Seera.5916

Try right after reset. There are groups that do the temple runs and do try to facilitate temples getting under Risen control if they are not failing on their own accord. You may have to play with them for a while, though. Just look in the LFG right after reset.

No to discount purely based on age of account.

It means that ANet will increase prices based on the average discount players get so that their bottom line isn't affected.

I'd rather they put in a discount for buying more gems in one go. Right now, it's the same price/gem no matter how many you buy.

Like right now it's:

* 800 gems for $10 or 80 gems/$1

* 1600 gems for $20

* 2800 gems for $35

* 4000 gems for $50

* 8000 gems for $100

It should be something like:

* 800 gems for $10 or 80 gems/$1

* 1700 gems for $20 or 85 gems/$1

* 3150 gems for $35 or 90 gems/$1

* 4750 gems for $50 or 95 gems/$1

* 10,000 gems for $100 or 100 gems/$1

This benefits new players and old players equally and rewards players using real money to buy gems.

Directly discounting on items in the store would reduce the number of players who spend money to buy gems - they'd be able to more easily farm the gold to convert to gems. Which doesn't earn ANet anything.

> @Microundeas.4530 said:

> 

>

> This is my feeling when reading 90% of your comments, yes rng is bad! But it's applied on skins.... That have 0 impact in high end game play.....

> If you don't like, just don't buy it.

> In case you are wandering i bought 0 so far cause of the rng, but the existence of this boxes will not make me quit the game, that's just a bit childish. That's why sometimes is hard to take people seriously.

>

> Like WP said, vote with your wallet.

But this game is also referred to as Fashion Wars 2. Expecting players to not have fashion related desires for their end game is a bit unrealistic.

And my two cents on the situation:

From what I've read, there are obvious sets of mounts in this one RNG set. ANet may have had a better reaction if they had split the license into multiple ones. Say 6 sets of 5 mounts. Or even 5 sets of 5 and made the set that's really similar to the ones we start with earned in game. Maybe an award for unlocking all mounts.

That would have also given ANet a better idea of what type of mount skins we want. ANet will never really know why someone stopped spending money on the license as it is now. Did they get the skin(s) they wanted or did they reach the max amount of money they were willing to gamble on it?

Still would have been a gamble, but 1 in 5 chances is always better than the 1/30 chance to get it with the first try.

With the forum backlash over the issue, they may have put tickets requesting a refund on hold while they figured out what they were going to do and what they weren't going to do.

So that they didn't tell people in tickets X before corporate decided to do Y. Especially in cases where they would have been mutually exclusive.

If it's skins and they either auto-unlocked or you unlocked them, their hands may be tied with regards to giving a refund given that they can't remove skins from the wardrobe.

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> Have you guys considered that maybe "Vanilla" is an awful web forum package, and that it would be better to go with a different provider? There seem to be so many awful features to these new forums that the response is "we can't do anything to fix it."

No forum will be 100% perfect and there will always be features that we can't add because of limitations to the code.

Given that it can be turned off, I wouldn't recommend moving to a new forum so quickly.

If by in game you made a Bug Report in game, those don't get answered by people.

You have to make a ticket via the Support's web page in order to get a personalized response.

I don't mind some RNG like in the Black Lion chests, but putting the first non-Halloween mount skins into an RNG box wasn't the best decision.

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > Biased? Really? Because if I put Depends in there and it becomes the majority (which it most likely will be), then that means that each case has to be handled individually making fixing the core issue impossible. This goes against what I am trying to accomplish. So I stay by what I said.

> >

> > So, we're going to disregard that it might be better to handle each case individually in search for the nuclear catch all solution. Fantastic. (Disregarding the whole can of worms with Polls where the maker have an agenda instead of finding objective distribution.)

> >

> > I just treated the two options as "have to waypoint" and "don't have to waypoint", because it depends on the situation (thus They don't have to, although it's more a NO this poll is not good at all). But the poll like this is heavily biased to "you should waypoint" because that's just obvious in moments where it matters.

>

> I meant to answer this sooner.

>

> It is better to find a nuclear catch all solution because the reality is that this issue is already being handled by the playerbase and it is going nowhere. Unless anet screws over one side to cater to the other or overhauls the dynamic event mechanic entirely, there really is nothing that can be done to solve it. And that has been going on for years. Its safe to assume that unless something gives, this problem will persist until server shutdown. Do you agree?

