’t pay another 5 cents for this game” due to experiencing this problem.

Please tell me how anet is going to tell the difference between:
-a person building useless siege with malicious intent
-a person building useless siege because they don’t know better

I’m going to assume you have no idea what we’re talking about or you’re trolling.

<—- Blackgate here.

I saw a lot of Ballista trolling on TC BL, in particular North Camp and Garri. It left me and my guild quite a bit upset to see it. Trolls belong in a lil cave in queensdale, not in WvW. I really hope Anet reconsiders it’s stance on hardcore trolling like this. It’s one thing to do screw around with a door treb, but instances like 6 ballistas around the supply depo is malicious and should be ban-able offenses.

Yes, I want to win but I want to win with honor. To whomever is trolling the siege, grow up and get off the map. We have no use for you.

<————-TC here
Lethe I appreciate u saying that .. but the fact is , this happens to us every week . nuttin we can do about it cept to keep moving forward . Anet really doesn’t want to get involved with this issue or any other we have on WvW . Unfortunate but as expected. On a side note though , if that’s how the siege trolls wanna play , who are we to complain. Its the meta they chose . I would just prefer to have a way to combat it. In the Military , if u find a spy or threat in your ranks , U can deal with it head on. Usually with a bullet.

CheezeStix.1076:

Deli.1302:

Samis.1750:

I started another thread here titled “Wouldn’t pay another 5 cents for this game” due to experiencing this problem.

Please tell me how anet is going to tell the difference between:
-a person building useless siege with malicious intent
-a person building useless siege because they don’t know better

I’m going to assume you have no idea what we’re talking about or you’re trolling.

It’s a serious and legitimate question. Can you describe “siege troll” without going to extreme cases or naming specific people?

Neither of us are defending it, but you have to be able to define it. If even you can’t answer the question how can ANet? The only thing they could do without a proper answer/definition would be to take action only on the most egregious trolls with multiple violations and reports. Someone in this thread would seem to confirm ANet is doing (or trying to do) at least that much.

We do know for a fact that there are hidden GMs in the game that can pop into a map or instance to check that “things are legal”. (We even have screenshots of a GM entering a 5-man dungeon instance as a 6th player, something that wouldn’t normally be possible.)

We just need a way to contact these GMs or post a notice that somebody is being a siege troll, and the GM shows up within 5 mins and quietly shadows the troll to verify guilt before laying down the banhammer.

The Lethe.2953:

<—- Blackgate here.

I saw a lot of Ballista trolling on TC BL, in particular North Camp and Garri. It left me and my guild quite a bit upset to see it. Trolls belong in a lil cave in queensdale, not in WvW. I really hope Anet reconsiders it’s stance on hardcore trolling like this. It’s one thing to do screw around with a door treb, but instances like 6 ballistas around the supply depo is malicious and should be ban-able offenses.

Yes, I want to win but I want to win with honor. To whomever is trolling the siege, grow up and get off the map. We have no use for you.

TY Lethe. The troll was also doing it in NE Tower. We couldn’t get doors done in TCBL. We were building cannon or oil with it asap because the twit would use up the supply asap. He did this last season as well.

Anet’s stance regarding this issue is nothing short of disgraceful.

DaveGan.8065:

CheezeStix.1076:

Deli.1302:

Samis.1750:

I started another thread here titled “Wouldn’t pay another 5 cents for this game” due to experiencing this problem.

Please tell me how anet is going to tell the difference between:
-a person building useless siege with malicious intent
-a person building useless siege because they don’t know better

I’m going to assume you have no idea what we’re talking about or you’re trolling.

It’s a serious and legitimate question. Can you describe “siege troll” without going to extreme cases or naming specific people?

Neither of us are defending it, but you have to be able to define it. If even you can’t answer the question how can ANet? The only thing they could do without a proper answer/definition would be to take action only on the most egregious trolls with multiple violations and reports. Someone in this thread would seem to confirm ANet is doing (or trying to do) at least that much.

