Unable to finish pug raids anymore!!!

[Deaths.9165]

Hey all i am one of the pug commanders for raids on Europe. The last patch brought the limitation for li spam and armor spam. Their was alrdy a program with wich u could spam Li even when u didnt own it. Nowadays everyone spams 100+ Li and nearly all pug raids i join or lead are fails.

I know me included alot of pug commanders who carryed 1 or 2 noobs. But now this is impossible cause everyone is a noob even when he can spam 50+ Li.

 

Now a question to all the players who were against elitism. Is it this what u wanted. I refuse to lead pug Raids now. ANd i know alot of Pug commanders who refuse to lead pugs. Cause it is impossible anymore to finish a raid. I refuse to do training runs anymore. I refuse to carry noobs anymore. And alot of Pug commanders are like minded.

 

Cause if the run fails it is the fault of the commander and not of the pug group. And ppl call the commander noob.

 

When i started with raids i had alot of help when i was honest to me myself and my li. Gw2 raid community was always nice if u were honest. Cause u could implement a non liar to ur squad and carry him. ANd now i see 250 Li ppl who cant even dodge teleport of VG. Sry this is not going to work.

 

GL

[narcx.3570]

I dunno, I usually don't even ask for KP and have little problems pugging raid full clears... But then again, I play on NA and there's probably a bigger horde of nubs on EU since there's a greater population in general.

 

If you really care, just make them ping a specific piece of Legendary Armor, since that's harder to fake with runes in it. I know legendary armor can be bought, but so can all KP... Which is why it's borderline useless to even ask, just put that you kick people for mistakes in your LFG post and then actually enforce it. People probably called you a noob commander because you weren't holding people accountable for their mistakes, which lead to everyone feeling the frustration of their time was being wasted.

 

Also, a lot of times if you're in a failing 150 (even 250) LI group, it very well CAN be the fault of the commander... 150 li's probably sounds like a lot, but it isn't. These people very much still need raid markers and guidance, and a lot of them need you to make sure that they are taking protect me for sloth or that entangles are covered or that somebody is backing up canons, or that everyone is cc'ing, or whatever... A bad commander can definitely cause raids to fail by assuming people know what they are doing--never trust a puggarino... I mean, you can technically have 236 LI's from doing ONLY vg and escort at this point, so what do they really mean for full clear experience.

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"Deaths.9165" said:

> Hey all i am one of the pug commanders for raids on Europe. The last patch brought the limitation for li spam and armor spam. Their was alrdy a program with wich u could spam Li even when u didnt own it.

 

Anything linked in chat can be faked in that way, FYI. You probably knew that already, but others may not.

 

> Nowadays everyone spams 100+ Li and nearly all pug raids i join or lead are fails.

> I know me included alot of pug commanders who carryed 1 or 2 noobs. But now this is impossible cause everyone is a noob even when he can spam 50+ Li.

 

Perhaps that is true, or perhaps you are simply using the wrong method to collect players for your PUG raids? If the amount of Li linked in chat is not representative of actual performance, you could approach various other solutions, such as requiring the user register with gw2efficience.com and show the appropriate achievements, or supply an API key allowing the same?

 

> Now a question to all the players who were against elitism. Is it this what u wanted. I refuse to lead pug Raids now.

 

No, they just wanted people to be (a) clearer about their requirements, and (b) less horrible about people who don't meet them.

 

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"Deaths.9165" said:

> > Hey all i am one of the pug commanders for raids on Europe. The last patch brought the limitation for li spam and armor spam. Their was alrdy a program with wich u could spam Li even when u didnt own it.

>

> Anything linked in chat can be faked in that way, FYI. You probably knew that already, but others may not.

 

True, but many people did not bother to look up or find ways to do so, which already shows their lack of actual desire to raid.

 

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"Deaths.9165" said:

> > Nowadays everyone spams 100+ Li and nearly all pug raids i join or lead are fails.

