Not really, if you think spawn camping is okay.
I don’t. I just don’t think low enemy morale has anything to do with why it’s not okay. How much more of your own narrative will you try and weave onto me?
Please. The Geneva Convention protocol from 1977 prohibits attacks on civilians and methods or warfare which are intended, or may be anticipated, to cause widespread long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.
And yet, high-yield bombs are dropped by any country that you would consider “the good guys” and there are civilian casualties.
Infrastructures, including water and food generation ones, are regularly targeted as well. Nuclear arms are stockpiled and kept ready for use.
Don’t quote idealism when the reality doesn’t support it.
More egocentricity and rampant non sequiturs.
Rules of engagement are meant to ensure (increase the likelihood of) humane treatment of prisoners, prevent the use of over-barbaric weapons (bayonets with triangle or serrated blades), and allow medics to tend to the wounded without massive amounts of fire.
The fundamental principles of rules of engagement still apply today on a micro level and are effective. While I will very readily concede their failure on a more macro level, that is not really what they are meant for anymore. There are treaties, economic sanctions, NATO/UN, and M.A.D. for the bigger issues.
Having read all of your posts in this thread, I’m inclined to think you don’t really know what people are like on other servers and, I’m guessing, you’re not strongly in touch with how people are on your own server.
In fact, spawn campers on most servers are the squirrels who don’t pay attention, get tunnel vision 98% of the time, and become overextending rallybots whenever they do stay on tag. Most servers would do considerably better without these people.
About the only time spawn camping isn’t a totally terrible idea is if your own group has pushed a group back to their spawn, and you’re still there when they rally. If it’s an ongoing fight, that’s not so bad. If you’ve placed siege and are there to prevent them from leaving spawn, all you’re doing is taking away from the game for them and yourselves.
Are you putting words in my mouth? Did you misread (or not read) the bit from me that you actually quoted? Because I’m pretty sure I agreed with pretty much what you said, albeit for a different reason.
Your line about ongoing fight is naive and idealistic. While your “ongoing fight” may be the 5 minute skirmish, for others it is the week matchup.
Back off and fight them in a camp or a tower so that, win or lose, everybody gets something out of it.
More naivety. Do you really think getting farmed by a blob at a tower is somehow less discouraging than getting cut off by spawn campers? Because you will not get an even open field match with just the spawn campers, as much as you feel like numbers could be even and the siege might not be there.
Further comments to the contrary aren’t going to win you any supporters.
I don’t think my argument (or any argument) requires a bandwagon of followers for validation. Moreover, I’m just echoing the thoughts of others in this thread before me (expect war and PvP in PvP zone, and go to PvE if you can’t handle it), just in more gory detail.
It’s not a war, it’s a game. If it were a war, cheating/hacking and hiring spies and saboteurs would be totally okay.
Wrong again. Even in war the Geneva convention and other rules of engagement apply. In this game those rules of engagement are set by ANet.
(edited for quote formatting)
(edited by Dave.2536)
I don’t think we’re in disagreement about spawn camping in lopsided matches being bad. But we do differ in why we think it’s bad. You say it’s because it’s fun or morale breaking while I think your low morale is at best irrelevant to me and at worst something I should celebrate.
I’m more indifferent to it, but am still opposed to it because 1.) it tends to be counterproductive in general, and 2.) winning is no longer the primary motive.
In fact, my very first post here specifically states “If you’re intentionally trying to break someone’s morale”. In other words, if your intent is specifically to make them feel bad, then you are a bad person.
Here is your quote I’ve been arguing against. Again, it says nothing here specifically referencing spawn camping so I assumed you were being general.
I’m going to do everything within the limits to break your morale. Extremely intentionally. I want to make you feel miserable about even stepping foot into WvW. Why? Because then I’ll have one less defender/tail ganker/backcapper to worry about.
Also, in fact, if you look at the entire premise of the thread from the OP, the thread itself is against significantly unfair situations and how it’s just rubbing salt in the wounds, so…
Point halfway taken. Although you may have intended to be specific about spawn camping with your remark, I (and perhaps others) interpreted it as general (forgive me for perhaps reading too far into what sounded like a self-righteous “it’s just a game guys” or “I play for fun” statement).
You’re still interchanging motive (“they’re trying to ruin my fun!”) with perception (“my fun’s being ruined!”).
The only time this becomes a problem (in my eyes) is when winning takes a back seat to breaking your morale/ruining your fun. While I will probably agree that many of the spawn campers you described fall into this problem region, the problem is not that they’re ruining your fun, but that they’re no longer doing it to win.
If you’re perfectly fine with ruining a game for other people while hiding behind the wall of “Well, it’s not my fault you’re not having fun,”
And I’ll repeat it here. So long as it helps improve my chances of winning, I’m going to keep looking for ways to crush your morale. So long as the match is not out of reach for you, I will rub not only salt, but also hot peppers and alcohol, into those wounds. That is the nature of war and PvP.
Look, fighting at your spawn is going to be easier than fighting at a camp, tower, keep, or even in the open field. Why? Because it’s closest to your respawn and furthest from theirs. If you can’t even do that then you’re not going to be able to do anything on the map anyways. You can even thank the spawn campers for quickly deterring you from wasting your time!
