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)
I never claimed it was either, so I’m not sure why others are so offended when I emphasize this. My posts in this thread are more along the lines of searching for an efficient, fair, and optimum way of dealing with the issue.
Many in the dungeon forums are quite bitter about the suggestion of only punishing the most egregious violators. I can almost guarantee that a similar policy to address siege trolls in WvW will not satisfy people here.
Honest and serious question: is there actually a matchup where this supply/siege blockage is actually affecting the outcome (rather than just the points), or is this more of an annoyance/morale issue?
In the case of the former, I’d strongly suggest making a focused thread about it with the evidence that it’s actually making a noticeable difference. (The ones here about outcomes seem focused on coverage or transfers.) In the case of the latter, my honest advice is to just grow thicker skin and lower expectations, as a harmless troll deserves no attention and publicity.
Perhaps the key difference between the two is that it’s fairly obvious that, while not illegal, ANet does not like people buying/selling dungeon paths. (Their stance has always been “players should actually DO the content to earn the rewards”, and I generally agree with that.) Thus, I’ve suspected for a long time that QA has been instructed to treat any complaints with dungeon hijackers as the lowest possible priority, hence the general lack of action for offenders.
For the record though, I think this is a terrible way to go about it. This kind of passive-aggressive method will only breed a lot of toxicity and anger among players. It’d probably be better if ANet just came right out and said, “Buying/selling of dungeon runs is not allowed.”
lol is this DaveGan guy for real or what?
We’ve not had much of a problem on YB with this, but I sympathize with any server having to put up with this garbage. The occasional dropping of non-optimal siege by new players is an annoyance which can be corrected with a simple chat with them to teach them the fundamentals. After that, all is well because their intentions are to help.
The blatant, sustained and intentional wasting of supply is obvious to anyone with common sense and is often coupled with a refusal to stop even after being asked nicely or told why it is problematic. I would seriously hope for intervention on Anet’s part to eradicate this type of toxic behavior from anywhere that it manifests, but particularly in a competitive environment.
(edited by Tiffany.8576)
Honest and serious question: is there actually a matchup where this supply/siege blockage is actually affecting the outcome (rather than just the points), or is this more of an annoyance/morale issue?
Yes, it does have noticeable effect on the matchups: the abuse of sieges allows one person to keep any keep they’re stationed at (including garrison, hills, and bay) from being upgraded (because they’re able to use supply faster than it can arrive), which in turn forces the server to devote more manpower to defending (which is often a lost cause because unfortified walls might as well not exist when they can’t be repaired from bombardment by superior/guild siege engines) and less to taking enemy keeps.
Furthermore due to siege limits the more trash sieges he builds, the more defensive sieges get despawned, so even keeps that manage to get fortified and sieged up quickly lose their ability to defend themselves.
(edited by Pandaman.4758)
Not ever having any supply is a serious hindrance to WvW play. We can’t get keeps upgraded/waypointed half the time, have a difficult time upgrading towers, and walking yaks is useless when he wastes every little bit of supply a tower or keep gets building useless ballistas all over the kittening place.
He literally loads into a map, goes to the keep, drains all the supply building ballistas, turns trebs the wrong direction, kills golems, etc, spams ballistas at north camp if it’s our BL…and then switches maps and does it all over again.
In addition to that, last season, he followed the commander around on a mesmer. He’d spam useless portals into enemy zergs, which unfortunately some people were fooled by, and spamplace ballista build sites on top of siege the commanders were dropping.
He did this for weeks. And he would literally laugh in our faces, because ANet will not do anything about him. It got to the point in S2 where some commanders refused to run with their tag up, and just communicated in Mumble where they were, because they didn’t want him finding them.
This is not fair play. I wouldn’t wish this on either of our opponents, and while I don’t blame either server for his actions (didn’t know till now which server he came from, anyway), it’s despicable that this individual gets to ruin WvW for the rest of us just because he bought a second account. This type of behavior is obviously meant to cripple our server during tournaments, and should be a bannable offense. The fact that nothing has been done is honestly quite astonishing.
(Thank you to the BG players who’ve posted here disapproving of this individual, by the way. It means a lot, for some of us who’ve been constantly frustrated by this bullkitten.)
lol is this DaveGan guy for real or what?
More real than girls on the internet.
The blatant, sustained and intentional wasting of supply is obvious to anyone with common sense and is often coupled with a refusal to stop even after being asked nicely or told why it is problematic.