> > I know me included alot of pug commanders who carryed 1 or 2 noobs. But now this is impossible cause everyone is a noob even when he can spam 50+ Li.

>

> Perhaps that is true, or perhaps you are simply using the wrong method to collect players for your PUG raids? If the amount of Li linked in chat is not representative of actual performance, you could approach various other solutions, such as requiring the user register with gw2efficience.com and show the appropriate achievements, or supply an API key allowing the same?

 

So your solution to an already invasive, annoying and hated method of proof of experience is basically to double down and come up with an even worse, more work and out of game method? Yeah, I doubt many comms are goint to do that. I know I won't. Simplest solution is: less raids with PUGs. Less training raids. Faster kicks when someone makes a minor mistake since he could be faking even easier now.

 

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"Deaths.9165" said:

> > Now a question to all the players who were against elitism. Is it this what u wanted. I refuse to lead pug Raids now.

>

> No, they just wanted people to be (a) clearer about their requirements, and (b) less horrible about people who don't meet them.

 

There is few things clearer than:

- show proof of experience in raids and potentially this boss

 

Every other "solution" either convolutes the process or is ineffective.

 

That's entirely beside the fact that there is already a big amount of inexperienced and strait up bad players with 150-300 LI in the player pool.

 

All this change is going to do is increase toxicity and reduce available raids. Then again, most raiders have their legendary armor and even all 3 sets or are in dedicated raiding guilds. Guess who is going to take the brunt of this? The already disadvantaged PUG community.

 

EDIT: and before people get the wrong idea, no I'm not a fan of pinging stuff. I'm a fan of ease of use methods for maximum effect which unfortunately pinging was (besides getting to know someone or talking to them on Discord/TS/Mumble). Life should be made easier on commanders willing to make a raid which includes the ability to gather a set amount of people with similar experience or with characteristics the commander needs. Not put rocks in their way. Who knows, maybe we'll finally get a rework of the LFG system after all, it's long overdue.

[Chris McSwag.4683]

Add fail=kick to the lfg and weed out the trash players as you go

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > @"Deaths.9165" said:

> > > Hey all i am one of the pug commanders for raids on Europe. The last patch brought the limitation for li spam and armor spam. Their was alrdy a program with wich u could spam Li even when u didnt own it.

> >

> > Anything linked in chat can be faked in that way, FYI. You probably knew that already, but others may not.

>

> True, but many people did not bother to look up or find ways to do so, which already shows their lack of actual desire to raid.

 

Well, their lack of desire to **lie in order to pug raids**, I'd accept, but both of those are speculating on thin evidence about why people behaved the way they do. My key point was that some PUG leaders may not be aware of this, anyway.

 

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > @"Deaths.9165" said:

> > > Nowadays everyone spams 100+ Li and nearly all pug raids i join or lead are fails.

> > > I know me included alot of pug commanders who carryed 1 or 2 noobs. But now this is impossible cause everyone is a noob even when he can spam 50+ Li.

> >

> > Perhaps that is true, or perhaps you are simply using the wrong method to collect players for your PUG raids? If the amount of Li linked in chat is not representative of actual performance, you could approach various other solutions, such as requiring the user register with gw2efficience.com and show the appropriate achievements, or supply an API key allowing the same?

>

> So your solution to an already invasive, annoying and hated method of proof of experience is basically to double down and come up with an even worse, more work and out of game method?

 

Nah, my solution to this foolishness is not to try and do content designed for a highly coordinated group, who can practice and work together, with random groups of strangers. Oddly enough, this works perfectly for avoiding the problem.

 

My suggestion here, which was to someone who clearly **does** believe in the value of these tests for filtering those groups of strangers -- despite the measure clearly and obviously failing in practice -- is a mechanism that would allow them to verify the data *without* an untrusted data path. That way they can differentiate between "I can work a fake chat link generator" from "I have obtained this many tokens".

