Blood Red Arachnid.2493

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> As does overconvidence in ones own superiority.

>

> For me personally the experience I've made over the years:

> The smartest people I have met where most often the ones least interested or driven in showing it off to others or proving they are smarter. They usually just did their thing and where grounded enough in their ability, and often surrounded by peers, that spending time on showing off would have been counterproductive.

>

> In this case it was already established that this thought excercise is nice for wasting some time, but pretty useless as far as actual game usefulness (if sticking to only healing and theory).

 

It isn't useless. I did something similar when comparing Marshalls to Marauders for WvW Ele. To see how much theoretical health the additional healing power would give me. I didn't do it as a heal-per-second thing, insomuch as I worked under the assumption that I would get to use all of the big heal + barrier skills within a single fight and went from there. I didn't save the numbers, and they'd all be different now because this was nearly a year ago, but I remember the conclusion: the extra heals quickly eclipses the 5k lost health, and would keep going further with regen, soothing mist, and other skills coming off cooldown.

 

So I bought the set, and my predictions were true. I gained the ability to fight people into stalemates, I started winning against tanks builds that I formerly lost against, and soloing the champions became a whole lot easier. I could do the same math today. I just have to find the health per second that perma-regen and soothing mist give me, sum up the total health bonus of all of the big heals/barriers, and then divide the difference between that and the Marauder health bonus by Health/Second to get when Marshalls will eclipse Marauder.

 

It's not the exactly same, but that's what I mean by cross-application.

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > This reminds me of how we used to do DPS calculations before meters were allowed, and before there was raid training golem. It involved a lot of spreadsheets, and having to deal with similarly math-challenged individuals.

> >

> > Personally, I prefer to keep it singular. When doing comparisons, it is much easier to focus on how much healing is being done to a single ally, rather than a group. For one, it is easier for the average layperson to understand, because that is how much healing they will personally receive. This is also important, because the amount of damage that a skill person does or receives is also calculated on the individual. It makes comparing like numbers easier. Second, it is much easier to scale up for groups than it is to scale down. The issue of target counts is best addressed after the fact.

> >

>

> That's right. If any of us plebs question the relevance of your extensive theorycrafting it's because we don't understand basic math...not because not a bit of any of it has any practical application at all.

 

Saying something true satirically doesn't make it less true. Cross-application is part of mathematical literacy.

This reminds me of how we used to do DPS calculations before meters were allowed, and before there was raid training golem. It involved a lot of spreadsheets, and having to deal with similarly math-challenged individuals.

 

Personally, I prefer to keep it singular. When doing comparisons, it is much easier to focus on how much healing is being done to a single ally, rather than a group. For one, it is easier for the average layperson to understand, because that is how much healing they will personally receive. This is also important, because the amount of damage that a skill person does or receives is also calculated on the individual. It makes comparing like numbers easier. Second, it is much easier to scale up for groups than it is to scale down. The issue of target counts is best addressed after the fact.

 

I don't know, I think he might have a point. If the roaming meta consists of

 

A) Immob Druid

B) The one class that natively beats Immob Druid

C) Everyone else having to build specifically around fighting Immob Druid

 

Then it means the spec is overpowered.

It depends on the server and the meta. I currently know neither, but there's a few things I can comment on.

 

a) Health regen is good in war of attrition, battleship metas, and condi metas. It's bad in hammer-train metas and power metas.

b) Healing bonus is generally bad for zergs, and I question if anyone should even bother making it.

c) Damage reduction is good in general, but crucial for hammer-train and power metas.

d) Condi reduction is good in condi metas only.

e)Life leech is the same as Health regen, except it is dependent on competency.

 

That whole "dependent on competency" thing is a big deal. See, DPS food is only good if the group is good at doing DPS. Adding power and ferocity is useless for a teammate who spends their time running around panicked. Because of this, if you're wading into the unknown there are two foods that I would recommend:

 

Plate of Clear Truffle and Sesame Ravioli

Health Regen

+100 Vitality

+70 Toughness

 

Spherified Sesame Oyster Soup:

Health Regen

+45 to All Attributes

 

The philosophy is simple: survival is important no matter how competent you are, what build you are running, or what role you're playing. You can't do anything while dead, and it is a given that the enemy is trying to kill you. Sesame Ravioli isn't the best in ideal circumstances, but it makes for a good baseline food. Spherified Oyster Soup beats out Ravioli with more competent groups, because damage matters more significantly and it gives more points overall.