How far will you go with this?
Can WvW guilds demand PuGs leave when they have guild members in queue? (there was a controversy about this in the past)
Should we require roamers, duelers, and GvG guilds (who may not even care about the outcome of the match) to leave if there is a queue?
Can the EotM karma train ask people to stop defending?
Anyone who hasn’t done so already should probably read this post by Romek on the first page
It’s honestly not enough just to say “we asked them nicely but they still didn’t want to listen”. And this is why I suspect no action has been or will be taken.
Yes, it does have noticeable effect on the matchups
I am asking if there is a specific matchup where you could attribute dropping to 2nd/3rd place to a siege troll. It may be hard to find/prove such a case, but it would be extremely compelling when you do find one.
(edited by Dave.2536)
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.
It could be argued that this is harassment of the server community. Suiciding golems could be seen as harassment of an individual, as they spent some resource acquiring those plans. There is also a blub about causing other players distress. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t even matter because ANet reserves the right to change the rules of conduct.
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.
Yes, I know that. It is an extremely broad interpretation of the word exploit. The point is they did not punish everyone in these cases. The point is, some vague clause/definition is enough.
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.
Don’t get all coy after you said ANet “can’t” define it if we can’t. They are aware of siege trolls, and have commented in the past, back when the siege building achievement was intact.
It’s funny that you bring up the dungeon thing when the guy this thread is about is one of the most egregious siege trolls. If they take any action, it would be against them. This thread is not about a guy building 6 ballistas one time at a camp, in case it wasn’t clear enough. ANet can comment in this thread themselves and say it’s not viewed as an issue. Since we have a post that they have stepped in on another server in the past, apparently it is. But who knows, maybe they think keeping a few extremely toxic players around is ok.
Honest and serious question: is there actually a matchup where this supply/siege blockage is actually affecting the outcome (rather than just the points), or is this more of an annoyance/morale issue?
Siege caps, supply for for defensive siege, upgrades, and repairs are of the utmost importance in WvW. Are you more or less likely to try harder and devote extra time when your side is being actively sabotaged for hours? Morale ties into points, which ties back into morale, which affects the outcome. Pretty sure even WvW devs have thrown out the term “snowballing” here before.
Again, this achievement is no longer a factor. Stop bringing it up. For someone who threw out the accusation of a strawman, this is ridiculous.
(edited by Visiroth.5914)
The blatant, sustained and intentional wasting of supply is obvious to anyone with common sense and is often coupled with a refusal to stop even after being asked nicely or told why it is problematic.
How far will you go with this?
Can WvW guilds demand PuGs leave when they have guild members in queue? (there was a controversy about this in the past)
Should we require roamers, duelers, and GvG guilds (who may not even care about the outcome of the match) to leave if there is a queue?
Can the EotM karma train ask people to stop defending?
Anyone who hasn’t done so already should probably read this post by Romek on the first page
It’s honestly not enough just to say “we asked them nicely but they still didn’t want to listen”.
Yes, it is enough. It’s obvious to anyone who plays WvW even casually if someone is intentionally wasting supply and trolling. The significant impact of such supply waste are also obvious to anyone who plays WvW, which is precisely why he’s doing it to begin with. Not everything has to be defined in black and white. It’s obvious to all that his behavior is problematic and against the spirit of how WvW matches should be played out. A single user is being allowed to troll an entire community full of people and make their gameplay less enjoyable. That isn’t right and the author of this thread is justified in asking for clarification from Anet, and the WvW community is justified for wanting rid of this scourge.
Yes, it is enough.
I didn’t say there wasn’t a case to be made. I just said “we asked them nicely but they still didn’t want to listen” is not good enough support. Call it semantics, but again I feel “how” is more important than “what” (which we don’t seem to disagree on anyways).
How much of a precedent are you willing to set is the question. Without anything solid, you can always fall back on “the ends justify the means”, but I think many would really prefer that to be the very last resort possible. My purpose in participating in this discussion is try to come up with something better than that.
For what it’s worth, I personally would prefer some balance change that would make trolling harder or less effective, rather than reactively handing out consequences.
The purpose of your participation in this thread seems to be to troll it with some high school debate class routine which is getting timesome, to be honest.