 

It won't solve their problem in the slightest, but it does eliminate what they imagine to be the root cause of it, which is that players now link the "proxy for proof of skill" on in-game chat. If they want to keep trying to find proxies for skill, which they will never really succeed at, I wish them the best of luck.

 

Implementing that out of band verification would simply mean that joining a random pug would now cost enough to obtain 50 Li or whatever you set the bar at, by paying to be carried through content until you could start pugging with random groups for free. We have WoW, which didn't suffer this lack of trustworthy proofs of completion issue, as a concrete example of this whole strategy not working out in practice.

 

> Yeah, I doubt many comms are goint to do that. I know I won't. Simplest solution is: less raids with PUGs. Less training raids. Faster kicks when someone makes a minor mistake since he could be faking even easier now.

 

Yes, the simplest solution is for people to not do content designed for coordinated groups with random people and little or no coordination. I assumed that this was not desirable simply because the post would not otherwise exist: if y'all just not bothering, why post about it?

 

I don't believe you on the subject of training raids, though. You, personally, may not continue to run them, but people focused on actually training players for raiding will continue -- because they expect that people will need to learn. They may have to, for example, move people to a different "skill level based class" if they are not capable of performing at the level they claim, but whatever.

 

Those trainings, they will continue, because they are not motivated by "get random people, kill bosses", and so the problem of faking claims to experience don't apply in nearly the same way. (Of course, "training" raids that really intended to be "get random people, kill bosses" will stop, but that isn't a bad think, in my opinion. Truth in advertising and what not.)

 

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > @"Deaths.9165" said:

> > > Now a question to all the players who were against elitism. Is it this what u wanted. I refuse to lead pug Raids now.

> >

> > No, they just wanted people to be (a) clearer about their requirements, and (b) less horrible about people who don't meet them.

>

> There is few things clearer than:

> - show proof of experience in raids and potentially this boss

 

Yes. You are entirely correct that this is one of the simplest possible proxies for experience available in GW2.

 

> Every other "solution" either convolutes the process or is ineffective.

> That's entirely beside the fact that there is already a big amount of inexperienced and strait up bad players with 150-300 LI in the player pool.

 

Well, I feel like your two comments there demonstrate amply that this simple proof, "show Li", is also ineffective, no? If there are inexperienced and/or bad players who collected that much LI, then linking them is not a useful proof that you are not an inexperienced, or a bad, player, right?

 

In other words, your proxy is absolutely as simple as you say. It is also **wrong**. It doesn't act as the filter you thought it would, so digging in to defend it as the only viable solution is destined to fail: if it can't prove what you want it to prove, it just ... can't. No matter how much you want.

 

So, when I say "clearer about their requirements", I don't mean "tell people you want 77 LI linked in chat", I mean, "tell people what you want, in a way that gets you the players you want". Those two things are obviously different, given your stated experiences, so while you are very clear about the concrete thing you wanted, you are not getting the desired outcome.

 

> All this change is going to do is increase toxicity and reduce available raids.

 

Which change? One that makes it harder for players to provide a bad, easy to fake, proof of "being good", in chat? Because they, what, can't link an item one time?

 

> EDIT: and before people get the wrong idea, no I'm not a fan of pinging stuff. I'm a fan of ease of use methods for maximum effect which unfortunately pinging was

 

Yeah, I'm with you on that. I think this is a terrible way to try and solve the problem. Unfortunately, it is also true that there is no truly effective way to solve it, even if you use, eg, a Discord bot that people send an API key to, and which does the verification from ANet API data, which cannot be faked. People will simply buy whatever proof is demanded, and then join PUGs without any skill other than "pay to be carried".

 

A system in the game that prohibited fake chat links would not solve the problem any more than the out-of-band API solution would, because it has the same problem. (Again, see WoW, where those achievements couldn't be faked, and also failed as proof of competence for pugging raids.)

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > > @"Deaths.9165" said:

> > > > Hey all i am one of the pug commanders for raids on Europe. The last patch brought the limitation for li spam and armor spam. Their was alrdy a program with wich u could spam Li even when u didnt own it.