From what I understand, they have not banned the player or taken action against the most egregious cases.

And that is all we ask.

DaveGan.8065:

CheezeStix.1076:

Deli.1302:

Samis.1750:

I started another thread here titled “Wouldn’t pay another 5 cents for this game” due to experiencing this problem.

Please tell me how anet is going to tell the difference between:
-a person building useless siege with malicious intent
-a person building useless siege because they don’t know better

I’m going to assume you have no idea what we’re talking about or you’re trolling.

It’s a serious and legitimate question. Can you describe “siege troll” without going to extreme cases or naming specific people?

Neither of us are defending it, but you have to be able to define it. If even you can’t answer the question how can ANet? The only thing they could do without a proper answer/definition would be to take action only on the most egregious trolls with multiple violations and reports. Someone in this thread would seem to confirm ANet is doing (or trying to do) at least that much.

I think we might have found a siege troll right here.

DaveGan.8065:

CheezeStix.1076:

Deli.1302:

Samis.1750:

I started another thread here titled “Wouldn’t pay another 5 cents for this game” due to experiencing this problem.

Please tell me how anet is going to tell the difference between:
-a person building useless siege with malicious intent
-a person building useless siege because they don’t know better

I’m going to assume you have no idea what we’re talking about or you’re trolling.

It’s a serious and legitimate question. Can you describe “siege troll” without going to extreme cases or naming specific people?

Neither of us are defending it, but you have to be able to define it. If even you can’t answer the question how can ANet? The only thing they could do without a proper answer/definition would be to take action only on the most egregious trolls with multiple violations and reports. Someone in this thread would seem to confirm ANet is doing (or trying to do) at least that much.

No one is asking ANet to do anything except in the most extreme cases. Your argument falls flat and being some kind of Devil’s Advocate isn’t going to get you anywhere. ANet also has harassment and offensive name policies to which you could apply your question, yet they exist and apparently work fine at ANet’s discretion.

I imagine examining the chat logs would easily determine who is siege trolling in most cases. If you are constantly emptying keep, tower, and camp supply, to the point where you are camping yak arrivals to build more ballistas while an upgrade is running, it’s pretty kitten clear what your intent is.

Visiroth.5914:

No one is asking ANet to do anything except in the most extreme cases. Your argument falls flat and being some kind of Devil’s Advocate isn’t going to get you anywhere. ANet also has harassment and offensive name policies to which you could apply your question, yet they exist and apparently work fine at ANet’s discretion.

I imagine examining the chat logs would easily determine who is siege trolling in most cases. If you are constantly emptying keep, tower, and camp supply, to the point where you are camping yak arrivals to build more ballistas while an upgrade is running, it’s pretty kitten clear what your intent is.

What’s funny is that I don’t think I even asked a very difficult question. Yet after three replies I’ve yet to get a single semblance of a definition.

As far as the naming policy goes, there is a whole section that outlines it pretty explicitly.. There is probably still some subjectivity, but subjectivity at least needs some objective context around it. A simple objective definition needs to be the starting point.

Lord Kuru.3685:

I think we might have found a siege troll right here.

Guilty as charged. Let me photoshop my account name onto some of those screenshots and learn how to sound like a conservative radio talk show host as I convince everyone I’m the one in the screenshots even though the characters point to a different account name.

DaveGan.8065:

Visiroth.5914:

No one is asking ANet to do anything except in the most extreme cases. Your argument falls flat and being some kind of Devil’s Advocate isn’t going to get you anywhere. ANet also has harassment and offensive name policies to which you could apply your question, yet they exist and apparently work fine at ANet’s discretion.

I imagine examining the chat logs would easily determine who is siege trolling in most cases. If you are constantly emptying keep, tower, and camp supply, to the point where you are camping yak arrivals to build more ballistas while an upgrade is running, it’s pretty kitten clear what your intent is.