In fact, spawn campers on most servers are the squirrels who don’t pay attention, get tunnel vision 98% of the time, and become overextending rallybots whenever they do stay on tag. Most servers would do considerably better without these people.
That the matches would get so imbalanced that spawn campers can do so and go unpunished is an issue to take with ANet. I’ll even be the first person to back you up if you do go to them.
But keep morale out of it. We’re not responsible for your server’s feelings, and we’ll constantly be looking for ways to crush enemy morale as we boost our own.
snip
Nobody who spawncamps is breaking any in-game rule, so it’s sort of ridiculous to bring in some real life example including 1.) physical force, and 2.) breaking laws.
“Your” refers to your server/community as a whole. If you guys can’t punish spawn campers, then either you belong in a lower tier, or you need to start finding better leadership (or establishing it to begin with).
But if you’re going to be pedantic about everything, then let’s throw out spawn camping altogether as your key point was about morale, not spawn camping. You are still fully responsible for managing your own morale.
It doesn’t matter if it’s spawn camping, getting trash talked on forums, losing your garrison, getting golem rushed, getting your golems wiped, etc etc. It’s nobody else’s responsibility but your own (as a server) to rally each other back and recover.
If others want to claim the area outside your base, and you aren’t able (or willing) to go around or fight back, then they have more right to be in that area than you do.
EDIT: wow I just reread this part again…trying not to touch the palm of my hand to the fore of my head right now.
After all, let’s look at this logically. If they weren’t there, I could leave and have fun. If they’re there, I can’t leave and therefore can’t have fun.
You are always free to leave. We are always free to challenge you when you do. If you (as a group/server) aren’t willing or able to fight us, then you don’t deserve to step outside, and should start thinking about buying zerker gear for PvE.
But wait, even dungeon mobs will fight back. Time to feed dance for cows in Queensdale, then? Look! ANet acknowledges that some content is too hard, so they even nerfed feeding the cows for you!
(edited by Dave.2536)
When you do something that just plain ruins any fun other people could possibly have for no other reason than because you can, and hide behind the excuse that it’s tactics, then you’re just trying to justify being an kitten .
Offense is taken, not given. The only person who can take your fun away is yourself.
I’ve never spawn camped myself as I’ve seen it as incredibly counterproductive vs any group with a brain.
When spawn camping succeeds it’s a sign of one of the following issues:
-a lopsided WvW match where there was never any fun to be had
-your failure to go around the camp
-your failure to enlist help
-your failure to outwait the spawncampers (they get bored very quickly when people stop going to feed them bags)
Notice two words that most of those things have in common: “your” and “failure”.
That’s like saying it’s tactical to beat someone with a baseball bat and then rub salt in their wounds afterwards.
What is this I don’t even…whatever, I’ll correct this grasping at straws analogy.
Against the rules:
-Hitting someone with a baseball bat
-Rubbing salt in someone’s open wound
Not against the rules, and tactical if it puts them on tilt:
-Stealing a base on a catcher with a bad arm
-Throwing curveballs to a batter notoriously bad at hitting them
-Taunting a hitter about his previous 3 strikeouts
-Reminding the opposing team that they are 10 games out of the playoff hunt
-Painting the opposing team’s locker room pink
If you’re intentionally trying to break someone’s morale in a video game, you’re taking the game way too seriously.
Who are you to judge how seriously someone should take the game? If my enemy chooses to take offense or insult to something as part of the game mechanics, and I find that it causes him to play on tilt, I’m going to take advantage of it. Every. Single. Time.
What else breaks morale aside from spawn camping?
Resetting a server’s garrison breaks morale.
Taking their keep in EB breaks their morale.
Getting rushed by 10+ omega golems breaks morale.
Getting your 10+ omega golem rush wiped breaks morale.
Losing your borderlands to Asians and Australians while you sleep breaks morale.
On a macro level, there is admittedly more than a little bit of responsibility on the shoulders of ANet for ensuring matches are somewhat balanced.
On a micro level, there’s no other way to say it. Sorry, but it’s your job to keep your morale, not my job to try and not break it.
Your battles are going to be boring as hell when you’re attacking an empty map because everybody quit WvW because, surprisingly enough, people tend to not find running into walls of death to be fun.
The harder we blow you out you get yourself blown out, the faster you’ll drop (or we’ll rise) to the next tier. I think that design is working exactly as intended, although perhaps it needs to be a bit faster.
Guys stop naming and shaming the IP addresses or you’ll get infracted and banned!
They may not have people working on making WvW playable they always have moderators with infraction hammers.
snip
Your frustration is going toward the wrong person.
spoj has a group he regularly plays with. In fact, most of us who are “against” this change have people we regularly play with.
We will be the first to adapt to any changes.
Many others will be left behind until you see our guides or encounter us.
We will adapt to whatever new meta comes up.
If the efficiency-for-safety tradeoff gets disrupted in favor of safety, we will require even more than just meta “gear” when we do go to LFG. It may be identify utilities/traits, it may be minimum AP, it may be specific classes only, but any specializations or roles will have us checking you even harder to make sure you can perform them adequately.