> > >

> > > Anything linked in chat can be faked in that way, FYI. You probably knew that already, but others may not.

> >

> > True, but many people did not bother to look up or find ways to do so, which already shows their lack of actual desire to raid.

>

> Well, their lack of desire to **lie in order to pug raids**, I'd accept, but both of those are speculating on thin evidence about why people behaved the way they do. My key point was that some PUG leaders may not be aware of this, anyway.

>

> > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > > @"Deaths.9165" said:

> > > > Nowadays everyone spams 100+ Li and nearly all pug raids i join or lead are fails.

> > > > I know me included alot of pug commanders who carryed 1 or 2 noobs. But now this is impossible cause everyone is a noob even when he can spam 50+ Li.

> > >

> > > Perhaps that is true, or perhaps you are simply using the wrong method to collect players for your PUG raids? If the amount of Li linked in chat is not representative of actual performance, you could approach various other solutions, such as requiring the user register with gw2efficience.com and show the appropriate achievements, or supply an API key allowing the same?

> >

> > So your solution to an already invasive, annoying and hated method of proof of experience is basically to double down and come up with an even worse, more work and out of game method?

>

> Nah, my solution to this foolishness is not to try and do content designed for a highly coordinated group, who can practice and work together, with random groups of strangers. Oddly enough, this works perfectly for avoiding the problem.

 

So essentially remove PUG raiding from the game. That's exactly what TC is complaining about. You are entitled to your opinion but somehow I'm not sure this is in the best interest of the raiding aspect or community of this game.

 

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

>

> My suggestion here, which was to someone who clearly **does** believe in the value of these tests for filtering those groups of strangers -- despite the measure clearly and obviously failing in practice -- is a mechanism that would allow them to verify the data *without* an untrusted data path. That way they can differentiate between "I can work a fake chat link generator" from "I have obtained this many tokens".

>

> It won't solve their problem in the slightest, but it does eliminate what they imagine to be the root cause of it, which is that players now link the "proxy for proof of skill" on in-game chat. If they want to keep trying to find proxies for skill, which they will never really succeed at, I wish them the best of luck.

>

> Implementing that out of band verification would simply mean that joining a random pug would now cost enough to obtain 50 Li or whatever you set the bar at, by paying to be carried through content until you could start pugging with random groups for free. We have WoW, which didn't suffer this lack of trustworthy proofs of completion issue, as a concrete example of this whole strategy not working out in practice.

 

What you are essentially saying is:"LI and KP were not fool proof and not a perfect method of giving desired proof of skill etc." I doubt anyone will disagree on this.

 

What you fail to suggest is a valid alternative or even an alternative which works as good as LI and KP with the same amount of minimal effort, speed and even if flawed reliability. WoW had gear score, gear inspection and armory which all is far more invasive than LI or KP ever were. Not sure where you are going with this.

 

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> > Yeah, I doubt many comms are goint to do that. I know I won't. Simplest solution is: less raids with PUGs. Less training raids. Faster kicks when someone makes a minor mistake since he could be faking even easier now.

>

> Yes, the simplest solution is for people to not do content designed for coordinated groups with random people and little or no coordination. I assumed that this was not desirable simply because the post would not otherwise exist: if y'all just not bothering, why post about it?

 

We are back with you stating that having the PUG raid community die is in the best interest of the game. I disagree.

 

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

>

> I don't believe you on the subject of training raids, though. You, personally, may not continue to run them, but people focused on actually training players for raiding will continue -- because they expect that people will need to learn. They may have to, for example, move people to a different "skill level based class" if they are not capable of performing at the level they claim, but whatever.

>

> Those trainings, they will continue, because they are not motivated by "get random people, kill bosses", and so the problem of faking claims to experience don't apply in nearly the same way. (Of course, "training" raids that really intended to be "get random people, kill bosses" will stop, but that isn't a bad think, in my opinion. Truth in advertising and what not.)