What’s funny is that I don’t think I even asked a very difficult question. Yet after three replies I’ve yet to get a single semblance of a definition.

Don’t be stupid. This isn’t a mathematics class. Egregious siege trolls are obvious. By the way, “I know it when I see it” even works with the Supreme Court (see: obscenity).

And Anet doesn’t even a technical definition. They can do whatever they want to protect honest players’ play experience. But they just have no interest in doing so.

The obvious solutions are things like one player→one siege (or one of each type), or cooldowns on sieges, but that’ll arise other problems.

It’s not something easy to fix.

One thing that could be done is having a Commander ranking system.
Commanders that are blocked by players less often and have squad members participating in successful events more often would get a higher rank, and that would give them higher chances for siege drops and access to WvW skills that reduce siege placement cooldown.

Your 30 second google searches aren’t doing you any good.

Lord Kuru.3685:

By the way, “I know it when I see it” even works with the Supreme Court (see: obscenity).

…and they, too, soon felt a need to modify that stance and provide a more objective definition.

Miller Test, Miller v California, 1973

1. The average person, applying local community standards, looking at the work in its entirety, must find that it appeals to the prurient interest.
2. The work must describe or depict, in an obviously offensive way, sexual conduct, or excretory functions.
3. The work as a whole must lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific values”.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Don’t be stupid. This isn’t a mathematics class. Egregious siege trolls are obvious.

You should see the dungeon forums. Official red post stance there is pretty much “it’s okay to steal instances unless you do it a lot” and the community is pretty bananas. I chuckled as soon as I heard people here suggesting only to punish the most egregious ones.

I don’t know if it’s right to say this, but, I don’t even disagree with you guys. But, your support for your position is far more important than whether or not your position is the “right” one. And, right now, all you’re saying is, “it’s wrong and we all know it”. (I’ll pretend I didn’t see your silly accusation of me being a siege troll)

CheezeStix.1076:

Deli.1302:

Samis.1750:

I started another thread here titled “Wouldn’t pay another 5 cents for this game” due to experiencing this problem.

Please tell me how anet is going to tell the difference between:
-a person building useless siege with malicious intent
-a person building useless siege because they don’t know better

I’m going to assume you have no idea what we’re talking about or you’re trolling.

I’m going to assume you don’t have an answer to my question, which is just as I expected.

Wow. How helpful is old David Gan. There is a politically correct genius in every convo.

statement from arenanet is: it is allowed

there was a very long thread about in german forums like 1 year ago bout server elonareach and the siege troll “Face of Angel” . The Comunity Manager Ramon Domke came in this thread after sometime and he talked later with his team bout this and he even came to Elonareach and played 1 week with us to see the Problems live.

After this he wrote something like: placing/building siege everywhere is a different gameplay style but they see no problems with this and so it is allowed – people who place siege everywhere are doing archievements and everyone is allwed to play how he want to get his targets done.

im to lazy to check for the source but you can do it yourself – its in german forums

edit: i think it was this thread
https://forum-de.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Verschwendung-von-Vorr-ten-oder-andere-Spielweise

Deli.1302:

Please tell me how anet is going to tell the difference between:
-a person building useless siege with malicious intent
-a person building useless siege because they don’t know better

Because the people sabotaging with siege spam don’t even bother hiding their activities?

Seriously, there’s no possible way you can confuse a person who accidentally placed one wrong siege in the wrong spot and a person who places dozens of siege on top of supply depots and NPCs, drains supplies from keeps while it’s under siege, and openly mocks the rest of the server in map chat (I’m not even using hyperbole here); it’s like you’re asking how a security guard is supposed to distinguish between a customer who absentmindedly walked out of a store with an unpaid item in their hand and a guy rushing out the store with a trolley of expensive goods while screaming at everyone to call the cops if they dare.

Either way, begging the question of how a GM is supposed to use their eyes and common sense doesn’t change the fact that there needs to be a report option for it.

Anet don’t care.