 

For competent groups and organized groups, there are two more options:

 

Peppercorn Crusted Sous-Vide Steak

-10% Incoming Damage

+100 Power

+70 Ferocity

 

Clove-Spiced Pear and Cured Meat Flatbread

-20% Condition Duration

+100 Condition Damage

+70 Expertise

 

Pick one, depending on whether it is a condi meta or a power meta.

Honestly, I started skimming once he said that the teleport utilities are useless in WvW. It has been my experience and understanding that Lightning Flash, Blink, and Shadowstep are so mandatory for WvW they might as well be stapled onto the utility bar. Back when I could play the game, I ran Weaver in WvW. Lightning Flash was the most useful utility I had:

 

(1) It let me escape from a losing fight

(2) It let me avoid stun-locks and big bursts

(3) It let me chase running enemies

(4) It let me land big bursts on opponents

(5) Most important for this particular scenario, it let me squeeze past zerg hordes into keeps. If I didn't have lightning flash, I would be Immobilized, CC'd, and burst down as I try to run through them.

 

The same could be said of the other blink skills. So I can't help but wonder how little WvW experience the OP has.

I hate to be _that guy,_ but... for pugging Serpent's Ire, those CC consumables are almost necessary to carry players through it. I use the seed pods, which have a spammable knockdown.

I have two builds that I'll run the overworld with. The first one is a full damage build:

 

Gear: Berserker

Sigils: Force, Impact

Runes: x6 Scholar

Weapons: Sword + Sword, Greatsword

Utilities: Signet of the Ether, Phantasmal Disenchanter, Mirror Images,Well of Calamity, Gravity Well

 

Illusions: Persistence of Memory, Phantasmal Haste, Phantasmal Force

Domination: Bountiful Blades, Egotism, Vicious Expression

Chronomancer: Time Catches Up, Danger Time, Chronophantasma

 

I change the off-hand weapon for whatever I might need. This build is a hybrid of Woodenpotatoes OW build and the Snowcrows raid build. This isn't done for any sort of preference, aside from convenience. The Illusions line is there to give me quickness and might, the domination line is there to buff the greatsword that I use as my main weapon, and the chronomancer line is still OP.

 

The second build is the buff build.

 

Gear: Diviner

Sigils: Concentration, Force

Runes: x6 Scholar

Weapons: Sword + Sword, Shield

Utilities: Signet of the Ether, Well of Recall, the rest depends.

 

Dueling: Phantasmal Fury, Fencer's Finesse, Superiority Complex

Illusions: Persistence of Memory, Phantasmal Haste, Phantasmal Force

Chronomancer: Time Catches Up, Improved Alacrity, Seize the Moment.

 

While this version doesn't have as much up-front damage, it has two distinct advantages. First, it maintains permanent boons instead of short bursts of quickness and might. Second, the build's able to give anyone near me permanent quickness and alacrity. This makes it a massive force multiplier for any impromptu zergs or passerbys. This ability is often understated, but I noticed a massive boost in strength whenever I bring the boon chrono to an event. I change utilities depending on circumstance, but I almost always have Well of Recall on my bar. This is a big deviation from the raid build, which just uses Berserker Gear and focuses only on quickness. I go with Diviners, both because I frequently find myself being the alacrity bot in fractals, and also because the randomness of the overworld makes it impossible to huddle everyone together for split-second timed buffs.

For PVE in general, I'm partial to a full Grieving Firebrand. The reason for this is because, unless you're fighting a champion level enemy or some really upscaled mobs, the time it takes to kill an enemy with a condi build is much longer than what it takes for a power build. Grieving Firebrand has the smallest (or one of the smallest) difference in performance. The extra power also helps against all of the old content with condition-immune enemies.

That's the price you pay for versatility. The way I see it, the Ele's mechanic is permanently a hybrid build, capable of doing direct damage, condi damage, and healing all at the same time. In theory it is OP, but practice in those things don't work without allocating a lot of attribute points into them.

 

In PVE it doesn't have much of an impact, but in PVP the ele's hybrid nature can be quite scary. It waxes and wanes with the balance patches, but Celestial Ele and Marshall Ele have gained infamy for how dangerous they are.

Sounds like you'll want an elementalist. Particularly a dagger ele or a weaver. Bit of a warning, though: they're harder to play.