 

You are mixing together a lot of different things and I honestly doubt you have ever lead a raid in GW2. Sure 0 experience training raids will not suffer from this change. What about 50 LI, 100 LI or specific boss training? Why would people bother running PUG training raids if the PUG community is non existent? I already agreed that guilds and organized groups won't be affected.

 

I'm not affected since I have:

- a static group for full clears

- a fun guild which can also full clear

- a weekly training run for guildies who want to get into raiding

 

Yet I still can see how this change can have a negative impact on people who have to PUG. Especially commanders who already have their plate full with stuff to deal with.

 

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> Well, I feel like your two comments there demonstrate amply that this simple proof, "show Li", is also ineffective, no? If there are inexperienced and/or bad players who collected that much LI, then linking them is not a useful proof that you are not an inexperienced, or a bad, player, right?

>

> In other words, your proxy is absolutely as simple as you say. It is also **wrong**. It doesn't act as the filter you thought it would, so digging in to defend it as the only viable solution is destined to fail: if it can't prove what you want it to prove, it just ... can't. No matter how much you want.

>

> So, when I say "clearer about their requirements", I don't mean "tell people you want 77 LI linked in chat", I mean, "tell people what you want, in a way that gets you the players you want". Those two things are obviously different, given your stated experiences, so while you are very clear about the concrete thing you wanted, you are not getting the desired outcome.

 

All great theory talk but here is what it comes down to:

- asking for [wing], [class/role], [LI] and [KP] is just that: WING = for what, CLASS = what you should bring, LI = relative experience and length of raiding and KP = your account has a clear on the boss. As far as requirements, the current system was quite clear and concise.

 

Even IF someone faked any of these stats an experienced raid leader will see this in a first try, second or third if the player is semi experienced. It still reduces the amount of participants you have to go through significantly. I've had people with 3k dps as dps warrior join on Vale Guardian and get carried by the group. I then thanked them, let them get their loot and replaced them. Doesn't change the fact that now I can't even preselect which ends in wasting every ones time.

[Raizel.8175]

Let me tell you a secret: There is no reliable skill-indicator, especially since you can buy LI/KPs/titles. There are people with 50 LI or less that can perfectly pull their weight. There are people with legendary armor which can be a real catastrophe.

 

Using the LFG is always a lottery. Either you're lucky or you're not. It's just that simple. I also command raids and from time to time, yes, it's really annoying. But that's how it is. Either you cultivate a more laid-back mindset and just get done with stuff or... well... not.

[Belorn.2659]

The only really "sure" way is to demand a API key and check gw2efficency.

 

The pug community could start doing that. Such change need to start from the pug commanders, but the result would be an elimination of both fake pings and the need to ping in general. It is however very costly in term of getting people to understand what an API key is and how to get one, but if thats what you as a commander needs then start demanding it and see if the community is willing to adapt.

[Dante.1763]

> @"Belorn.2659" said:

> The only really "sure" way is to demand a API key and check gw2efficency.

>

> The pug community could start doing that. Such change need to start from the pug commanders, but the result would be an elimination of both fake pings and the need to ping in general. It is however very costly in term of getting people to understand what an API key is and how to get one, but if thats what you as a commander needs then start demanding it and see if the community is willing to adapt.

 

I wouldnt. i have no issues with LI, and even knowing what an API key is, i refuse to give it out to others.

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> > > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > > > @"Deaths.9165" said:

> > > > > Nowadays everyone spams 100+ Li and nearly all pug raids i join or lead are fails.

> > > > > I know me included alot of pug commanders who carryed 1 or 2 noobs. But now this is impossible cause everyone is a noob even when he can spam 50+ Li.

> > > >

> > > > Perhaps that is true, or perhaps you are simply using the wrong method to collect players for your PUG raids? If the amount of Li linked in chat is not representative of actual performance, you could approach various other solutions, such as requiring the user register with gw2efficience.com and show the appropriate achievements, or supply an API key allowing the same?