Aquachills.9013:

We had this problem on BG some time ago with a person named Manual Breathing.

Anet Devs have told us in the past to report that person for spamming.

Edit: Yes they came and took care of it personally, it took about a day.

This is the kind of thing that bothers me because it seems as though anet likes to intervene on some servers more than others. No troll has ever been dealt with in a day on TC.

This happened last night. This is an individual who has admitted to being paid by a rival server to do this. There really should be no confusion as to why these people are doing this. Dozens of people have reported this person for over a year and anet has done nothing.

Pandaman.4758:

it’s like you’re asking how a security guard is supposed to distinguish between a customer who absentmindedly walked out of a store with an unpaid item in their hand and a guy rushing out the store with a trolley of expensive goods while screaming at everyone to call the cops if they dare.

As there’s a rule/law against shoplifting your analogy doesn’t work. The parallel would be a customer at Walmart who put the entire store’s supply of Oreos in his cart, slowly pushing his cart around the store in plain view. He also flashes his credit card openly to deter any claim that he can’t afford to complete the purchase. When asked by store officials what he’s doing he’ll let everyone know he’s “continuing to browse”.

What you have here is the American tax system pretty much what’s going on. No rules/laws are being broken yet it’s “obviously” clear who’s in the wrong.

este.8651:

This happened last night. This is an individual who has admitted to being paid by a rival server to do this. There really should be no confusion as to why these people are doing this. Dozens of people have reported this person for over a year and anet has done nothing.

at least he built ballistas, he could have build rams …

I didn’t knew that a-net intervened on this problem. if this is true and on all the other servers nothing was done, it’s another bad move from them

DaveGan.8065:

Visiroth.5914:

No one is asking ANet to do anything except in the most extreme cases. Your argument falls flat and being some kind of Devil’s Advocate isn’t going to get you anywhere. ANet also has harassment and offensive name policies to which you could apply your question, yet they exist and apparently work fine at ANet’s discretion.

I imagine examining the chat logs would easily determine who is siege trolling in most cases. If you are constantly emptying keep, tower, and camp supply, to the point where you are camping yak arrivals to build more ballistas while an upgrade is running, it’s pretty kitten clear what your intent is.

What’s funny is that I don’t think I even asked a very difficult question. Yet after three replies I’ve yet to get a single semblance of a definition.

As far as the naming policy goes, there is a whole section that outlines it pretty explicitly.. There is probably still some subjectivity, but subjectivity at least needs some objective context around it. A simple objective definition needs to be the starting point.

What part of “people constantly emptying multiple locations of supply building useless siege” for hours is not a semblance of a definition? You are purposefully being obtuse. Clearly a siege troll would be defined by some number of supply used, their correspondence with other Tyrians, and whether they do it repeatedly.

Since you insist on being pedagogical, here’s some more relevant examples. When the game was first released, you could buy items from karma vendors and sell them for gold. Later there were also some crafting recipes involving snowflakes that people salvaged into ectos. Some people who took advantage of these (poorly) designed game mechanics were banned. People who crossed a threshold. That was arbitrarily decided at the sole discretion of ANet.

The whole argument that we the players need to perfectly define who and what is guilty of abuse is ludicrous. We are not the GW2 police, ANet is. They draw the lines in the sand, they decide how much is too much. The culprits know what they are doing, we know what they are doing, and ANet knows what they are doing.

Let me reiterate one more time: THERE IS NO ACHIEVEMENT

The multi-stage achievement was removed some time ago, and everyone who ever spent 10 supply to build siege got full credit. The excuse that people are doing this because they’re achievement hunters doesn’t fly anymore, as flimsy a defense as it ever was.

DaveGan.8065:

Pandaman.4758:

it’s like you’re asking how a security guard is supposed to distinguish between a customer who absentmindedly walked out of a store with an unpaid item in their hand and a guy rushing out the store with a trolley of expensive goods while screaming at everyone to call the cops if they dare.