We “filthy elitists” cried about FGS for maybe a few hours following the nerf. Meanwhile there are many AC parties disbanding at the Spider Queen because they still haven’t learned to adapt.
We have all the leverage. We can and will adapt faster than everyone else.
And, we’re here warning you that what your ideals and your proposals are not consistent with each other.
Most of you are against the concept of “meta”, not the concept of “berserker”
(edit: formatting)
a strategy is quite doable on the archdiviner, extremely easy to do using a net turret + rifle + supply crate setup as an engineer, regardless of toughness or not. Whether the loss in damage was worth it was a different discussion.
Starting to go a bit off topic (on my end), but I’ve always thought immobilize was too strong in comparison to blinds and disables. (edit: quick clarification, if immobilize ever did get nerfed to be similar to blind, I would want the other CCs buffed to compensate)
In general, the partial loss of damage from one player is greatly offset by the gains from 4 other players having uninterrupted rotations.
I threw that idea up (unquoted because I later made some attempts to format and refine it) as an illustration of how removal of some berserker could add some depth, but because of the increased coordination may end up more difficult (and elitist) than the status quo.
(edited by Dave.2536)
IllegalChocolate, What you’re asking for can’t happen without the introduction of the trinity system. You’re asking for a reason to stack defense and have it be just as useful… you’re asking for tanks to exist, and if you count healing power as well… you’re asking for healers… NO
Just no, this isn’t that kind of game, stop it.
I remember reading a thread in the DnT forums by the regulars regarding using warrior with some Knight gear (high toughness) to tank the Archdiviner. The idea of using aggro wasn’t to facetank the damage, but to keep the boss in place (or at least moving and angled predictably) so everyone else could unload perfect DPS rotations without having to chase/dodge/kite.
I would be very receptive to this idea, but reiterate that toughness anchors fell out of favor because toughness alone was found to be insufficient at keeping aggro once players started mastering encounters and meleeing them for more damage.
I would also like to reemphasize that such a character would be more “anchor” (keep boss in one place than “tank” (facetank hits), and would require a higher, not lower, degree of skill.
Where am I going with this? I would be perfectly fine if the toughness trait lines (and even gear with high toughness) had an effect that greatly increased aggro. But facetank-friendly anchoring should never be supported or encouraged by this game.
Edit: really rough instantyolo proposal: perhaps the toughness tree should carry something like +2x threat, the power/precision/ferocity lines +1x each, and healing/vitality -1x (negative). Anchors could add toughness for aggro, but if they went overboard (vitality/healing) they would quickly lose aggro to DPS specced players.
Yes I realize the DPS traits are effectively multiplicative, so the numbers would need to be scaled accordingly. I just wanted to provide a quick illustration.
Toughness + Power + Precision player: +4x aggro
Power + Precision + Ferocity player: +3x aggro
Toughness + Power + Healing Power player: +2x aggro
Toughness + Power + Vitality player: +2x aggro
Toughness + Healing Power + Vitality player: +0x aggro
(edited by Dave.2536)
I honestly can’t give you any suggestion on filtering alternatives. I’ve always given everyone I met an honest chance, to get to know them, but I guess that is where I’m different.
To be brutally honest, most people aren’t about fairness, but quickness in this game. As I mentioned before, gear is a choice everyone can make and equality of opportunity exists for the most part.
Referencing your unquoted bit, I’m pretty sure you understood my logic, but intentionally chose not to accept it. You showed your understanding when you brought up “filtering alternatives”.
You also don’t need to be so passive aggressive or personal. I’m not very elitist myself (I generally ask for 80 zerkers but do not check gear or traits), nor do I do many dungeons anymore. However, I absolutely support a group’s right to prioritize quickness over fairness even with the use of not-always-reliable filtering and profiling.
snip
Let me be brutally honest with you too. You seem to be more against the “meta” than the “berserker” in “berserker meta”.
This idea is perfectly fine, but is little more than naive idealism.
(edited by Dave.2536)
—snip—
I will admit I fall under point 2 but here’s what I believe. I believe that if I am to be judged, I should be judged by what I am capable of not what I dress in.
As I pointed out to Loki, berserker groups look significantly stronger than non-berserker groups not only because of the berserker gear, but also because that group is more likely to bring group buffs and take advantage of combo fields (and these are the groups you see on Youtube).
Do you know why some of us ask for berserkers then? It’s a filter. It’s profiling. And because this game has equality of opportunity and gearing is a choice, profiling and filtering in this game is not some unforgivable social injustice.
1.) A player with berserker gear is more likely (of course, not guaranteed) to know the importance of combo fields and group support.
2.) Even if that player does not know about combo fields and group support, at least that player has berserker gear and can somewhat contribute to damage. The rest of us will just try to carry him.
On a side note, I’m totally fine if you don’t like the elitism in this game. But berserker is a pretty moderate filter if you ask me. What are some alternatives?
1.) AP needing to be above a certain threshold taken seriously by even more people. It won’t be perfect, but at least it suggests some experience.