IMO this is one of those things that are common sense. Back when woodenpotatoes was doing his no-map challenges, he remarked something to the effect of "GW2 has such a rich environment, yet most players only ever interact with it once for map completion." To put this in comparison, back when I played Runescape one of the few stand-out moments I had with it was showing a newbie the blast furnace. Particularly, how the whole journey got waylaid for a bit once we hit the dwarven city of Keldagrim. The kid had no idea there was a gigantic metropolis just under his feet, and he had to spend some time running around just exploring the place when we got there. He actually typed out his amazement in chat. That is the sort of thing that I've never seen once happen in GW2.

 

In a very broad sense, all of the obstacles and challenges you have to overcome in a videogame are inconveniences. The story is locked behind a boss, the treasure chest is at the top of a treacherous mountain, limited build points forces you to pick one ability over another, etc. If there wasn't some kind of problem to solve, then it wouldn't be much of a game. I can understand simplifying things like tedious inventory management or UI elements, but it is possible to make things too convenient. The waypoint system is one of those conveniences that has a negative trade-off. While it relieves you of the burden of having to fight through enemies and trudge through jungle to get to your destination, those lost things are gameplay elements. All of the interaction with the environment is sacrificed. No more plotting paths, getting caught up in unexpected events, learning to navigate dangerous terrain, carving economic niches from the environment, or striking up unlikely friendships. Instead, you just warp from big shiny-giving event to next big shiny-giving event, which have their rewards balanced assuming they'll be zerged in mass.

 

I wouldn't fret too much about the negative feedback you're getting. All of the people who are still playing the game are the kind of people who don't mind all of these design features.

When it comes to efficient stat distribution, power wins out. This is because power scales linearly, whereas everything else is just a multiplier to power. I don't know if the math behind this has been posted on the new forum yet, but figuring out which one is best is a calculus problem. The direct damage formula is basically this:

 

Damage = K x Power x (Crit Chance x Crit Damage + Non-Crit chance)

 

I'll put in the real numbers and do some algebra:

 

Damage = K x Power x ( [Precision - 895]/2100 x (1.5 + Ferocity/1500) + 1 - [Precision - 895]/2100)

 

Let U = [Precision - 895]/2100

Let V = Ferocity/1500

 

Damage = K x Power x ( 1.5U + UV + 1 - U)

Damage = K x Power x (1 + 0.5U + UV)

Damage = K x Power x (1 + U (0.5 + V)

Damage = K x Power x (1 + [Precision - 895]/2100 x (0.5 + Ferocity/1500))

 

Where K is all of the static things like weapon strength, skill coefficient, enemy armor, geometric modifiers, etc. You don't have to worry too much about K, because it cancels out later. To see when the change in precision beats out the change in power, you take the derivatives of each and then set them equal to each other.

 

d(damage)/d(power) = K x (1 + [Precision - 895]/2100 x (0.5 + Ferocity/1500))

d(damage)/d(precision) = K x Power x (0.5 + Ferocity/1500)/2100

 

So, investing in precision is equivalent to investing into power when

 

K x Power x (0.5 + Ferocity/1500)/2100 = K x (1 + [Precision - 895]/2100 x (0.5 + Ferocity/1500))

 

Doing some algebra again, we eventually get

 

Power x (0.5 + V) = 2100 + (Precision - 895) x (0.5 + V)

Power = 2100 / (0.5 + V) + Precision - 895

**Power - Precision = 2100 / (0.5 + Ferocity/1500) - 895**

 

From there, you can change ferocity to whatever you want. If we set it to zero, for example, we get

 

Power - Precision = 4200 - 895

Power = 3305 + Precision

 

Since base precision is 1000, it means that you need 4305 power before putting a single point into either precision or ferocity is more efficient. Now, GW2 doesn't let us do freeform stat distribution. We have to go with the gear sets. Because 4305 power is unachievable, it is almost always better to choose the set with more power than it is to choose the set with less power. In the majority of cases, berserkers beats out assassin's because of this. There are some exceptions, such as power chronomancer, where it is better to hybrid assassin and berserker, but that is due to specific mechanics involving that profession.

 

When it comes to a combination of damage and survival, Marauder wins out. Mostly because it has more stat points overall. If you are ever wondering about a specific build, there is a shorthand that I use for power builds. I call it effective power, and it looks something like this.