As there’s a rule/law against shoplifting your analogy doesn’t work (both are shoplifting). The parallel would be a customer at Walmart who put the entire store’s supply of Oreos in his cart, slowly pushing his cart around the store in plain view. He also flashes his credit card openly to deter any claim that he can’t afford to complete the purchase. When asked by store officials what he’s doing he’ll let everyone know he’s “continuing to browse”.

What you have here is the American tax system pretty much what’s going on. No rules/laws are being broken yet it’s “obviously” clear who’s in the wrong.

My analogy was meant to illustrate that while two activities are technically the same, it’s quite easy to tell intent based from behavioral observations. It is unreasonable to claim there is any difficulty distinguishing siege trolls from people making honest mistakes because they’re being downright blatant about it.

Edit: also, while there’s no rule against trolling, I do recall there is a rule against rigging matches. I think it was restricted to PvP tournaments though, so maybe it doesn’t apply to WvW tournaments.

It’s clear from this thread that nobody has a definitive answer. As per Mike O’Brien’s ‘Communicating with you’ initiative, can we please get a member of the community team to outline ANet’s stance on this issue?

Mike O Brien.4613:

Our developers post on these forums on a voluntary basis, and in addition to developers, we have a community team who can clarify and be the bridge between players and developers. They’re ready to engage you on these topics.

To be clear, the player in question:
a) Moves from map to map draining strategic supply and wasting it on useless siege
b) Turns catas / trebs 180 degrees from their intended targets
c) Runs siege golems off cliffs
d) Follows commanders around and will throw ballista build sites on top of ram / cata build sites, hoping that players waste their supply building those instead
e) Anything else you can do with siege / supply in this game to grief your teammates.
f) Has been reported en masse since at least the Spring WvW Tournament, yet is still running around doing the same things for the Fall Tournament.

If ANet thinks this behavior is perfectly acceptable then PLEASE clarify your stance. Otherwise, take care of this problem and give players better tools to report these players in the future. Failure to act makes you guys look lazy, unprofessional and generally uncaring about this game mode.

P.S. – You don’t even have to ban these players, just give them a dishonorable debuff that keeps them from entering WvW matches for ten years.

Anet simply doesn’t care.

I have sent multiple videos of people siege trolling and even bragging about it.. yet they do it again and again with no repercussions.

Eg: This dude(Zegrild.4301) killed 15 omegas 3 weeks ago yet is still playing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBouuLno1F0

A siege troll is someone that intentionally and knowing it to be “wrong” drains supply and or builds siege is areas that make it difficult to use other items. This can be hard to impossible to prove but guess what? This isn’t a court of law, reasonable cause to belive this is happening is enough for Anet to ban these people.

Visiroth.5914:

What part of “people constantly emptying multiple locations of supply building useless siege” for hours is not a semblance of a definition? You are purposefully being obtuse. Clearly a siege troll would be defined by some number of supply used, their correspondence with other Tyrians, and whether they do it repeatedly.

I’m sorry, but what rule does that break? (would you like to make this a rule?) I know you’re frustrated, and while I do not disagree with your stance, your argument for it is only starting to develop.

Since you insist on being pedagogical, here’s some more relevant examples. When the game was first released, you could buy items from karma vendors and sell them for gold. Later there were also some crafting recipes involving snowflakes that people salvaged into ectos. Some people who took advantage of these (poorly) designed game mechanics were banned. People who crossed a threshold. That was arbitrarily decided at the sole discretion of ANet.

They were banned according to an obscure catch-all “you shall not exploit” clause. Being a vague clause, there was still controversy surrounding it, and ANet was even pressured in the karma weapon case to reduce many bans to suspensions. However, even though it was vague, it was still there, so people by and large took ANet’s side.

The whole argument that we the players need to perfectly define who and what is guilty of abuse is ludicrous. We are not the GW2 police, ANet is. They draw the lines in the sand, they decide how much is too much. The culprits know what they are doing, we know what they are doing, and ANet knows what they are doing.