>

> EDIT: I also forgot to mention that with this poll forcing a side, there can at least be some indication as to who would get screwed over more.

>

> I already anticipated all of this (which I ended up being right anyway before the other poll got merged) and deemed that putting a neutral answer would simply confirm what I and many other players already knew. A large portion of the playerbase would prefer a player waypoint when they die during a large scale event, but most of them find it all situational and don't really care that much based on the other poll. You can confirm that by simply playing the game. There is also the other group that would prefer not to waypoint, with a good part not liking the idea of being pressured or forced to waypoint by any means. Both sides are vocal. So adding a neutral answer would not do anything except confirm the obvious, which I just stated and was seen on the other poll. By omitting the neutral option I force a player to choose one or the other, I clean the results to something more useful.

>

> In any case, wording and semantics only goes so far. I may have worded it poorly, but that didn't stop people from voting anyway. So its safe to assume they got the message and voted. But really, what does "Players should have to waypoint if they die during an event." and "Players should not waypoint (if they die) during an event." tell you?

>

> To me, the first option worded as such would suggest they would want a forced waypoint mechanic. The second one sounds exactly like the first one EXCEPT it implies that players have the obligation to wait for a rez rather than waypoint. The first option would have gotten me data I was not looking for. The second one is too counter-intuitive that the poll numbers would have leaned more towards waypoint than it should have been. So the options I have are the best ones I have to work with. They are, in fact, the general consensus for each group.

>

> In the end, this is why I can't find this bias towards players who would rather waypoint on dead, as some people have stated. I already knew where the majority of the community stood on this. No matter how I would have worded it, it would have shown the same results every single time because if you boil down this whole topic to it's very base, you get practicality vs feelings. The broader area of effect always wins and in this case, it's practicality.

And how many who viewed it didn't vote? The ones who didn't vote, don't care enough or thought the answers were poorly worded and therefore didn't vote because they couldn't find their option.

But then you went to the extreme and posted two options that said the exact same thing in two different ways. So really you should have only had one option in your poll. Which means that your poll is only really good at confirming that players should waypoint, but they don't have to. Which is what everyone and their mother knew is what the majority wants.

The better way to post the poll would have been to narrow it down to a popular event where the issue comes up. Then you could have narrowed it down to the 2 main options (have to waypoint vs should waypoint when appropriate). Yes, there is a third, but I haven't seen ANYONE argue that players should have to sit around and wait for a rez.

Player behavior can't be fixed by ANet, so until the mechanics that cause this to be a problem are fixed, it will be a problem. Given how easy making money is, unless the "fee" to not waypoint gets high enough to get too close, meet, or exceed the rewards for the event the players that currently beg for rez in map chat will continue to do so. "Fee" in quotes because it doesn't necessary have to be a monetary fee.

Which is why gold sellers have yet to be stopped in any game where one can buy in game currency with real money. Until players stop buying from them, they'll continue to do so, no matter what ANet or other companies do to inconvenience them. Because they know they can only go so far in inconveniencing them as to not inconvenience legit players too much.

* Elementalist - Tempest/Weaver: 945 hours [My main and not sure if she's staying as Weaver or going back to Tempest. Switched to Weaver during the Eater of Souls quest for added condition damage]

* Elementalist - Weaver: 18 hours [Was supposed to be the one who went Weaver with my main staying as just Tempest.

* Warrior - Berserker: 236.5 hours

* Guardian - "Dragonhunter": 79 hours [Dragonhunter in quotes since she hasn't been played much since becoming one]

* Ranger: 105.75 hours

* Mesmer: 71.5 hours

* Revenant: 10 hours

* Necromancer: 4.75 hours

* Engineer: 3.25 hours

* Thief: 6.5 hours

My main and my warrior have done map completion.

> @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> >

> > > @kharmin.7683 said:

> > > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

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

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > This is just to gauge the community's general outlook. I will be doing another poll based on which one has more votes and it won't be so polarized then.

> > >

> > > The sample size on the forums can in no way be reliably indicative of the "community" as a whole. This poll is inherently flawed.

> >

> > Most of the playerbase doesn't even use the forums and the old forums have not been taken down yet. But even if the poll numbers are too small to be considered a reasonable sample size, you can still take the results and observe them in real time.