 

Effective power = Power x (Crit chance x crit damage + non-crit chance)

 

For example, lets say I'm building a holosmith, and want to decide if I want to go with Assassin or Berserker. I just go to a build calculator, and plug in the stats to see what comes out:

 

Effective berserker power = 2557 x (0.7071 x 2.39 + 0.2929) = 5070

Effective assassin power = 2135 x (0.9081 x 2.39 + 0.0919) = 4830

 

EDIT: Proofread

I would say no. Not necessarily as a matter of gameplay (though I do lament that DPS rotations keep getting harder), but as a matter of culture. I just don't mesh well with the people at Arenanet.

Guess I'm one of the few people who didn't like her that much. We'd butt heads on occasion, so I never really elevated her on a pedestal.

It is a shame that yann is the only person I can properly converse with, and I'm pretty sure they're an ESL.

 

> @"Ooops.8694" said:

> So, you're basically saying: My anecdotal evidence is true, your's is not.

>

 

I stopped there. In your attempt to be overly combative you've completely lost everything I've said.

 

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> No, this thread is from an individual who addresses the perception of possible toxicity from a source, in this case the forums. Not the entire raiding community, in fact, most other players disagreed with this notion. As such, I'd first like proof that this claim is actually true.

 

No it isn't.

 

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Exactly, deductions which, if untrue, would be akin to insults. Insults which players who might not fit the criteria would take personal, say players who are not toxic but feel as part of the raiding community.

 

Now I'm confused. Before I cut the snippet out to show that you're contradicting yourself, and now these unspecified deductions are somehow also insults. I highly suspect that what you call a deduction and what actually is a deduction are two very different things.

 

> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> and yet you treat the subject matter as though you had.

 

No I didn't.

 

 

----------------------------------------

 

 

> @"yann.1946" said:

> I know what you mean, but thats not what that correlation represents if its real. It's more well you can get salmonella from badly prepared chicken. And for that reason some people will never eat chicken. Their are ofcourse cases of people getting salmonella, but is it a meaningful amount in any way?

>

> I agree that you aren't allowed a persons precense, but sometimes you are allowed their performance though. A friend of mine went on a joint hiking trip last summer, you would expect that everyone would bring hiking shoes right. You are owed this as a group, atleast thats what i would expect. Do you disagree?

> In that group somebody didn't bring walking shoes, essentially robbing people of some sights they would have seen otherwise.

>

> Quite a few people who i have seen complaining about raids haven't stept into raids. Some have ofcourse. Can these people be convinced by anything inside raids when they don't even enter it?

>

 

Sushi is raw fish. The exact numbers I gave aren't too important. It is just an example to show the mindset. Particularly, even if the chances of a toxic encounter in this game are low, if the chances are higher in raids, then people will avoid raids. Nobody knows what the real percentage of toxic players in raids are. When I say the problem is transcendental, I mean that this problem is much bigger than Guild Wars 2. Here's an [example video](

) by Tyger, where he goes over the problem from 5 years ago. He has many other videos that also touch on the subject, but he also rambles and beats around the bush a lot. The short version is this: any place where you have "hardcore content," you're going to get hardcore people who do not mesh well with others. The raids in DCUO are toxic, the raids in WoW are toxic, and if there is some other game that has raids, then they'll be toxic, too, for the exact same reasons. It's been like this for... well over a decade.

 

This is why some people won't step into fractals, raids, or even dungeons. Raids coming to GW2 was a controversial move, and the original game was made without raids partly because Anet didn't want raid toxicity to be in the game. This is an age old problem, and there's not a lot of evidence that it has been fixed. Or even evidence that it can be fixed. MMOs aren't new. GW2 drew a large casual crowd at launch, full of people who had been burned by the hardcore players of other MMOs. They've learned their lesson, and all of that grief isn't worth the risk that this time, for no apparent reason, raids are a better place now. Hence, why I say the problem cannot be fixed.

 

Demanding a person's presence and demanding a person's performance is the same thing. In order to do something, they have to be there to do it. The fact is that the person who didn't bring hiking shoes didn't owe your friend a full trip with them as a companion. It sucks, but unfulfilled expectations always do. That's why they lead to unhappiness.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Except, your entire claim is based on anecdotal evidence and the following paragraphs of deductions. It is not the other side that has to prove players are not toxic, it is you who would have to prove they are.