Nice try on the strawman with “perfectly”. Moreover, this whole bit amounts to little more than “I know it when I see it”, and I have another post addressing this somewhere above.

Again, I personally don’t think you’re wrong, but you’ve definitely not made an effective argument for your case.

Anet, just ban those guys from WvW, end of story.

Aquachills.9013:

We had this problem on BG some time ago with a person named Manual Breathing.

Anet Devs have told us in the past to report that person for spamming.

Edit: Yes they came and took care of it personally, it took about a day.

15 emails to support just from myself regarding this issue and still the problem exists, they will investigate and they will not contact me further.

So all this comes down to what server you are on? Sorry to sound disillusioned but when all you can do is send emails and then get brushed off, the griefer is just laughing at us since all we can do is watch or log out.

DaveGan.8065:

CheezeStix.1076:

Deli.1302:

Samis.1750:

I started another thread here titled “Wouldn’t pay another 5 cents for this game” due to experiencing this problem.

Please tell me how anet is going to tell the difference between:
-a person building useless siege with malicious intent
-a person building useless siege because they don’t know better

I’m going to assume you have no idea what we’re talking about or you’re trolling.

It’s a serious and legitimate question. Can you describe “siege troll” without going to extreme cases or naming specific people?

Neither of us are defending it, but you have to be able to define it. If even you can’t answer the question how can ANet? The only thing they could do without a proper answer/definition would be to take action only on the most egregious trolls with multiple violations and reports. Someone in this thread would seem to confirm ANet is doing (or trying to do) at least that much.

I would say they don’t have to define it. It’s their game and they can do whatever they want to at any time for any reason they see fit. THAT is at least defined in the ToS.

So they can simply suspend/ban them on the strong suspicion of unfair play/interfering with others enjoyment of the game. If the suspended people wish to appeal they are free to.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…

edit: It would also be nice if siege had an icon for “created by” and give the name of the character who laid down the siege. It would help in a GM’s investigation.

dandamanno.4136:

I would say they don’t have to define it. It’s their game and they can do whatever they want to at any time for any reason they see fit. THAT is at least defined in the ToS.

So they can simply suspend/ban them on the strong suspicion of unfair play/interfering with others enjoyment of the game. If the suspended people wish to appeal they are free to.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…

edit: It would also be nice if siege had an icon for “created by” and give the name of the character who laid down the siege. It would help in a GM’s investigation.

Many, myself included, are extremely hesitant to quietly accept a precedent that GMs are allowed to act subjectively to a significant degree outside the rules.

I was active in FFXIV when they decided to do a blanket ban wave of everyone who had over a certain amount of gold (most stayed permabanned, and those who were reinstated after a month had 90-99% of their gold confiscated). Scapegoats for a broken and unsustainable casual economy (where most of the gold came from one-time leveling quests and there were few gold fountains).

Even in GW2, the karma weapons and snowflake ecto bans were the enforcement of a catch-all “no exploit” clause, despite the mild controversy of having catch-all clauses.

Perhaps most of the players in WvW are not concerned about the economy, or with precedent spilling into other game modes. But, until some here begin to see things beyond the lynch mob rage mentality, the brutal honesty is that you guys will stay a vocal minority that nobody else cares about.

Good luck!

X T D.6458:

…..they cant simply ban someone for doing something legal, as crappy as their actions are

Why sure they can! They have in the past. People buying racial rares from vendors were banned from the game. Even people who decided to sell Chili peppers they made were banned. See, even if they make the game able to do something doesn’t mean they won’t ban people for doing them.

DaveGan.8065:

dandamanno.4136:

I would say they don’t have to define it. It’s their game and they can do whatever they want to at any time for any reason they see fit. THAT is at least defined in the ToS.