>

> Sample size on the forums will never be big enough. To be fair, whenever someone on these forums starts complaining about sample size, they really don't know what is actually important in polls.

>

> Who is the sample, and how is the poll phrased matter several factors more than sample size.

>

> Just for a fun fact, political poll sample size is like less than 0.1% in most countries and then I picked even a high percentage.

However, with political polls, the pollers go find the random people to ask. So they do the work to reduce the chances of sample bias. Forum polls are like saying a poll is for all of the US, but only polling in Dallas, Texas.

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > @Seera.5916 said:

> > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> > > > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > > Biased? Really? Because if I put Depends in there and it becomes the majority (which it most likely will be), then that means that each case has to be handled individually making fixing the core issue impossible. This goes against what I am trying to accomplish. So I stay by what I said.

> > > >

> > > > So, we're going to disregard that it might be better to handle each case individually in search for the nuclear catch all solution. Fantastic. (Disregarding the whole can of worms with Polls where the maker have an agenda instead of finding objective distribution.)

> > > >

> > > > I just treated the two options as "have to waypoint" and "don't have to waypoint", because it depends on the situation (thus They don't have to, although it's more a NO this poll is not good at all). But the poll like this is heavily biased to "you should waypoint" because that's just obvious in moments where it matters.

> > >

> > > Okay... then who is it biased towards?

> >

> > His last sentence in his post says who it is biased towards (I have bolded the sentence):

> >

> > > @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> > > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > Biased? Really? Because if I put Depends in there and it becomes the majority (which it most likely will be), then that means that each case has to be handled individually making fixing the core issue impossible. This goes against what I am trying to accomplish. So I stay by what I said.

> > >

> > > So, we're going to disregard that it might be better to handle each case individually in search for the nuclear catch all solution. Fantastic. (Disregarding the whole can of worms with Polls where the maker have an agenda instead of finding objective distribution.)

> > >

> > > I just treated the two options as "have to waypoint" and "don't have to waypoint", because it depends on the situation (thus They don't have to, although it's more a NO this poll is not good at all). **But the poll like this is heavily biased to "you should waypoint" because that's just obvious in moments where it matters.**

> >

> > People don't tend to like absolutes when it comes to optional things. Look at all of the complaints about having to do WvW to get the Gift of Battle. Look at all of the complaints about having to do raids to get legendary armor. Look at all of the people who complain about having to work.

>

> There are two problems with that perception though, we are arguing semantics when it could simply be taken at face value.

>

> By definition, "should" in this context is used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's action. (Google search "should definition") Obligation implies a major moral standing behind the statement. But players do what they want regardless and so it means nothing in the end. The game does not force you to waypoint on dead nor are there any rules that dictate you should waypoint on dead during an event. So this is not an absolute in any sense. If I put "have" in front of "should" in the first option, at that point it could be read as an absolute because it could imply that players who select it want a forced waypoint solution (ie Players should HAVE to waypoint if they die during an event.). That is not what this poll is or ever will be about.

>

> Now the second option IS an absolute, but only as a counter the first one. Notice how I did not say "if they die" and added "have" on the second one. That was done on purpose. "should NOT have to waypoint", with a resounding capitalized NOT, clearly and directly contradicts the first statement. "have" implying lack of choice. Leaving out "if they die" broadens the statement beyond the original discussion of waypoint on dead.

>

> If there is any bias, it is in the second option. It an absolute with a much broader scope compared to the first option which implies a highly recommended preference on a specific topic. I even made it simple for players to choose on the original post.

>

> So I have to ask, are you two sure you are not just basing this bias off the current results?

Haven't looked at the results and I haven't voted. Because the poll is badly worded and has bias in it, any results in it will not be in any way meaningful to the purpose you're trying to do. Since your sample size is already too small to really be a good indication of what the player base wants (margin of error will be too high), you have to be extra careful to make sure your poll options don't skew results more than they already will be.

It's also biased because both options say THE SAME THING. Your results will always give you the same answer. That players should waypoint, but they don't have to. Since the first does not have the phrase "have to" it literally states that they do not have to waypoint. Which is exactly what the second option says.

If you're trying to decide if something should be done by ANet about it, then you need to include those who find it situational. Because the solution will affect that group. Because the solution chosen may be different if one takes that group into account.