2.) Ping weapons ping utilities state builds. GW1 didn’t really have gear stat differences so people were asked to ping builds and traits. In this game most berserker groups don’t even gear check; they just leave it there in hopes of filtering out some/most non-berserkers.
3.) More statics and less PUGs. Right now asking for berserker is enough for some groups to go into LFG and find someone. The alternative isn’t that these groups become more inclusive; they will become more exclusive but you won’t notice it since they will no longer be interacting via LFG This is because just having berserker will make you “good enough” even if you suck at everything else.
(edited by Dave.2536)
snip
Didn’t that esports announcement come around the time of the manifesto about horizontal progression? Have we seen how wildly successful this esports approach has been? Given the “wild success” of esports, the time passed since this announcement, and the aftereffects of that manifesto, I think you need to come up with a more recent source.
I also think my list is fine. That dodge roll key is the reason I still play this game (in both PvP and PvE), and I don’t wish for the game to cheapen it with passive defense. But honestly, just like with the FGS nerf, the dungeoners in this thread aren’t being defensive.
They’re warning you all—the changes you ask for will not give you the effects you seek. Content will become even less accessible to the casual player, and players will be even more elitist about it.
What, you only have one set of gear? /kick
What, you don’t have 1500 condition damage? /kick
What, you only have a greatsword/axe/mace? /kick
What, you don’t have all these obscure traits unlocked? /kick
What, you have Australian internet? /kick (or maybe we’ll just let you play DPS—mash those keys hard bby)
“Roles” (primarily tank, healer, and control) in other MMOs do nothing but concentrate the difficulty of the encounter on a few key players, because other players do not have the specialization to cover a miss.
This is a game where the most effective groups see everyone doing everything. Might and fury are stacked by multiple players instead of just a single buffbot. CC (blinds, cripples, disables) are chained with all the players contributing, rather than a single controlbot.
A fully buffed berserker group has around double the output (or more) of a yolopugswug berserker group. People in these forums think berserker is more effective than it really is, because they’re crediting the party buffs and combo fields to the gear stat, not the player coordination. The reason the disparity between most zerkers and non-zerker groups is so wide is because most players who have figured out the combo fields bit are players who have also made the switch to berserker. That’s two changes, not one.
(edited by Dave.2536)
Going to also post this video, has some good ideas especially around the 11 minute mark
Please god no.
This isn’t a trinity game.People need to take a minute, shake out this idea of what an mmo “should be” that they’re all stuck on.
Then sit back down and see GW2 for what it is, an action game placed into an MMO.
It’s PVE is built upon an idea of Read and React. You’re given tools to handle different things, and if you act correctly you’re going to come out more or less unscathed. That’s the design of the game, it’s beautiful.
If you want a game that’s about managing health bars, tanking, and other stuff like that… well there’s plenty out there, but it’s not GW2.
A gimmicky event that supports tank gear, I can agree with him on that, everything else he talks about in that video is promoting GW2 getting closer to a trinity system.
Then why bother to even have armor/weapon stats in this game? Or different runes? Or even different classes for that matter. Why have classes that can heal or mitigate damage if its pointless? Why not even remove all the stats in the game then and just have a no stat system like one of those beat em up arcade games.
Honestly they are better off removing all the armor stats from armor/weapons/traits and just let runes decide what how your character is specced. I don’t know what else to say.
Because as others have mentioned, this is a casual game for casual players. Content was designed to be cleared despite how inexperienced, slow, or bad you are.
The implication here is that players can get by doing the loot pinata world boss train and not touch dungeons. No dodging necessary! No criticals needed!
As far as completing dungeons go, sometimes that means taking some passive defense. If you need the training wheels, then take them. If not, then take berserker gear.
If you’re going to gate the content in a way that makes other gear equally viable, you’re going to get one of three situations:
1.) Dungeons become loot pinatas completely. Lolwuts difficulty?
2.) More set roles makes the elitism worse. Players will be expected to have multiple sets of gear, be expected to run even more specific traits and stats (to meet whatever breakpoint of what ever “role” they’re performing), again to help ensure a fast and smooth run. When content is this old, people don’t want viable. They want optimal, and they’re going to filter until they get it.
3.) The trinity makes a full return to GW2.
Most of you posting for changes here fall into at least one of these categories.
1.) Want the return of the trinity (will probably not happen)
2.) Want the end of elitism (I guarantee you, anything resembling roles will make it worse, because others will not be able to carry you if you fail/suck)
3.) Bandwagon fanbois reposting an idea from WoodenPotatoes that merely sounded catchy (most of us have seen the video, and I personally think no content in this game should ever reward a spec as forgiving as that)
4.) Have never done dungeon content more difficult than AC or CoF and don’t understand/realize the extent of active defense
5.) Want change for the sake of change (rather than the sake of improving)
~Snip~
Perhaps if ANet wants something like tanking to be more viable, they need to reveal the exact mechanics behind tanking. What is it specifically that helps a player gain aggro? The anchor (usually a guardian) used to be speed meta, but fell out of favor when it was found it couldn’t even reliably keep consistent aggro.