 

No it isn't. This thread is about dispelling toxicity, and the association with it, from the raider community. In order to do so, the onus is on you to dispel all of the testimonies from players about toxicity in raiding, and to do this in a manner that is itself not toxic. It must be taken as a given that all of these experiences are real, because otherwise accusing every disenfranchised player of being a liar is proof positive of toxicity in the raiding community.

 

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> You have not provided anything besides personal anecdotal evidence

 

And the deductions... as you mentioned above...

 

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Simply put:

> Unless you can prove that all raiders or a huge majority of raiders are toxic, be so kind and refrain from making this claim

 

I never made that claim. Silence = consent is waxing philosophic.

> @"yann.1946" said:

> > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > Well, it works like this: all Squares are Rhombuses, and all Rhombuses are Parallelograms. Clearly, not all Parallelograms are Squares, but it is also clear that all Squares are Parallelograms, so there is still a necessary relationship there. Take this, and apply it to GW2. Yes, not all raiders are toxic. But, most toxic players are raiders. So, there is still a necessary relationship there. If the majority of terrible interpersonal interactions happen with raiders, then it doesn't matter if most raiders aren't mean.

> >

> But that correlation is pretty meaningless, the only thing that should matter is how likely one is to experience toxicity. To me another problem with this correlation is that it ignores all the forms of toxicity which aren't really related to raids as you described before.

> The placing of stuff in chests forexample.

>

> > The silence = consent thing is about where the moral duties of players lie. You can make a good argument that it is not only the duty of somebody to not be immoral, but to fight immorality actively. That to not fight against evil is, in itself, giving consent for evil to exist. I.E. if there is a stray cat in your house, and you don't drive it away, then it is understood by the cat that it is O.K. to be in your house. This isn't just about the general lack of communication of the playerbase, but the lack of communication when an incident happens. When one person starts personally insulting another in the group for perceived slights, the moral thing to do is to give defense and/or leave the team as to not encourage the toxicity of that player. So, when somebody remains silent, this conveys the message that they either agree with the first person but just don't want to talk, or they are indifferent and are fine with whatever outcome happens.

> >

>

> Sure but it gets talked about if it happens, in my experience atleast. Although if the toxic player is from a guild then it probably gets adressed in guildchat etc.

> This gets compounded by the fact that not everyone views the same things as toxic as Laila pointed out.

>

> > The natural response to the under-performance of a person IRL is to help them perform. I.E. if somebody has trouble walking, you lift them onto your shoulder and carry them through. But, in an MMO with anonymity and limitless replacements, the natural response is to kick somebody when they are down and get angry at that person for being in the way. This doubles the hurt and makes players hate each other.

>

> We'll tbh thats not really the natural response of most people, although it would be nice if it was.

> But not wanting to spend you're time to help someone improve is not really toxic though. it can be perceived that way though.

>

> BTW what is the number one response you talked about with Zombie?

 

The correlation is pretty meaningful, because it does indicate how likely somebody is to experience toxicity. Think of it like this: imagine there are a bunch of restaurants. The chances of getting food poisoning from any of them is less than 1%, except for the sushi place where it is 5%. Even though you're most likely not going to get food poisoning if you eat at the sushi place, that sushi is still going to get a reputation for making people sick. The poisoning rate is way higher than it should be, and also when people start swapping stories about getting sick, the sushi place will stick out far more than any other. The sushi place will get the reputation: don't eat here if you don't want food poisoning.

 

The number one response is the most common response in these kinds of threads, and coincidentally it is also the first response in this thread. This also ties in to why the toxicity isn't relative. Gratitude is necessary for happiness, and to have gratitude you need to have scope. The notion that all of the complaints just come from bad players who want to be carried all starts from a very perverse assumption: "I am owed victory, and I am owed other people's performance." In reality, you aren't even guaranteed another person's presence. There isn't always going to be someone there to help you, let alone at 80% benchmark. Players coming together to beat a hard boss is a collaborative effort, and unless a player is doing nothing at all, then they are contributing meaningfully. That isn't what you hear on the forums, though. Instead, they're all obsessed with "leeches," which they define as somebody who doesn't do _enough DPS._ It is as if they assume that they always owned the contribution that other players give, and another player giving less is tantamount to stealing.