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > @"Omar Aschi Popp.7496" said:

> > > > @"Cuon Alpinus.7645" said:

> > > > This poll is even worse than the last one with its bias toward punishment. The "should need" or "should not need" doesn't imply PUNISHMENT for using the game's mechanics, just being courteous to your fellow players. This is making it far too black and white, even if you do have an 'indifference' option based on scaling.

> > >

> > > THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT.

> > >

> > > The fact that the NOT SO SECRET motivator for several people here is pure petty punishment and nothing to do with game mechanics or its flaws.

> > >

> > > Holy cow.

> > >

> > > This whole poll wasn't made because I though we needed yet another thread on a ridiculous topic. I made it to shoehorn people into being more genuine about their positions. Amd even then they aren't!

> > >

> > > Say what you want, but *I* can at least say what I mean without being a coward about it.

> >

> > Or, could it be that you are projecting motivations onto other people that don't exist, rather than actually listening to what they say?

>

> I think the general problem is people are conflating and reading into things WAY more than they need to. Seriously, they just need to pick the choice they like or don't pick at all. It isn't like we can edit the poll anyways.

And we are free to comment that our choice isn't in the poll and what that choice is.

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > Biased? Really? Because if I put Depends in there and it becomes the majority (which it most likely will be), then that means that each case has to be handled individually making fixing the core issue impossible. This goes against what I am trying to accomplish. So I stay by what I said.

> >

> > So, we're going to disregard that it might be better to handle each case individually in search for the nuclear catch all solution. Fantastic. (Disregarding the whole can of worms with Polls where the maker have an agenda instead of finding objective distribution.)

> >

> > I just treated the two options as "have to waypoint" and "don't have to waypoint", because it depends on the situation (thus They don't have to, although it's more a NO this poll is not good at all). But the poll like this is heavily biased to "you should waypoint" because that's just obvious in moments where it matters.

>

> Okay... then who is it biased towards?

His last sentence in his post says who it is biased towards (I have bolded the sentence):

> @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > Biased? Really? Because if I put Depends in there and it becomes the majority (which it most likely will be), then that means that each case has to be handled individually making fixing the core issue impossible. This goes against what I am trying to accomplish. So I stay by what I said.

>

> So, we're going to disregard that it might be better to handle each case individually in search for the nuclear catch all solution. Fantastic. (Disregarding the whole can of worms with Polls where the maker have an agenda instead of finding objective distribution.)

>

> I just treated the two options as "have to waypoint" and "don't have to waypoint", because it depends on the situation (thus They don't have to, although it's more a NO this poll is not good at all). **But the poll like this is heavily biased to "you should waypoint" because that's just obvious in moments where it matters.**

People don't tend to like absolutes when it comes to optional things. Look at all of the complaints about having to do WvW to get the Gift of Battle. Look at all of the complaints about having to do raids to get legendary armor. Look at all of the people who complain about having to work.

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > @Seera.5916 said:

> > > @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > > > @Joxer.6024 said:

> > > > People being lazy kitten isn't going to change and ANET cant "design" that. It is what it is sadly. :/

> > >

> > > That's why we get suggestions to make people less lazy. Unfortunately instead of discussing solutions to the problem it's all about how to defend laziness around here.

> >

> > I'd rather they address the reasons behind why not waypointing when dead is bad. That way both crowds will be as pleased as they're ever going to be.

>

> Got a suggestion on how they would do this?

1. Make the dead not upscale events. That way the loss of their DPS doesn't hurt those who are still alive or who choose to waypoint after death.

2. Change the priority on the interactions so that if multiple interactable objects are within range, rezzing the fully dead takes lowest priority. So you rez the downed before the fully dead. You grab the charrzooka/ice bow/etc before rezzing the fully dead.

What other negative effects are there?

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> I'm not sure the OP is asking the useful question. The problem isn't that people do or don't WP, it's the game's mechanics makes us care if they do or don't. So here are some alternatives:

> * ANet changes event scaling to depend only on live or downed characters.

> * ANet prevents people from rezzing fully dead while in combat, same as it works in WvW.

> * Change the priority of `interact` so that any downed character within max range gets priority over fully dead even at min range. Decrease the range for rezzing fully dead; increase it for helping downed to rally.

> * Pop up a reminder to the downed: "you can rally off any nearby foe death" (since many don't realize this).

>

> While we wait for ANet to act, here's something that the "please waypoint" crowd can already do:

> * Explain the mechanics **before** the event gets fully underway.