This situation is as simple as you’ll get:
We don’t need a paragraph of legalese in the ToS to explicitly define what “siege trolling” is and pinpoint the precise moment when it is actionable. We don’t need complex and likely annoying changes to core game mechanics of dropping siege and using supply which are working perfectly fine right now for the vast majority. What we need is for the tiny minority of people who thinks these sort of “tactics” are entertaining to be kicked out so everyone else can get on with playing the game as it was intended to be played without getting griefed. End of story.
Welp, if I’m going to be accused of trolling, I may as well go all out.
Perhaps it’s time to drop the “ANet is evil” narrative and think about why this issue isn’t getting the attention it seems to deserve.
It is worth mentioning that Colin (or was it Mark?) did mention that they’ve recently gotten more GMs on their internal “watchdog” team that monitors different areas of the game for exploiters, botters etc. so hopefully blatant siege trolls (and other lowlifes like hackers in WvW) will get some attention sooner rather than later.
The purpose of your participation in this thread seems to be to troll it with some high school debate class routine which is getting timesome, to be honest.
This situation is as simple as you’ll get:
- Player intentionally uses worthless siege repeatedly, consistently and en masse in WvW to waste supply and even makes this intention even more clear by annoying people further in the chat.
- Player is very obviously aware of what he is doing and is not simply someone new who is receptive to feedback of others on how to use supply more effectively.
- Player continues to do so at the expensive of the entire WvW community on whichever server he happens to be trolling.
We don’t need a paragraph of legalese in the ToS to explicitly define what “siege trolling” is and pinpoint the precise moment when it is actionable. We don’t need complex and likely annoying changes to core game mechanics of dropping siege and using supply which are working perfectly fine right now for the vast majority. What we need is for the tiny minority of people who thinks these sort of “tactics” are entertaining to be kicked out so everyone else can get on with playing the game as it was intended to be played without getting griefed. End of story.
This ^
Yes, it does have noticeable effect on the matchups
I am asking if there is a specific matchup where you could attribute dropping to 2nd/3rd place to a siege troll. It may be hard to find/prove such a case, but it would be extremely compelling when you do find one.
Well, if we look at the historical scores and the score evolution of each week’s match, the matches between the T1 servers are usually pretty even (with a few exceptions here and there, when one server has a particularly bad week); but if we look at weeks 12, 13 (first two weeks of Spring Tournament), and 37 (first week of Fall Tournament) BG breaks that trend and tears ahead of the other two servers early in the week – which is also the time when the siege troll was/is most aggressive about his sabotage.
We could attribute part of this performance to BG players trying harder because of the tournament rewards, but it’s hard to believe that effort alone can put them so far ahead of both JQ and TC (TC I can understand, due to having poor nighttime coverage, but JQ doesn’t have that problem and shouldn’t be doing as poorly as TC) and the advantages a siege troll gives are fairly significant.
(edited by Pandaman.4758)
I’d like to interject here and remind folks that BG’s outcomes during Season 2 were directly a result of being 2v1’d by JQ and TC. We enjoyed the bags we received from all the fights (even when one side would tire and run from us, the other side would be there to fight), but we finished third when facing off with them because they didn’t fight each other and instead just camped us. The start of the fall season is more fair because there isn’t an active 2v1 going on.
The idea that we are paying someone to troll is funny. Granted, maybe someone is, but it’s certainly not the real WvW guilds. When the other side is demoralized, and doesn’t come out to play, we get no bags. It’s why at the end of the ungodly long season 2, BG pugs stopped going and burn out happened bad for WvW guilds. We wanted to at least have SOME ppt, and couldn’t get any facing off with two servers the entire time. TC and JQ dropped the 2v1 briefly and fought each other to encourage BG to come out and play again (and also likely from intense boredom with their truce and no BG to fight).
I’m sorry your camps are being trolled, and I hope the person gets banned or even just wakes up and stops demoralizing you all. Just like I hope the people glitching and hacking through doors to solo towers and keeps get banned. WvW fights are fun, running around seeing nothing going on is an outcome nobody wants. And so far this season, it’s been a lot of massively fun fights we’ve had, both the ones we’ve lost and ones we’ve won.
The idea that we are paying someone to troll is funny. Granted, maybe someone is, but it’s certainly not the real WvW guilds.
That may be a point that’s being lost in the complaints, but I don’t think anyone is saying all of BG is culpable; it is definitely a minority of BG that is driving this behavior, but the unfortunate fact is there is no way for a zerg to know they’re benefiting from sabotage until after the fact – and even then a lot of people may not notice.