~Snip~
If you’re interested in finding out how to keep up aggro, look it up on the wiki…it’s listed in there on what the AI uses to select targets…and I’m not linking it because this was brought up in another thread about aggro somewhere else…find it yourself. Aggro can be drawn to a character and maintained…it’s not that hard…I’ve done it plenty of times.
I’m well aware that high toughness melee AH guardian + 4 ranged characters maintains aggro… most of the time…and then you realize you can split the ettin and shaman champions in Uncategorized Fractal because toughness is a higher priority for the ettin than the shaman.
I’m well aware that the wiki lists factors that contribute to aggro. The former meta anchor guardian fell out of favor once people started meleeing more and it became clear that proximity and damage (things you don’t get in your lolcasualyolopug range parties) dealt were enough to change the aggro around.
Anchor guardian fell out of meta because it couldn’t effectively anchor anymore, especially in Fractals (where keeping a boss still while everyone unloads perfect rotations behind it would be arguably superior to everyone having to kite and dodge a bit). If your party isn’t taking aggro from an anchor guardian it says more about their damage output than your aggro.
Your condescending tone has also been noted. I originally hoped you were speaking from a position of justified arrogance (in which case I would look forward to learning more about this game’s mechanics). However, checking your recent posts reveal that it seems to be a mere superiority complex. Perhaps, instead of asking me to check the wiki, you can check it again to better realize the (limited) extent of aggro in this game.
Some of these changes may not have the effect you want.
By making damage scale harder, and defensive traits viable, there will be even more separation (and elitism) between the speed and casual communities.
Remember the FGS nerf? Speed run community was never dependent on FGS to kill the Spider Queen in AC so it quickly found alternatives (beginning with knowing how to dodge her animations to begin with). Similar things happened with that spider boss in TA Up with reflects getting nerfed.
Perhaps if ANet wants something like tanking to be more viable, they need to reveal the exact mechanics behind tanking. What is it specifically that helps a player gain aggro? The anchor (usually a guardian) used to be speed meta, but fell out of favor when it was found it couldn’t even reliably keep consistent aggro.
Perhaps they need to pay more attention to WvW and GvG, where stats aside from Berserker have been widely used and accepted.
I can almost guarantee, though, that following the OP proposals with stats will turn even more dungeons into ones nobody runs (Arah 1/4, TA A, etc) if encounters are not scaled down, and 5 man instanced loot pinatas if they are.
I do maintain that classes shouldn’t be able to apply damaging conditions unless they spec for it
Would 700 condition damage be enough? You can get that with 0 condition damage from gear and 20 might stacks.
What about 1300? That’s 5 in the warrior precision line (6-5-0-0-3 power meta), 25 stacks of might, a strength banner, and 0 condition damage from gear.
(edited by Dave.2536)
The token system seems so natural to players but it may detract from the game’s supposed more casual focus.
In the case of precursor tokens, having then and maintaining the value/rarity of precursors requires the drop rate of actual precursors to drop. By doing so, you are taking them more out of the hands of casuals.
Right now you can tell them, “you may never earn the gold for a precursor but you might stumble upon one!” That goes more and more out the window if you replace some drops with tokens.
Personally I’d enjoy it if the game halved the drop rate/forge rate of all precursors and introduced tokens (collect 1000 for a precursor) at 500-1000x the current drop rate/forge rate (so that players would expect to see a few every month) of precursors to offset the lower precursor drop rates. These tokens should also be tradable so casuals who have no ambition can still partake in this pie.
This would reduce RNG and offer more tangible progression (10 tokens is always 1% of Zap, but 12 gold may not always be 1%), while at the same time maintaining some lottery surprise elation. But, this would admittedly take some of these precursors away from the more casual crowd, albeit compensating them somewhat for the loss.
Mindless zerg blob farmers detected!
I have duplicate warrior, guardian, ranger, and ele.
Doing so lets me avoid the hassle of retraiting between PvE and WvW (?!?!??!? TEMPLATES WHERE ?!?!??!?!). This also allows for rapid swapping between two different builds for tPvP (staff vs d/d ele, hambow vs axebow, power vs condi ranger, bunker vs dps guard).
I would disagree with you there, while tittles are not without consequence, it is the opening body paragraph, or more specificly, the thesis that establishes the topic, and that is indeed to complement ANet. My plea, while perhaps not wrong, was truly mislaid, and has driven the this thread off topic.
You were right about the ambeguity of ‘dear anet’ drawing me in, as I was curious of what the op had to say, and prehaps that does have an unconcious effect, but as reasonable clear thinkers who wish to protray a strong effective argument, we must be able to control such pulls. I didn’t, and that’s were the fault lies.
I don’t think we’re in much disagreement here. I did not push all of the fault onto OP, merely “most” of it. While I may downgrade to “some”, it would take a very compelling argument to sway me further. (regarding OP’s intent, ignorance is not an excuse)
Perhaps we can look at the thesis. I’m seeing something to the effect of “ANet deserves a lot of praise. Discuss.” Most of the dissenting replies carry the tone of “ANet does not deserve that much praise because…”. Again, by providing arguments in favor of why ANet deserves thanks, OP opens up the door to arguments in opposition to that position. Perhaps if OP does not wish for a true discussion, OP can make a support ticket with the same message like she has been telling dissenters to do
So long as it is accepted for ANet defenders to post dissent in the “These are the things that are wrong with this game” threads, there should be zero issue with you or I posting in threads like this one.