> * Offer people clear details (e.g. not just "bring CC" but "eles, please bring ice bows")

>

> When commanders (and friends) do that, it's much more likely that the event will go more smoothly, resulting in fewer deaths in the first place.

>

> ****

> I am convinced that people make a much bigger deal about this than it really matters. While it's true that dead characters cause two issues for the remaining players (scaling difficulty of the event, interfering with getting the downed up), it's also rarely true that fully dead are a meaningful cause of a failed event. Yes, we've all been at events failing with numerous dead, but it turns out that nearly all the time, lots of other things were also going wrong... otherwise we wouldn't have gotten to the point where even a bunch of dead would matter.

>

> For example, Ignis & Ascii [sic] in _Draconis_: if we break the bar even once, the right is usually easy; if we don't, it's a slog fest. And even then, the event tends to fail only if people don't know how to get to safe ground. In such cases, it hardly matters if the dead WP or not; the inability to handle the other mechanics already determined the outcome. The same is true with various PoF bounties, Silverwastes bosses, Octovine, etc.

>

> **In short, if it gets to the point where we have to worry about the dead waypointing or not, it's already too late.**

THIS. The reason behind this being an issue should be what people are focused on fixing. Because I think we can all agree that the reasons why the dead not waypointing can be a problem are things that should be fixed.

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > @Joxer.6024 said:

> > People being lazy kitten isn't going to change and ANET cant "design" that. It is what it is sadly. :/

>

> That's why we get suggestions to make people less lazy. Unfortunately instead of discussing solutions to the problem it's all about how to defend laziness around here.

I'd rather they address the reasons behind why not waypointing when dead is bad. That way both crowds will be as pleased as they're ever going to be.

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > @Seera.5916 said:

> > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > @Seera.5916 said:

> > > > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > > > @"Omar Aschi Popp.7496" said:

> > > > > > If the OP wanted a real metric of the thread in question the pill should have been as follows.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > "Should dead players be punished for not wp?"

> > > > > >

> > > > > > "Should Anet remove scaling from dead players?"

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is in truth what it all boils down to. Pick one.

> > > > > > ONE

> > > > >

> > > > > Like I said in another comment, that's for another thread. Determining whether or not dead players should be forced to WP should be made after it becomes clear the majority wants them too. And even then it should be a consideration and not an absolute.

> > > >

> > > > You can't keep people from elaborating on their choice in the vote since you way oversimplified the voting options. Especially given the bias in the poll options.

> > > >

> > > > If you really wanted an even remotely poll here's what it should have been:

> > > >

> > > > "Should players waypoint if they die during events or wait for a rez?"

> > > >

> > > > With answer choices being:

> > > > - Yes

> > > > - Depends (elaborate in comment)

> > > > - No

> > > >

> > > > Then from there if you were going to make a more detailed poll later, you've got more details for what options to put in, especially if depends wins.

> > > >

> > > > You might not have _meant_ for there to be a bias in the poll, but the word choice and the lack of a middle ground in an area that's CLEARLY shown that there's a middle ground means that the poll will be biased towards your personal opinion.

> > >

> > > Biased? Really? Because if I put Depends in there and it becomes the majority (which it most likely will be), then that means that each case has to be handled individually making fixing the core issue impossible. This goes against what I am trying to accomplish. So I stay by what I said.

> >

> > Because it _is_ something that has to be handled individually. Because each mega event is unique with regards to distance from non-contested waypoint and speed at which it dies.

> >

> > Should players really be sent to a waypoint if they die during the last 5% of Shatterer due to a stupid mistake and Shatterer deciding at that time that he needs to spawn the portals and therefore not die in 30 seconds?

> >

> > Should the player who is new to HoT areas who managed to actually stick with the zerg waypoint after dying and risk not being able to find the main boss area again or reach it before the end of the event?

> >

> > Should players who die right at the beginning of Tequatl waypoint? Shadow Behemoth?

> >

> > Like I said, you might not have meant for there to be bias, but it's there. "Players should waypoint" and "Players should not have to waypoint" were the options. The first option doesn't voice it as an absolute. Your second options voices it as an absolute. People tend to not like absolutes, in general - biasing the votes. Better wording would be: "Players should waypoint" and "Players can ask and wait for a rez".

> >

> > And the dead not waypointing is actually not the core issue. It's a problem that stems from a couple other problems:

> >

> > 1. Fully dead not getting lowest priority if there are multiple interactables in range.