 

This also comes with the perverse implication that anyone who doesn't do well in raids is deliberately trying to steal the effort of other players. It's all really silly, because the average player doesn't think like that at all. The idea that they are owed victory, or that lesser contribution is equivalent to stealing, the idea that their pretend fun-time is extremely valuable and limited, those ideas don't cross their minds. The average player thinks the same way the rest of the world does: "If I'm helping a guy unload a truck, I haven't somehow stolen something from him if I can't carry as much as him." They see playing the game as having fun, and not much beyond that. So, what happens when a casual steps into a raid is they enter a world with bizarre (and often arbitrary) expectations that they don't understand, and are personally insulted as being evil if they don't immediately kneel to those expectations. It doesn't help that the raiders lack the perspective or the wit to understand what is happening.

 

If you want to fix the toxicity issue surrounding raids, you have to fix this ungratefulness. But there's a problem with fixing it: If the game's population is big enough to permit it, then being toxic works out to the raider's benefit. It is easier just to get rid of somebody, so long as there's another person to replace them. It is a short term benefit of convenience, at the expense of a long-term dwindling population.

> @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > Well, it works like this: all Squares are Rhombuses, and all Rhombuses are Parallelograms. Clearly, not all Parallelograms are Squares, but it is also clear that all Squares are Parallelograms, so there is still a necessary relationship there. Take this, and apply it to GW2. Yes, not all raiders are toxic. But, most toxic players are raiders. So, there is still a necessary relationship there. If the majority of terrible interpersonal interactions happen with raiders, then it doesn't matter if most raiders aren't mean.

> >

> > The silence = consent thing is about where the moral duties of players lie. You can make a good argument that it is not only the duty of somebody to not be immoral, but to fight immorality actively. That to not fight against evil is, in itself, giving consent for evil to exist. I.E. if there is a stray cat in your house, and you don't drive it away, then it is understood by the cat that it is O.K. to be in your house. This isn't just about the general lack of communication of the playerbase, but the lack of communication when an incident happens. When one person starts personally insulting another in the group for perceived slights, the moral thing to do is to give defense and/or leave the team as to not encourage the toxicity of that player. So, when somebody remains silent, this conveys the message that they either agree with the first person but just don't want to talk, or they are indifferent and are fine with whatever outcome happens.

> >

> > The natural response to the under-performance of a person IRL is to help them perform. I.E. if somebody has trouble walking, you lift them onto your shoulder and carry them through. But, in an MMO with anonymity and limitless replacements, the natural response is to kick somebody when they are down and get angry at that person for being in the way. This doubles the hurt and makes players hate each other.

>

> You have no way of knowing whatsoever if the majority of toxic players are in raids in this game. You have only your own anecdotal evidence which is pretty worthless.

> My experience suggests that PVP has the overwhelming percentage of toxic players, with 'play how i want' casual players coming up second. I have seen far, far more toxicity from open world players than I have ever experienced in a raid.

>

> The reality of it is, any content that requires a base level of competence from your teammates to succeed has the chance to cause tension or attract toxic players. Just look at auric basin on a meta that doesnt oneshot.

 

Nobody has a way of knowing, because nobody does a detailed statistical analysis of toxicity in these games. There is ONLY anecdotal evidence, and any claims to the contrary are outright lies. The mistake you're making here is you're telling me that what I've seen repeated over and over again is worthless because it isn't formalized. One, you're trying to convince me here, and that is a terrible way to do it. Two, you're being hypocritical, because you have provided absolutely no evidence of your own. You've just asserted that it exists, and never shown any. I demand proof of due diligence. I want a comprehensive, tabulated collection of all interpersonal spats across PVE to demonstrate that raids and raiders are not anomalously responsible. Otherwise, quit calling people liars and work under the assumption that when somebody says something, they're telling the truth.

 

Consider this: the problem is so bad that it is a transcendental stereotype, the OP had to make a thread specifically addressing the issue, and in this very thread the number one response is that all of the non-raiders are just bad and selfish. It's pretty self-evident. This happens every time this kind of discussion goes up, and without a hint of irony the group in question always says "Well, the other guys are just wimps, terrible wastes of time, they don't deserve to be here, etc." Doesn't matter which game or hobby it is, the response is always the same. The first thing _you_ did upon meeting an iota of resistance was to insult me personally. Know what that means? You yourself are proof of the very problem you deny.

 

Make no mistake, PVP has its problems, too. But... we're not in the PVP forum, now are we? I guess I should specify that this is all about players in PVE, since PVP is sequestered away as its own separate game type. This is all an aside, however, because where most PVE players have their worst interactions is in fractals and raids.