Youre welcome, Gaile.
And Im not kissing "anet kitten. lol some people just dont understand the act of expressing gratitude. I simply wanted to express my thanks for this beautiful game and maybe allow a few others to do the same.
As a person that has worked in a graphic design field, its nice to hear a “thank you” or a “you did a good job” every once in a while, since most of the time you hear constructive (and sometimes not so constructive) criticism of your work.
If you have a problem with this, make your own thread explaining how no one answers your questions or addresses your concerns etc. As i know, i cant stop you, Id appreciate if you could not make this into that sort of thread. Thank you and have a great day.
I personally have never said there is anything wrong with giving complements and congradulating devs for good work and amazing content, I have done so many times over the course of living story season 2. so I do not have a problem with this thread, the problem is that devs will reply to this type of thread, but not others that touch up on important matters.
I understand and as I said, you could make a thread and complain about that there. But not here, please. If that’s not too much to ask.
Edit: as you edited yours, I am sorry they have told you that. But that is not my concern. Maybe you should contact a staff member or send in a ticket?
Tickets of this mater are replied with ‘you should post on the forum’ howerver, you are correct, this was not the appropriate medium through which to express my exasperation and fustration with the lack of communication, I appologize, and will not do so again, as it only serves to derail and discredit the topic of this thread. But, if not here, on its own featured page, or through email, then where ANet? You may wish topic to go away, and believe me, so do I, but it won’t dissapear, until things change, it will continue to itch at us, until we are absolutely disgusted with the game we love, all because you do not communicate with your customers. I only ask that you do not let it end like this. forcing us to bottle up our unanswered anxiety until we explode, is not the solution. so either give us a form through which we can communicate our anxiety, or erradicate it all together simply by talking to us… that’s all I ask. and its the last I will say here.
Late edit: Let me make it clear to any reading this. While I generally agree with the thoughts and ideas described in the OP, I feel like forums are primarily a place of discussion. I stepped in simply because it felt like people in this thread were trying to kill the discussion.
Otaku, you’ve made dissenting remarks, but there is no irrelevant content. The topic is titled “Dear Anet”, not “Thank you Anet”, and you have simply followed everyone else in expressing your opinion to Anet. The only hijacking going on here is others’ intolerance for dissent. Don’t apologizing for that, and don’t get bullied out by it.
In my opinion the fault lies mostly with OP here in making an ambiguous title, which I suspect may have been driven by a (conscious or unconscious) motivation to get people to click and read rather than skip.
Yes, “Thank You Anet” or “[White Knight Thread] Dear Anet” would get dismissed by some, with many skipping it knowing exactly what the message is inside. On the other hand, you would have a significantly stronger argument against dissenting views in such a topic.
Such is the double edged sword of ambiguity.
(edited by Dave.2536)
When you join a pug run be sure to keep quiet, never argue with them. Even more so if they are from the same guild. Sometimes guild members keep randoms to invite their friends at the last fractal.
Maintain a positive attitude and do not sound rude with guild runs. The best advice you can give right here.
The problem is that there is no universal method guaranteed to offend nobody.
Don’t talk: minds his own business or failure to communicate/doesn’t speak English?
Tries to explain mechanics: helpful or rude + bossy?
Tries to correct something wrong/suboptimal: helpful or rude + elitist?
What is the point I’m trying to make? Some of these posts veer dangerously close to victim blaming, and tend to ignore or overlook the bigger picture:
1.) Offense is taken, not given (no, I don’t want your victim/privilege ad hominems here)
2.) At least some of these situations are a result of mis-perceived intent, often the result of sub-par social/communication skills or an initial coldness toward strangers.
3.) The overwhelming attitude in this thread/community, that the optimal behavior in a party is to try not to be kicked, rather than trying to be as helpful as possible (seen as detrimental by quite a few here), is not something healthy for this game.
snip
The bulk of your post rests on two points: your anecdotal alt run with guild members, which is not what I would be getting if looking for someone in LFG; and also your false dichotomy that if I’m not doing a record run it must be super casual.
To answer your first question, no, it is not the removal of traits alone. It was the already-weak status of non-80s, coupled with trait locks, backwards stats, and all of the other elements of NPE.
As far as important traits, Forceful Greatsword (master) stands out as a key non-GM trait, and then any 10% modifier, a lot of -20% recharge modifiers, etc. Master of Consecrations and Absolute Resolution (a master) also stand out. So does Renewed Justice (a master minor trait now also locked at 60)
But let’s not get stuck on traits alone. This is far from the only way new low levels are crippled in dungeons.
tl;dr—I think I could bear with a few of these changes, but not all of them. I’m also well aware that I’ll be considered a kitten here for publicly stating my thoughts. But consider throwing that frustration, not at me, but at ANet. Things don’t change unless people complain and take action. I’m honestly mostly a messenger for a larger group.
PS: I’m also not interested in hearing about how the NPE has added immersion for new players (it may be a valid discussion point but irrelevant in the context of dungeons). If it has, it’s doing so by creating artificial progression via crippling the characters at the start.