I suspect the JQ/TC alliance last tournament may have been motivated by the siege trolling, because it was odd that the alliance would last for almost the entire tournament without something kittening off both servers at BG.
I can see two problems with trying to punish “siege trolls” reactively.
First of all you have people who are legitimately taking supplies, etc. for one particular group and purpose and another person/group decides that it’s a poor choice or maybe even that a siege troll is involved. Although I don’t doubt for an instant that people intentionally troll in this manner, sometimes it’s just a battle of wills and egos and folks just have to get over it.
Secondly, WvW is the most casual PvP format available—it’s the link between PvE and sPvP. Players constantly come and go, populations fluctuate like the tides, potential team mates are as random as they come in terms of cooperation and ability and, as mentioned above, there are always clashing egos. In terms of control in WvW, as an individual or a group, you have very, very little of it in the grand scheme of things. Do you want to do everything you can to assure victory in a PvP match-up? … Then grab four team mates of your choice and queue up in tPvP. Crazy idea, huh?
People who stress over things they have no control over are wasting their energy. WvW isn’t much different in that regard.
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)
I never claimed it was either, so I’m not sure why others are so offended when I emphasize this. My posts in this thread are more along the lines of searching for an efficient, fair, and optimum way of dealing with the issue.
Many in the dungeon forums are quite bitter about the suggestion of only punishing the most egregious violators. I can almost guarantee that a similar policy to address siege trolls in WvW will not satisfy people here.
Honest and serious question: is there actually a matchup where this supply/siege blockage is actually affecting the outcome (rather than just the points), or is this more of an annoyance/morale issue?
In the case of the former, I’d strongly suggest making a focused thread about it with the evidence that it’s actually making a noticeable difference. (The ones here about outcomes seem focused on coverage or transfers.) In the case of the latter, my honest advice is to just grow thicker skin and lower expectations, as a harmless troll deserves no attention and publicity.
Hi Dave.
Right now in JQBL we are siege capped. We only hold our two north towers and our garrison.
We are unable to lay down any siege anywhere, for defense or to try and take any objectives, like bay or hills.
This is affecting the outcome, even though BG is far ahead at this point. It makes me not bother to log on because we can’t do anything. It is more than just an annoyance, it is a very real problem and it is exacerbated with Season 3 as there are some who will do whatever it takes to win, and they know there is little risk of being punished for it.
Welp, if I’m going to be accused of trolling, I may as well go all out.
- Many of you have yet to cite a rule that said siege troll is breaking, falling back on the flawed assumption that the majority is entitled to its playstyle.
- You guys have so far failed to produce a single outcome where a siege troll definitively landed your server in a lower place than it deserved.
- An outsider looking in (or the siege trolls themselves) could easily accuse you of scapegoating all of your server’s morale, recruitment, coverage, and general performance failures on siege trolls instead of taking proper responsibility.
Perhaps it’s time to drop the “ANet is evil” narrative and think about why this issue isn’t getting the attention it seems to deserve.
Dave, you are asking questions that (I believe you know full well) are unanswerable.
Whether someones motives are malicious or not is not answerable since it is impossible to really know someones intentions. All we can do is look at the evidence and make a reasonable guess as to their intentions.
We can not quantitatively say that “x” troll caused “x” outcome. That is impossible. Again we can only say that given that siege speeds up the taking of objectives, and supply feeds siege, then it is reasonable to assume that it does have an affect on the outcome.
At this point I think you are just posing these questions because you know that no one can come in with any rock solid numbers on a spreadsheet to prove the outcomes are affected by siege trolls, and you believe that gives you an iron clad position.
Either way, I have given what I believe are reasonable solutions. Clearly you disagree. But given my statements above I don’t see you ever changing your mind, or coming up with any solutions that would meet your criteria.
Hi Dave.
Right now in JQBL we are siege capped. We only hold our two north towers and our garrison.
We are unable to lay down any siege anywhere, for defense or to try and take any objectives, like bay or hills.
This is affecting the outcome, even though BG is far ahead at this point. It makes me not bother to log on because we can’t do anything. It is more than just an annoyance, it is a very real problem and it is exacerbated with Season 3 as there are some who will do whatever it takes to win, and they know there is little risk of being punished for it.
Didn’t know JQ had one too :c. Whoever’s paying these guys to do this has really poor sportsmanship.