Well, it works like this: all Squares are Rhombuses, and all Rhombuses are Parallelograms. Clearly, not all Parallelograms are Squares, but it is also clear that all Squares are Parallelograms, so there is still a necessary relationship there. Take this, and apply it to GW2. Yes, not all raiders are toxic. But, most toxic players are raiders. So, there is still a necessary relationship there. If the majority of terrible interpersonal interactions happen with raiders, then it doesn't matter if most raiders aren't mean.

 

The silence = consent thing is about where the moral duties of players lie. You can make a good argument that it is not only the duty of somebody to not be immoral, but to fight immorality actively. That to not fight against evil is, in itself, giving consent for evil to exist. I.E. if there is a stray cat in your house, and you don't drive it away, then it is understood by the cat that it is O.K. to be in your house. This isn't just about the general lack of communication of the playerbase, but the lack of communication when an incident happens. When one person starts personally insulting another in the group for perceived slights, the moral thing to do is to give defense and/or leave the team as to not encourage the toxicity of that player. So, when somebody remains silent, this conveys the message that they either agree with the first person but just don't want to talk, or they are indifferent and are fine with whatever outcome happens.

 

The natural response to the under-performance of a person IRL is to help them perform. I.E. if somebody has trouble walking, you lift them onto your shoulder and carry them through. But, in an MMO with anonymity and limitless replacements, the natural response is to kick somebody when they are down and get angry at that person for being in the way. This doubles the hurt and makes players hate each other.

> @"yann.1946" said:

> > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > It's no lie. It's personal experience. It has happened in this game, and it has happened in other games. Nearly every game I've played, whether it be MMOs or card battle games or even just regular sports, has had this exact same problem. No matter how niche, nor matter how broadly it appealed, it has the same toxicity issues. This is because toxic people exist, and the same personality traits that make them toxic also make them try really hard in silly and pointless endeavors. I've seen Giraffes, stomping around and being yellow and spotted. It'll take a whole hell of a lot to convince me that Giraffes aren't real, and accusations against my character are not sufficient evidence.

>

> We'll these things are not mutually exclusive. Nobodies disputing toxic people exist. But saying the MAJORITY is wrong, like not a difference of opinion wrong but factually wrong. As their are lots of groups without toxicity problems.

>

> In my opinion people are conflating experiencing 1 toxic encounter with "the majority of players in xyz gamemode are toxic".

 

There's still a correlation. It just works in the other way. If we presume that the majority of raiders aren't toxic, we still have to deal with the disproportionately large number of toxic players who also happen to be raiders. Whether you want to call it a majority or minority depends on what degree you consider silence to be consent.

> @"Laila Lightness.8742" said:

> > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > Unless something has magically changed, the toxicity isn't a figment of the imagination. Back when dungeons were the end game, if something went wrong you didn't just get kicked, you got shouted at for 10 minutes by an angry tryhard about mistakes that you weren't even making. By nature of being the "elite" content, it is going to attract people who think of themselves as God's gift to the game, people who've dedicated themselves to peak performance from self-esteem issues, and people who put an inordinate amount of value on their time in spite of clocking several thousand hours on a videogame.

> > >

> > > It can't be fixed. The antonym to toxicity is forgiveness, and forgiveness is something that you are forced to do in person. GW2, however, is an environment with anonymity and limitless faceless cogs to choose from, where communication can be ceased just by pressing the block button. You're free to wrong somebody however you like, so long as it is not forbidden by the rules. You don't have to deal with them in person, and there will always be somebody else to replace them. There is no sense of community, and the inability for other people to get their foot into the door is _their_ problem.

> >

> > This is exactly the kind of thing OP is talking about, and just reinforces my point that nothing any raiders say or do will ever change people like this' mind. The notion that anyone who makes a mistake is berated for 10 minutes regularly is frankly ridiculous and an outright lie. I am sure this person would defend this statement however, despite overwhelming evidence against it.

>

> in case of raids they can see if someone underperforms through arc its not possible to get carried without the rest these who try usually dont want to learn they want rewards

 

It's not so simple. A recent example I saw of this was in fractals, CM100. We were running the standard Healbrand + Alacrigade + 3 DPS. This run seemed like any other, until we got to Artsariiv. It crashed pretty quickly. I noticed that everyone except me and the HB were being thrown around like rag dolls. In the middle of the attempt, a series of complaints were thrown out that the HB was bad because he wasn't giving stability to the group. The standard Healbrand build at the time was similar to the one now, in that it doesn't run Mantra of Liberation. It runs Feel My Wrath, for quickness and fury.