> > >

> > > So your solution to an already invasive, annoying and hated method of proof of experience is basically to double down and come up with an even worse, more work and out of game method?

> >

> > Nah, my solution to this foolishness is not to try and do content designed for a highly coordinated group, who can practice and work together, with random groups of strangers. Oddly enough, this works perfectly for avoiding the problem.

>

> So essentially remove PUG raiding from the game. That's exactly what TC is complaining about. You are entitled to your opinion but somehow I'm not sure this is in the best interest of the raiding aspect or community of this game.

 

Removing myself from PUG raiding, rather. I have no problem with others wanting to do this, but I don't think the problems in the initial complaint can be solved: the OP is looking for a technical solution to what is, fundamentally, a people problem. You **can't** solve people problems like that with technical tools.

 

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> >

> > My suggestion here, which was to someone who clearly **does** believe in the value of these tests for filtering those groups of strangers -- despite the measure clearly and obviously failing in practice -- is a mechanism that would allow them to verify the data *without* an untrusted data path. That way they can differentiate between "I can work a fake chat link generator" from "I have obtained this many tokens".

> >

> > It won't solve their problem in the slightest, but it does eliminate what they imagine to be the root cause of it, which is that players now link the "proxy for proof of skill" on in-game chat. If they want to keep trying to find proxies for skill, which they will never really succeed at, I wish them the best of luck.

> >

> > Implementing that out of band verification would simply mean that joining a random pug would now cost enough to obtain 50 Li or whatever you set the bar at, by paying to be carried through content until you could start pugging with random groups for free. We have WoW, which didn't suffer this lack of trustworthy proofs of completion issue, as a concrete example of this whole strategy not working out in practice.

>

> What you are essentially saying is:"LI and KP were not fool proof and not a perfect method of giving desired proof of skill etc." I doubt anyone will disagree on this.

>

> What you fail to suggest is a valid alternative or even an alternative which works as good as LI and KP with the same amount of minimal effort, speed and even if flawed reliability. WoW had gear score, gear inspection and armory which all is far more invasive than LI or KP ever were. Not sure where you are going with this.

 

Let me be clearer, then: there is absolutely no possible alternative, convenient or inconvenient, that will allow the OP to filter out people who have obtained whatever standard of technical proof they demand. There is absolutely *no* in-game proxy that can identify player skill. I cannot suggest an alternative (though I did suggest harder to fake options for the bad proxies currently used) that does not exist.

 

WoW absolutely had all of those things. It also had PUGs where you would encounter the same players who had all the gear, all the achievements, and all the same complete and utter inability to handle the basic mechanics of the simplest raid bosses. Based on my experience there, I have every confidence that more intrusive and more difficult to fake solutions than chat links would **also** not stop these people jumping into the PUG raid groups.

 

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> >

> > > Yeah, I doubt many comms are goint to do that. I know I won't. Simplest solution is: less raids with PUGs. Less training raids. Faster kicks when someone makes a minor mistake since he could be faking even easier now.

> >

> > Yes, the simplest solution is for people to not do content designed for coordinated groups with random people and little or no coordination. I assumed that this was not desirable simply because the post would not otherwise exist: if y'all just not bothering, why post about it?

>

> We are back with you stating that having the PUG raid community die is in the best interest of the game. I disagree.

 

Well, back to my thinking that the stated goal is impossible, but I'm trying in good faith to do what I can to help the OP identify better mechanisms (eg: gw2efficiency.com and API key, or Discord bot and same, to verify their LI based proxy, which cannot be faked the way that chat links can be.)

 

I do not think it will work, but that isn't really relevant: if they want to improve their ability to filter people based on LI, and they have a problem that people fake the chat links, or that chat links in the game are throttled making it difficult (even though it is just one single link, posted once per person, thus not throttled), then these out-of-band mechanisms allow them to do that.