@thread: Fact is, siege trolling does inadvertently affect the outcome of a match. It cripples the servers that the trolls are doing this on, and while it may not be the deciding factor (personally I expected BG to win first place anyway), it certainly gives the server that isn’t being trolled a profound advantage.
If the same kind of trolling is happening to JQ, then both of our servers are having a serious time with keeping things defended – without supply to repair, upgrade things, build siege (nevermind actually launching an offensive), our keeps and towers are easy targets, and against a server that has way more 24/7 coverage than TC does, that gives us even less of a chance than we already had.
No, I’m not saying that if we didn’t have this siege troll, we would be winning. I’d have been very surprised if it looked like anyone other than BG was going to win. But the gap certainly would’ve been smaller, and we’d be a hell of a lot less stressed without having to play the “lel no supply or siege for you” game.
One person should not be able to ruin an entire game mode for the rest of us without repercussions.
Maybe to fix this issue, anet can impose a limit on how many siege engines you can deploy. Yes, this would change how commanders deploy siege, but it would thoroughly limit a supply troll’s effectiveness if you can only drop say, 3 siege per account. When one is destroyed you can build another. If all are destroyed you can build 3 more. Thoughts?
Maybe to fix this issue, anet can impose a limit on how many siege engines you can deploy. Yes, this would change how commanders deploy siege, but it would thoroughly limit a supply troll’s effectiveness if you can only drop say, 3 siege per account. When one is destroyed you can build another. If all are destroyed you can build 3 more. Thoughts?
This would be an awful solution. It would be much better to simply have anet actually do something about these people when they are reported, but as we all know, siege trolling tacitly approved of by Anet.
This would be an awful solution. It would be much better to simply have anet actually do something about these people when they are reported, but as we all know, siege trolling tacitly approved of by Anet.
The problem here is what they’re doing is technically all legal.
Buy/find plans? Legal
Deploy siege? Legal
Collect supply? Legal
Build deployed siege? Legal
I understand that the situation sucks, but try to come up with a solution anet can actually use. Maybe my limited deployed siege is a bad idea (I think it’d be useful, it would actually require more participation from your guild/blob than getting them to pick up supply, would encourage people to learn how to deploy and where and why. All good things. And one person can’t kick everyone off everything that was made because multiple people made it) so let’s all put our heads together and try to find a viable solution instead of just whine.
Here’s another one, maybe give commanders the ability to destroy siege and return supply to the camp/tower/keep/garri it’s located in, possibly at a lower percentage of what it was built for. Kinda like tower defense games, you drop a turret for 30 energy, you decide you don’t want it, you destroy it and get 15 energy back. But that comes with the problem that everyone has a commander tag. Maybe it’s put to a vote, like party kicking someone, so everyone in the commanders party has to click a pop up asking to confirm siege destruction.
The problem here is what they’re doing is technically all legal.
Which can easily be changed by Anet at any time. This is their game. If they know someone is trolling nonstop for weeks at a time, they have every right in the world to just ban them. And lets be honest, its really easy to tell if someone is trolling or if someone is just doing something dumb because they don’t know any better. This isn’t a slippery slope thing.
Hell, when the game first came out they had no problem banning people for exploiting even if the exploit was perfectly “legal”. A bug makes karma vendors sell stuff for cheap? Well, you could get banned for exploiting it even if buying stuff from a karma vendor is perfectly legal.
The only reasonable solution is to just ban people who do this. Anyone else who says something different is just arguing for the sake of arguing.
<—- Blackgate here.
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.
If you think this is malicious, you haven’t faced Yak’s Bunker. Where every camp has 2 trebs, 6 ballista’s. If it’s north camp they have 4 trebs, 6 ballista’s and 2 Omega’s as well.
Here’s another one, maybe give commanders the ability to destroy siege and return supply to the camp/tower/keep/garri it’s located in, possibly at a lower percentage of what it was built for. Kinda like tower defense games, you drop a turret for 30 energy, you decide you don’t want it, you destroy it and get 15 energy back. But that comes with the problem that everyone has a commander tag. Maybe it’s put to a vote, like party kicking someone, so everyone in the commanders party has to click a pop up asking to confirm siege destruction.
The problem with that would be that it’s way too easy to get a tag for a siege troll that’s getting paid who knows how much to do this to opposing servers – they could easily take down all the useful ACs/trebs/etc and build a crapload of ballistas in places they could never, ever be used.