 

Of course, a fight broke out between the HB and the other DPS players. The DPSers were angry because they expected the HB to bring Mantra of Liberation... without voicing this concern before the fight. As a consequence of this, they outright refused to dodge Artsariiv's or the elite's ground slam, even after it became clear that they weren't getting stability. They didn't run stunbreaks, either. The HB didn't want to change his lineup, because he was using those skills to buff everyone. He insisted that the other players just dodge the shockwaves, which was standard in PUG runs. But the other guys still outright refused to dodge, and began hurling insults. In the middle of the second attempt, after the first CC-induced death, a series of cascading quits ended the run.

 

It was the epitome of melodrama, where the DPSers were throwing themselves into CCs, just to spite the HB for not customizing his build just to suit their playstyle. Yet, you can't call either party unskilled. It was just two groups who had different expectations, and were too stubborn to compromise.

> @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > Unless something has magically changed, the toxicity isn't a figment of the imagination. Back when dungeons were the end game, if something went wrong you didn't just get kicked, you got shouted at for 10 minutes by an angry tryhard about mistakes that you weren't even making. By nature of being the "elite" content, it is going to attract people who think of themselves as God's gift to the game, people who've dedicated themselves to peak performance from self-esteem issues, and people who put an inordinate amount of value on their time in spite of clocking several thousand hours on a videogame.

> >

> > It can't be fixed. The antonym to toxicity is forgiveness, and forgiveness is something that you are forced to do in person. GW2, however, is an environment with anonymity and limitless faceless cogs to choose from, where communication can be ceased just by pressing the block button. You're free to wrong somebody however you like, so long as it is not forbidden by the rules. You don't have to deal with them in person, and there will always be somebody else to replace them. There is no sense of community, and the inability for other people to get their foot into the door is _their_ problem.

>

> This is exactly the kind of thing OP is talking about, and just reinforces my point that nothing any raiders say or do will ever change people like this' mind. The notion that anyone who makes a mistake is berated for 10 minutes regularly is frankly ridiculous and an outright lie. I am sure this person would defend this statement however, despite overwhelming evidence against it.

 

It's no lie. It's personal experience. It has happened in this game, and it has happened in other games. Nearly every game I've played, whether it be MMOs or card battle games or even just regular sports, has had this exact same problem. No matter how niche, nor matter how broadly it appealed, it has the same toxicity issues. This is because toxic people exist, and the same personality traits that make them toxic also make them try really hard in silly and pointless endeavors. I've seen Giraffes, stomping around and being yellow and spotted. It'll take a whole hell of a lot to convince me that Giraffes aren't real, and accusations against my character are not sufficient evidence.

Unless something has magically changed, the toxicity isn't a figment of the imagination. Back when dungeons were the end game, if something went wrong you didn't just get kicked, you got shouted at for 10 minutes by an angry tryhard about mistakes that you weren't even making. By nature of being the "elite" content, it is going to attract people who think of themselves as God's gift to the game, people who've dedicated themselves to peak performance from self-esteem issues, and people who put an inordinate amount of value on their time in spite of clocking several thousand hours on a videogame.

 

It can't be fixed. The antonym to toxicity is forgiveness, and forgiveness is something that you are forced to do in person. GW2, however, is an environment with anonymity and limitless faceless cogs to choose from, where communication can be ceased just by pressing the block button. You're free to wrong somebody however you like, so long as it is not forbidden by the rules. You don't have to deal with them in person, and there will always be somebody else to replace them. There is no sense of community, and the inability for other people to get their foot into the door is _their_ problem.

> @"Yasai.3549" said:

> > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > Holosmith loses the elite toolbelt skill. Reaper Shroud burns away twice as fast as regular shroud. Tempests get increased attunement cooldowns on overloads. Firebrand loses the instant-cast virtues for their books.

>

> Firebrand has no trade offs, just mechanic alterations.

> I don't know how anyone can see 15 extra spells as a tradeoff.

 

The original virtues are instant-cast, while the books all have animations and are much slower.

 

Make no mistake, these "tradeoffs" are not equal among all professions. Far from it. But they are still technically tradeoffs. Firebrands lose the original functions of the virtues.