> > 2. Fully dead keep events upscaled

> >

> > If the above 2 problems got addressed, would this even really be an issue?

>

> The second one is not an absolute because it implies that a person has the choice whether or not to waypoint regardless if everyone tells them to. If I took out the "have" (and "to" for grammar purposes), it would read "Players should NOT waypoint during and event." and go against players who > @Seera.5916 said:

> > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > @zombyturtle.5980 said:

> > > > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > > > @zombyturtle.5980 said:

> > > > > > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > > > > > @zombyturtle.5980 said:

> > > > > > > > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Omar Aschi Popp.7496" said:

> > > > > > > > > > If the OP wanted a real metric of the thread in question the pill should have been as follows.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > "Should dead players be punished for not wp?"

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > "Should Anet remove scaling from dead players?"

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > This is in truth what it all boils down to. Pick one.

> > > > > > > > > > ONE

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Like I said in another comment, that's for another thread. Determining whether or not dead players should be forced to WP should be made after it becomes clear the majority wants them too. And even then it should be a consideration and not an absolute.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ok but your questions cant prove that its clear players want that!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That's not the point of this poll! Read before you comment!

> > > > > > > This poll is to see how much of the community prefers other wp and how much would rather not. This poll IS NOT about putting in a forced WP mechanism.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I HAVE READ. It still doesnt make SENSE. your poll cant prove players prefer dead to wp because the 2nd option is a leading question and doesnt relate specifically to the first option presented.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The second option is a catchall. It is "No." in a nutshell. If you disagree that players should waypoint after they die, then you choose it. It is that simple.

> > > >

> > > > You are still not getting it. Your second option isnt a No they shouldn't wp. Its they shouldnt HAVE to wp which is an entirely different thing. Remove the HAVE and its a fine poll but right now its biased and has a leading question.

> > > >

> > > > Ill try and show you. I want to vote on BOTH options because I believe players should WP if they die, but also believe they should not HAVE to wp. My opinion falls under BOTH answers. Therefore they are not polar opposites of each other. (yes and no), they are asking about 2 different things (first one if people prefer players to wp, second if they think forced wp is bad) whereas they should only ask about 1 thing (pref to wp or pref to res)

> > >

> > > If you want to vote on both, do it on the other poll or make your own. I already explained multiple times why I am not doing a third option and stated that I am not making a new one. Either you think people should waypoint if they die or they should not have to. Both are preferences. Both are presented as preferences. That is the whole point of this poll: **To get preference data from the community to determine the side with the majority on this issue. Nothing else.**

> >

> > I get the reason you don't want to include "depends", but any solution to the problem will affect the players who think it "depends". Especially if you're trying to claim that either Yes or No are the majority. You can't say that if you exclude the players who say it depends. Because we could be the majority.

>

> But the thing is, if "depends" is the majority and everything has to be solved on an individual basis then nothing is going to change because the community is already doing that. If I gave the depends option, it turns the poll into a popularity poll and it accomplishes nothing.

>

> For problems like these, compromise has to be made or else the issue remains.

When the phrase "have to" is put next to a verb it's an absolute. There's no choice. I have to go to work if I want to keep my job. I have to pay my electric bill if I want to keep the lights on. I have to eat if I want to stay alive.

There are things that have no good answer. Like the ability to kick players. No matter how ANet decides to do it, there will always be problems with it. How it is now, anyone can kick for any reason. Making it easier for players to take over a party. If you remove the ability to kick all together then jerks and other such players can't be removed and can get away with bad behavior if they wait long enough. If you put it to leader only, then how does one decide leadership if the current leader leaves the party suddenly and groups are left at the mercy of leaders who may not be very nice (they may be those aforementioned jerks and other such players). Anything that has to do with controlling player behavior isn't going to have a good solution.

In this instance there is a solution that doesn't involve compromise. Fix the dead keeping events upscaled. Create a priority system that puts rezzing fully dead behind other intractable things in range.

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > @zombyturtle.5980 said:

> > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > @zombyturtle.5980 said:

> > > > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > > > @zombyturtle.5980 said:

> > > > > > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > > > > > @"Omar Aschi Popp.7496" said:

> > > > > > > > If the OP wanted a real metric of the thread in question the pill should have been as follows.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > "Should dead players be punished for not wp?"