It would make the current situation much, much worse, since at least right now, the troll is hindered by the useful siege we manage to get up before he caps out the siege count.
Even with a vote, that troll could get 4 troll friends with alternate accounts on TC and together take down every piece of useful siege anywhere. Way too abusable.
I’m not sure if there is a clearcut solution to this in order to prevent people from being able to do any siege trolling, but I do know that this behavior shouldn’t be considered legitimate. Not when it’s the same exact person tournament after tournament doing the same exact things. I don’t give a kitten how much fun someone is having on a bought second account if it’s at the expense of the entire server. This should be considered harrassment on a very large scale.
The problem here is what they’re doing is technically all legal.
Actually, it isn’t.
From the rules of conduct it states:
You will not exploit any bug in Guild Wars 2 and you will not communicate the existence of any such exploitable bug (bugs that grant the user unnatural or unintended benefits) either directly or through public posting, to any other user of Guild Wars 2.
Okay, the latter half of that we’ve all been violating by discussing the siege troll. Whoops.
Now I highly doubt ANet designed siege engines to give the enemy an advantage, which is what the siege troll is doing with his exploiting of siege mechanics, so it would be justified if he’s banned.
And to be perfectly honest, looking at the other posts in this forum about long-time exploits going unpunished, I think the only solution we can realistically expect is a ban, because devoting time and money to fixing this exploit seems to be completely out of the question.
I’m not sure if there is a clearcut solution to this in order to prevent people from being able to do any siege trolling, but I do know that this behavior shouldn’t be considered legitimate. Not when it’s the same exact person tournament after tournament doing the same exact things. I don’t give a kitten how much fun someone is having on a bought second account if it’s at the expense of the entire server. This should be considered harrassment on a very large scale.
There just needs to be a better report system. In addition to Spamming and Selling Gold, add a ‘Dishonorable’ report option in WvW. Part of the problem is that we don’t really know how to report these players.
For what it’s worth, I’ve linked this thread elsewhere on the forums to improve visibility, hopefully we can get a response.
It could be argued that this is harassment of the server community.
Then this is where you should be arguing from.
Again, this is irrelevant. We don’t need to argue anything, it is either punishable or it isn’t. This isn’t the first time and it won’t be the last time that siege trolling has come up in the forums. And it has been actionable in the past
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Siege-griefing/first#post1785268
We also have an anecdote from this very thread, where ANet has supposedly stepped in: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Anet-s-stance-on-siege-trolls/first#post4413266
If policy has changed, then a 2 page thread isn’t going to get their attention, not when everyone is mad with the gaffes of the New Player Experience.
You’ve combined a strawman with a non sequitur. Nice job.
You’re the one who said it, not me. You dismiss out of hand any basis of definition of what siege trolling may be(amount used, discerning intent through chat logs, repeat offenses), which suggests you demand some ironclad inviolable definition of it or are trolling. Then cry strawman when you’re called out on it because I used the qualifier “perfect definition.” Then, when you’re called out on that, it is a “non sequitur.”
There are many things that can reduce morale, and people can do them freely.
A strawman and a non sequitur. We aren’t discussing “many things,” this is about siege trolling. But I see where you going with this.
Perhaps they are still trying to come up with a more preventive (as opposed to reactive) measure.
They have actually said this in the past. I’m not going to find the link for you though. Regardless, we’re still waiting for this and many other things that were promised.
- Many of you have yet to cite a rule that said siege troll is breaking, falling back on the flawed assumption that the majority is entitled to its playstyle.
“Many of you.” Nice strawman.
- You guys have so far failed to produce a single outcome where a siege troll definitively landed your server in a lower place than it deserved.
There is no way to “definitely” prove it, and you know it. Someone would just say “you would have lost that keep or tower anyway.” “Morale loss was caused by other issues.” “Players would have burned out anyway.” “It’s their fault for giving up.” “They just have to fight harder.” etc etc ad nauseam.
- An outsider looking in (or the siege trolls themselves) could easily accuse you of scapegoating all of your server’s morale, recruitment, coverage, and general performance failures on siege trolls instead of taking proper responsibility.
Now this is a true non sequitur. Such accusations would be irrelevant. The discussion being “will ANet do anything,” not “what do I feel ANet should do” or “if ANet should do anything at all.”
Perhaps it’s time to drop the “ANet is evil” narrative and think about why this issue isn’t getting the attention it seems to deserve.