So they can simply suspend/ban them on the strong suspicion of unfair play/interfering with others enjoyment of the game. If the suspended people wish to appeal they are free to.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…

edit: It would also be nice if siege had an icon for “created by” and give the name of the character who laid down the siege. It would help in a GM’s investigation.

Many, myself included, are extremely hesitant to quietly accept a precedent that GMs are allowed to act subjectively to a significant degree outside the rules.

I was active in FFXIV when they decided to do a blanket ban wave of everyone who had over a certain amount of gold (most stayed permabanned, and those who were reinstated after a month had 90-99% of their gold confiscated). Scapegoats for a broken and unsustainable casual economy (where most of the gold came from one-time leveling quests and there were few gold fountains).

Even in GW2, the karma weapons and snowflake ecto bans were the enforcement of a catch-all “no exploit” clause, despite the mild controversy of having catch-all clauses.

Perhaps most of the players in WvW are not concerned about the economy, or with precedent spilling into other game modes. But, until some here begin to see things beyond the lynch mob rage mentality, the brutal honesty is that you guys will stay a vocal minority that nobody else cares about.

Good luck!

Fear of what may come (the slippery slope argument) is not a good enough reason to do nothing.

Stuff that happened in other games is not a good enough reason to do nothing.

Are we in the majority or minority? You know this? If we were to poll the WvW community and ask the people if they believe GM’s should take action against those who completely drain towers and keeps to build 15-20 rams, do you think the majority would say they should or shouldn’t.

I would bet you are, in fact, in the minority. I do not think most people are so afraid of Anet banning innocent people who are just buying (spending gold and badges to do so) siege and building them for no apparent reason.

dandamanno.4136:

Are we in the majority or minority? You know this? If we were to poll the WvW community and ask the people if they believe GM’s should take action against those who completely drain towers and keeps to build 15-20 rams, do you think the majority would say they should or shouldn’t.

I would bet you are, in fact, in the minority. I do not think most people are so afraid of Anet banning innocent people who are just buying (spending gold and badges to do so) siege and building them for no apparent reason.

If you are still trying to argue the concept of “what” here, instead of “how”, then it’s clear your postings are meaningless ramblings to the choir that even I don’t disagree with.

Action for the sake of action makes the assumption that things couldn’t possibly get worse, which is a bigger fallacy than the partial fallacy of slippery slopes.

You may win your hypothetical scenario if you presented everyone with a yes/no question. Now try the same thing with the addition of a “I don’t really care” option. And guarantee that the only ones who will be affected are “the most egregious siege trolls”.

DaveGan.8065:

dandamanno.4136:

Are we in the majority or minority? You know this? If we were to poll the WvW community and ask the people if they believe GM’s should take action against those who completely drain towers and keeps to build 15-20 rams, do you think the majority would say they should or shouldn’t.

I would bet you are, in fact, in the minority. I do not think most people are so afraid of Anet banning innocent people who are just buying (spending gold and badges to do so) siege and building them for no apparent reason.

If you are still trying to argue the concept of “what” here, instead of “how”, then it’s clear your postings are meaningless ramblings to the choir that even I don’t disagree with.

Action for the sake of action makes the assumption that things couldn’t possibly get worse, which is a bigger fallacy than the partial fallacy of slippery slopes.

You may win your hypothetical scenario if you presented everyone with a yes/no question. Now try the same thing with the addition of a “I don’t really care” option. And guarantee that the only ones who will be affected are “the most egregious siege trolls”.

I already mentioned the “how” in my first thread. Make siege have an icon stating who laid it down. A large amount (if we must define it then let’s say more than 3) of siege in a keep or tower that serves no purpose, can hit no targets created by the same person can be considered “griefing”.

In regards to “most egregious”, they are the only ones that matter. I’m not sure what other types there are. It is always in excess of 5 siege (always purposeless, essentially rams in keeps) and sometimes waaay more. I have seen 15-20 at times.

I really don’t think the “how” is that complicated at all, for those with common sense. ( not meant to be a dig at you)