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > "Should Anet remove scaling from dead players?"

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This is in truth what it all boils down to. Pick one.

> > > > > > > > ONE

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Like I said in another comment, that's for another thread. Determining whether or not dead players should be forced to WP should be made after it becomes clear the majority wants them too. And even then it should be a consideration and not an absolute.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ok but your questions cant prove that its clear players want that!

> > > > >

> > > > > That's not the point of this poll! Read before you comment!

> > > > > This poll is to see how much of the community prefers other wp and how much would rather not. This poll IS NOT about putting in a forced WP mechanism.

> > > >

> > > > I HAVE READ. It still doesnt make SENSE. your poll cant prove players prefer dead to wp because the 2nd option is a leading question and doesnt relate specifically to the first option presented.

> > > >

> > >

> > > The second option is a catchall. It is "No." in a nutshell. If you disagree that players should waypoint after they die, then you choose it. It is that simple.

> >

> > You are still not getting it. Your second option isnt a No they shouldn't wp. Its they shouldnt HAVE to wp which is an entirely different thing. Remove the HAVE and its a fine poll but right now its biased and has a leading question.

> >

> > Ill try and show you. I want to vote on BOTH options because I believe players should WP if they die, but also believe they should not HAVE to wp. My opinion falls under BOTH answers. Therefore they are not polar opposites of each other. (yes and no), they are asking about 2 different things (first one if people prefer players to wp, second if they think forced wp is bad) whereas they should only ask about 1 thing (pref to wp or pref to res)

>

> If you want to vote on both, do it on the other poll or make your own. I already explained multiple times why I am not doing a third option and stated that I am not making a new one. Either you think people should waypoint if they die or they should not have to. Both are preferences. Both are presented as preferences. That is the whole point of this poll: **To get preference data from the community to determine the side with the majority on this issue. Nothing else.**

I get the reason you don't want to include "depends", but any solution to the problem will affect the players who think it "depends". Especially if you're trying to claim that either Yes or No are the majority. You can't say that if you exclude the players who say it depends. Because we could be the majority.

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > @Seera.5916 said:

> > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > @"Omar Aschi Popp.7496" said:

> > > > If the OP wanted a real metric of the thread in question the pill should have been as follows.

> > > >

> > > > "Should dead players be punished for not wp?"

> > > >

> > > > "Should Anet remove scaling from dead players?"

> > > >

> > > > This is in truth what it all boils down to. Pick one.

> > > > ONE

> > >

> > > Like I said in another comment, that's for another thread. Determining whether or not dead players should be forced to WP should be made after it becomes clear the majority wants them too. And even then it should be a consideration and not an absolute.

> >

> > You can't keep people from elaborating on their choice in the vote since you way oversimplified the voting options. Especially given the bias in the poll options.

> >

> > If you really wanted an even remotely poll here's what it should have been:

> >

> > "Should players waypoint if they die during events or wait for a rez?"

> >

> > With answer choices being:

> > - Yes

> > - Depends (elaborate in comment)

> > - No

> >

> > Then from there if you were going to make a more detailed poll later, you've got more details for what options to put in, especially if depends wins.

> >

> > You might not have _meant_ for there to be a bias in the poll, but the word choice and the lack of a middle ground in an area that's CLEARLY shown that there's a middle ground means that the poll will be biased towards your personal opinion.

>

> Biased? Really? Because if I put Depends in there and it becomes the majority (which it most likely will be), then that means that each case has to be handled individually making fixing the core issue impossible. This goes against what I am trying to accomplish. So I stay by what I said.

Because it _is_ something that has to be handled individually. Because each mega event is unique with regards to distance from non-contested waypoint and speed at which it dies.

Should players really be sent to a waypoint if they die during the last 5% of Shatterer due to a stupid mistake and Shatterer deciding at that time that he needs to spawn the portals and therefore not die in 30 seconds?

Should the player who is new to HoT areas who managed to actually stick with the zerg waypoint after dying and risk not being able to find the main boss area again or reach it before the end of the event?

Should players who die right at the beginning of Tequatl waypoint? Shadow Behemoth?

Like I said, you might not have meant for there to be bias, but it's there. "Players should waypoint" and "Players should not have to waypoint" were the options. The first option doesn't voice it as an absolute. Your second options voices it as an absolute. People tend to not like absolutes, in general - biasing the votes. Better wording would be: "Players should waypoint" and "Players can ask and wait for a rez".