We get it. Toxic players should be able to do whatever they want.
Whether someones motives are malicious or not is not answerable since it is impossible to really know someones intentions. All we can do is look at the evidence and make a reasonable guess as to their intentions.
It’s answerable if they admit to it in chat, like the person in question has.
(edited by Moderator)
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 the ballis are near the camp! Abaddon Mouth’s north camp was looking rather.. Interesting on the other night. There was few ballistas in and around the camp like you would expect but when you moved towards north where the old orb altar was, all the way back of the cliff you could see 25-30 ballistas and a ram lined up.
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 believe that in another thread that had to do with an event in Cursed Shores being intentionally failed – there was a comment by Anet that said if someone is playing in a fashion that causes problems for other players they need to take actions. I’m going to have a search for that comment…
edit:
Found it:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/About-that-blix-exploit/page/5#post4318436
There are really two sides to this, and when it comes down to it, you are both right – and you are both wrong. Both sides have the right to complete the task that they set out to do (completing or not completing).
Challenging another player’s play style is the issue here, and since this revolved around an event that was designed to be completed, it is being changed so that the original design of the event can be carried out.
When something in the game (such as this event) changes negatively as this has, we need to step in and remediate the toxicity. The byproduct of this change happens to be that a champion farm is being slowed, but since that was the originating factor for the toxicity, it’s unavoidable.
I encourage players to remember that not everyone has the same goals when they play, and sometimes they will clash.
Looking for more substantial reference.
(edited by One Prarie Outpost.4860)
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/legal/guild-wars-2-rules-of-conduct/
Rule #1 and Rule #22
1.) While playing Guild Wars 2, you must respect the rights of others and their rights to play and enjoy the Game. To this end, you may not defraud, harass, threaten, embarrass or cause distress and/or unwanted attention to other players. This includes posting insulting, offensive, or abusive comments about players, repeatedly sending unwanted messages, reporting players maliciously, attacking a player based on race, sexual orientation, religion, heritage, etc. Hate speech is not tolerated
22.)While participating in Plaver-vs-Player (PvP) gameplay, you will not participate in any form of match manipulation. Match manipulation is defined as any action taken to fix or manipulate the outcome of a match or alter or manipulate the rankings or ratings of the ladder. This also includes disrupting other people’s game experience by not actively participating in matches in good faith, a.k.a leeching.
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
I left TC because of trolls – no wait – I left a couple of servers because of trolls who taunt and spread untrue rumors while I and many others hit the “report” button to no avail.
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/legal/guild-wars-2-rules-of-conduct/
Rule #1 and Rule #22
1.) While playing Guild Wars 2, you must respect the rights of others and their rights to play and enjoy the Game. To this end, you may not defraud, harass, threaten, embarrass or cause distress and/or unwanted attention to other players. This includes posting insulting, offensive, or abusive comments about players, repeatedly sending unwanted messages, reporting players maliciously, attacking a player based on race, sexual orientation, religion, heritage, etc. Hate speech is not tolerated22.)While participating in Plaver-vs-Player (PvP) gameplay, you will not participate in any form of match manipulation. Match manipulation is defined as any action taken to fix or manipulate the outcome of a match or alter or manipulate the rankings or ratings of the ladder. This also includes disrupting other people’s game experience by not actively participating in matches in good faith, a.k.a leeching.
Apparently Anet doesn’t seem to be taking their own rules very seriously.
Trolls don’t just throw siege, they actively and continually make sure that they make others miserable while in groups called “guilds” and making sure all members of said guilds are taught to taunt – what for they have no idea – but taunt lessons are being passed on by bullies who think they can get away with anything “because it’s just a game”.
No, it’s not, legally it’s an attack – ask anyone who has been jailed for threats in facebook, twitter or any other venue of the web.
It’s time to put a far more human and kinder face to MMO gaming -please give us the tools to get rid of REAL trolls who disturb the game and destroy community spirit with more than just a few denigrating words.
It was bad enough when trolls “ruled” off-season, but during season?
Come on Anet!
I wish we could get some sort of response from someone, this has gone on long enough. Please help anet!!!!
Thank you for responding!!
(edited by este.8651)
Content Marketing Manager
John has opened up a new thread to talk about what can be done about siege trolls. I recommend taking a look over there and contributing to that discussion.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Siege-Troll-Discussion
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.