(edited by Dave.2536)
So it’s even easier and completely free to get a character to 80 without understanding any of their skills and traits? No thank you. If you want to play a new character so much, actually play them.
How is it “completely free”? 28 gold and 260 skill points to unlock what used to be given (this is not even counting the XIII traits). How are new characters learning these things when they don’t even get to use them…? If you want to talk about how free it is, maybe we can remove these pointless locks?
I used to be okay with allowing lvl 40’s into dungeons because at least they would have access to every major trait. Now major traits come at 60 (grandmaster 80), characters don’t get initial access to any of them, and trait points are backloaded to the late 70s. Why even include a lvl 70 when it’s clear he has no grandmaster traits and probably missing a key major or two?
If we’re going to put all these locks on new characters, can we at least speed up leveling so these players don’t get excluded from stuff even more/longer?
3)This is false. A lot of times i make these sorts of posts and people do join up with the right classes.
If they don’t – you kick and move on.Just because in your experience, something didn’t happen, that doesn’t mean it is false. I’m basing what I said on my observations, and I’ve often seen groups looking for specific classes filled with completely different classes to the ones they are looking for. That much is certainly true and I’m sure you’d also notice similar cases yourself if you just took a look through the LFG system.
People may end up taking different classes for various reasons.
1.) They just wanted to create a filter that made it more likely (read: not “guaranteed”) to get the classes they wanted, without any intention of actually kicking.
2.) They decided they’d been waiting too long already and were ready to take the first person who joined.
3.) The person who joined displayed other factors that mitigated being on the wrong class (i.e., has plenty of AP, appears to have a meta skill/weapon setup, air of confidence and experience).
This whole thread is basically A.) you arguing that these filters do not guarantee faster and better runs, and B.) others arguing that a guarantee isn’t necessary, and probable/very probable were good enough. Meanwhile, pretty much all evidence presented on both sides regarding total time spent has been completely anecdotal (I will argue why it may be irrelevant later) and does little to sway one side to the other.
Now, my own two cents.
Total time (waiting + running) can be irrelevant to some groups. This is because the waiting time does not require much focus at all. Players can use this time to take a break, take care of their inventory, manage their TP transactions.
Good players offer a potential to skip the LFG system in the next path, or even in future dungeons. When I do CoE I start with P2 and apply thorough filters (experienced zerkers please). P2/P3 filter out anyone who can’t dodge Alpha, and this is reinforced by the rest of the post. Having done all this, I will most likely end up with a group that 1.) will stay for P1/P3, and 2.) knows what “4-1” means in P1.
“LFG Zerker only pls! Gear Check.”
Links gear in inventory, wears PVT
I don’t get the gear check. Really? It’s just insulting elitism that serves no purpose. If you want zerker geared, say so, but leave the “Gear Check” crap out. If I wanted to do dungeons and fractals, which I have 0 interest in, I would probably be very tempted to troll these groups.
You can go one step further and copy/paste the item # from the wiki into chat. Itd be hilarious to link ascended zerker armor in one of those groups while wearing rare soldiers gear. I bet 99% of those groups would never come close to noticing.
Do it and get kicked for having gear with no rune/sigil and obvious copy-pasting. We could even justify kicking you at the last boss for having so obviously wasted our time. (Would I take it this far? No, but I would zealously defend someone else who did)
For every fake pinger who joins a gear check group they’ve managed to filter out 10+ non-zerkers who either 1.) recognized the incompatibility, or 2.) did not have the willingness or knowledge to fake ping. Additionally, by fake pinging they at least fall into a higher category of non-zerker with their awareness of the situation and ability to read.
Also, notable missing QQ section in the OP: “LFM lvl 80 only”
Translation: “guys it’s only bad and wrong if I say it’s wrong”
With the red posts in this subforum lately, has there ever been a recent non-moderator red post about fractal drops?
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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!
karma caught up to you for wasting that first groups time.
How dare someone make a joke in a group, such a waste of time!
Given the complete lack of familiarity and the seeming seriousness of the LFG post in question, perhaps this was not the best time for a joke. In any case, the kick was a win-win for both sides, as action was taken quickly, OP was not stuck in a “too srs” run and the party rid themselves of a potential (in their eyes) troll/scrub.
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.
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.
If someone use LFG tool to join party, he has cooldown to kick anyone for 5 minutes. Problem solved.
This actually has potential in my eyes. Are there any obvious or loophole downsides to this?
Someone uses LFG to join a party, invites his friend outside of LFG tool. The friend initiates the kick. They steal the instance?
What if it was appended to not allow kicking for 5 minutes regardless of how one joined the party?
There’s two potential conversations to be had here, one about the general feasibility of this idea, and the other about the actual duration of this anti-kick measure.
Your 30 second google searches aren’t doing you any good.
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, 19731. 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”.
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)
(edited by Dave.2536)
snip
Do you remember Boss Blitz? How the optimal strategy was to take all bosses to 1% before killing them all together?
If someone purposely killed a boss would that be grounds for action? If someone did it repeatedly would it be grounds for action? If so, why?