And the dead not waypointing is actually not the core issue. It's a problem that stems from a couple other problems:

1. Fully dead not getting lowest priority if there are multiple interactables in range.

2. Fully dead keep events upscaled

If the above 2 problems got addressed, would this even really be an issue?

While not waypointing after death when there's plenty of time to get back and the player is confident that they can make their way back before the event is over is a problem, players should not be punished for not doing so.

Remaining dead hurts players trying to loot, pick up event items, or dropped spawned weapons (like the various Elementalist weapons - ice bow, etc), or reviving downed players.

And to me, they should fix the dead keeping events upscaled no matter what is done with regards to players not waypointing after death. Given that blurb, I think indifferent should have been: Fix the problem (and then can add in the F button doing everything from looting, picking up items, to rezzing and giving rezzing to dead priority over rezzing to downed).

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > @"Omar Aschi Popp.7496" said:

> > If the OP wanted a real metric of the thread in question the pill should have been as follows.

> >

> > "Should dead players be punished for not wp?"

> >

> > "Should Anet remove scaling from dead players?"

> >

> > This is in truth what it all boils down to. Pick one.

> > ONE

>

> Like I said in another comment, that's for another thread. Determining whether or not dead players should be forced to WP should be made after it becomes clear the majority wants them too. And even then it should be a consideration and not an absolute.

You can't keep people from elaborating on their choice in the vote since you way oversimplified the voting options. Especially given the bias in the poll options.

If you really wanted an even remotely poll here's what it should have been:

"Should players waypoint if they die during events or wait for a rez?"

With answer choices being:

- Yes

- Depends (elaborate in comment)

- No

Then from there if you were going to make a more detailed poll later, you've got more details for what options to put in, especially if depends wins.

You might not have _meant_ for there to be a bias in the poll, but the word choice and the lack of a middle ground in an area that's CLEARLY shown that there's a middle ground means that the poll will be biased towards your personal opinion.

> @sephiroth.4217 said:

> > @Seera.5916 said:

> > > @sephiroth.4217 said:

> > > I believe in rezzing the downs, you know, helping my fellow gamer out.

> > >

> > > I think it's elitism or autism not too.

> >

> > Poll is about the fully dead, not the downed.

>

> OK because I can't edit I'll rephrase what I mean....

>

> I believe in rezzing the dead, you know, helping my fellow gamer out.

> I think it's elitism or autism not too.

But there are situations where going to the waypoint and running back is faster than being rezzed. Or way more safer for everyone involved. Or much less likely to cause the event to fail due to not having a high enough average DPS if it's a boss on a timer and not a huge zerg (rezzing reduces the DPS even more since the rezzer can't attack).

I'll rez typically if it's safe to do so, I've already got credit for the event, and the loss of my DPS won't cause the event to be at risk of failure due to a timer. And I haven't seen the player be obnoxious about getting a rez in chat.

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > @Seera.5916 said:

> > > @Naxian.9823 said:

> > > > @Seera.5916 said:

> > > > It's way too situational for a two option poll. You're missing the middle ground, where sometimes it's best to WP and other times it's best to wait for a rez.

> > > >

> > > > My vote is it depends on the situation.

> > >

> > > Yes but who decides which situations is? To the question "**In general,** should players WP or not if dead?" The answer is a Yes or a No.

> >

> > Who decides: the players at the specific event in question, including the one whose dead.

> >

> > In general, it still depends on the situation. My answer was an in general answer because it's way too situational to go into detail.

>

> Hence, the simplified choices.

But my answer isn't there. Even if I simply my answer to literally only one word: depends.

> @Naxian.9823 said:

> > @Seera.5916 said:

> > It's way too situational for a two option poll. You're missing the middle ground, where sometimes it's best to WP and other times it's best to wait for a rez.

> >

> > My vote is it depends on the situation.

>

> Yes but who decides which situations is? To the question "**In general,** should players WP or not if dead?" The answer is a Yes or a No.

Who decides: the players at the specific event in question, including the one whose dead.

In general, it still depends on the situation. My answer was an in general answer because it's way too situational to go into detail.

It's way too situational for a two option poll. You're missing the middle ground, where sometimes it's best to WP and other times it's best to wait for a rez.

My vote is it depends on the situation.