Because they were not playing to win? Can we then ban people who GvG or roam, or anyone who is new as well?
Because they didn’t respect the wishes of the majority? Can we ban defenders in EotM then?
This is the big question: what rule are these trolls breaking?
Have you ever read a statute? They are often open to interpretation. Otherwise there would be far less lawyers in the world.
More relevant. I have little issue with wanting to punish siege trolls, but taking action on people who are not breaking any rules is a far worse idea. The fact that no rules may have been broken is a sign that perhaps some rule may be needed.
On the other hand…if they’re using macros to deny supply (as I’ve heard mentioned), punish that. If they’re automating their actions, take action on that.
(edited by Dave.2536)
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.
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.
If someone use LFG tool to join party, he has cooldown to kick anyone for 5 minutes. Problem solved.
This actually has potential in my eyes. Are there any obvious or loophole downsides to this?
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 betterI’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.
Welp this is still relevant and deserves a +1 to the top.
Unless some imbecile 1st year lawyer from a tier 5 law school drafted the EULA, it should be easy to ban somebody for being a siege troll.
So since you’re being a willing volunteer armchair lawyer, can you objectively define “siege trolling”…
1.) without specifically calling out an individual
2.) making sure innocent players do not fall under this definition
3.) ensuring a group of players (e.g., raid group) cannot grief an individual for not conforming to that group?
ITT: people who depend on gear and consumable advantages to to win
sPvP does need more gear customization, and ultimately this is where I hope the conversation goes.
1) What exactly is/was “hypocrite” about ANYTHING I’ve said. Remember though, what “I” have said. Not what you say or think I have said.
Plenty in this thread have defended why their servers or they individually have taken a temporary break. Evidently there is no reason or standard that would make this acceptable to you (or, if there is, tell us right now what it would take).
It’s not even the fact that you transferred serves to be honest. Most of us couldn’t care less about that, and a lot of this thread seems to be united that the cleanest solution may be for T2 (SoS) to dissolve. What I and others can’t stand is why you feel you’re beyond questioning and even dare to make this morality claim.
It’s always amazing to see just how much people are willing to rationalize to preserve their ego.
#2
Uhhh where’s the question here? Seems like a rant.
religion, herd mentality
The religion jab was a sarcastic one. As far as herd mentality is a reference to Milgram which you either didn’t pick up or chose not to.
Milgram
Milgram showed that there’s almost no moral high ground to be claimed, as nobody failed to zap the dog/tester. I evoke it here, as the stakes here are much lower. Your switching servers, regardless of what your claimed motives are, ironically made this point much stronger.
You can answer me back and we can continue to go at it endlessly because I….will defend myself to death about it.
You might even be right. I and everyone could be wrong. The thing is, all of this is irrelevant if you can’t make a convincing case for yourself.
So long as you continue to make judgments against tanking as a whole here without getting into the specifics of an individual person/guild/server I really can’t consider that leaving me alone. Your invitation of a ceasefire has no merit when you’re not really ceasing fire yourself.
First off, taking a break from WvW for a few weeks is nowhere near as bad as hopping servers (edited as would not let me put “server” right after “as”).
Beside, I’m not judged by all, I’m judged by some including you.
I do not know if you are English-challenged or simply blinded by your naive righteousness, but please go back and check the context of “all” in my post. The word “of” connects “all” to “your actions and posts”, and does not imply “all the people”.
Then maybe it would be a great idea if you would reply to the post in question rather than make some post without any context after my last answer to the troll post.
I’ve addressed your point about Cold War/MAD. It’s gone unanswered.
I’ve addressed your point about collateral damage. It’s gone unanswered.
I’ve addressed your point about “all or nothing” actions. It’s gone unanswered.
All the balls are in your court. My point about hypocrisy not only still stands, but is stronger now.
Your move hypocrite.
(edited by Dave.2536)
In case you hadn’t been paying attention, I was answering to a poster who was telling others that NOT tanking was ugly and selfish for our servers. Therefore, if all were to behave in a beautiful and selfless manner according to the “philosophy” proposed, the strategy would be one huge waste of time on top of being a major pain in many @sses. The fact is, that particular strategy can only possibly work if not everybody follow it otherwise, how do you tank relatively to others?
As for the strawman, it was a strawman because it was hugely implying that those who were against the tanking were saying all the things the other poster was saying (sarcastically saying it’s fun to have your T3 keep wp and being trashed in 1 vs X etc.)… which was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off. It’s easy to try and make others look ridiculous when you manufacture what they say as opposed to what they actually say (the definition of a strawman).
I thought it was clear that you were being judged here by all of your actions and posts in this thread, not just the one quoted. Additionally nobody is questioning your strawman accusation of the troll post, so you don’t need to write a paragraph defending it.
Before you continue down this “all or nothing” narrative on tanking, do you even know what Nash equilibriums are? There is actually very little outside of theory that has all-or-nothing approaches being the most optimal.
I’ll continue to leave this here. I look forward to seeing the continued ironic hypocrisy from your underinformed and naive ideals.
It’s always amazing to see just how much people are willing to rationalize to preserve their ego.
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.