 

Yes, they are more inconvenient than posting to in-game chat. Absolutely. I completely recognize that. Unfortunately, the hard reality is that GW2 gives you the choice of (a) easy, and easy to fake, or (b) hard, and hard to fake. Pick your poison.

 

 

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> >

> > I don't believe you on the subject of training raids, though. You, personally, may not continue to run them, but people focused on actually training players for raiding will continue -- because they expect that people will need to learn. They may have to, for example, move people to a different "skill level based class" if they are not capable of performing at the level they claim, but whatever.

> >

> > Those trainings, they will continue, because they are not motivated by "get random people, kill bosses", and so the problem of faking claims to experience don't apply in nearly the same way. (Of course, "training" raids that really intended to be "get random people, kill bosses" will stop, but that isn't a bad think, in my opinion. Truth in advertising and what not.)

>

> You are mixing together a lot of different things and I honestly doubt you have ever lead a raid in GW2. Sure 0 experience training raids will not suffer from this change. What about 50 LI, 100 LI or specific boss training? Why would people bother running PUG training raids if the PUG community is non existent? I already agreed that guilds and organized groups won't be affected.

 

I think the content I was responding to mixed a lot of things together, when it brought up the subject of training raids, which are IMO completely irrelevant to this discussion. How about we agree to set this subsection aside, and either tackle it separately, or just ignore it? Training raids are, indeed, irrelevant to the question of what alternatives to chat-linking LI exist.

 

> Yet I still can see how this change can have a negative impact on people who have to PUG. Especially commanders who already have their plate full with stuff to deal with.

 

Sure. I also see that. I understand the desire of the OP to have an effective filter. Completely. I understand they are super-busy, and that the harder any technical verification system is to use, the harder it will be for them to lead their PUG raid. That'd definitely be counter to their desires in the area.

 

Again, though, I'm really not seeing how chat filtering is causing trouble here, what with it being per-user?

 

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > Well, I feel like your two comments there demonstrate amply that this simple proof, "show Li", is also ineffective, no? If there are inexperienced and/or bad players who collected that much LI, then linking them is not a useful proof that you are not an inexperienced, or a bad, player, right?

> >

> > In other words, your proxy is absolutely as simple as you say. It is also **wrong**. It doesn't act as the filter you thought it would, so digging in to defend it as the only viable solution is destined to fail: if it can't prove what you want it to prove, it just ... can't. No matter how much you want.

> >

> > So, when I say "clearer about their requirements", I don't mean "tell people you want 77 LI linked in chat", I mean, "tell people what you want, in a way that gets you the players you want". Those two things are obviously different, given your stated experiences, so while you are very clear about the concrete thing you wanted, you are not getting the desired outcome.

>

> All great theory talk but here is what it comes down to:

> - asking for [wing], [class/role], [LI] and [KP] is just that: WING = for what, CLASS = what you should bring, LI = relative experience and length of raiding and KP = your account has a clear on the boss. As far as requirements, the current system was quite clear and concise.

>

> Even IF someone faked any of these stats an experienced raid leader will see this in a first try, second or third if the player is semi experienced. It still reduces the amount of participants you have to go through significantly. I've had people with 3k dps as dps warrior join on Vale Guardian and get carried by the group. I then thanked them, let them get their loot and replaced them. Doesn't change the fact that now I can't even preselect which ends in wasting every ones time.

 

I have no objection to your asking for those filters. They will absolutely not reduce the amount of "wasted time", as WoW amply demonstrates, but that's fine. You can ask for, and maybe even receive, these useless tools. You can work to build other tools yourself that support this sort of filtering. That is entirely your prerogative. Best of luck to you!

 

I will say that if the details you listed there were part of the "advertisement" or whatever, that'd definitely tick my "be clearer about what you want" box. It should, hopefully, help you get the people you want. Except for the bit where you keep treating LI and KP as proof of anything. :)

[Deaths.9165]

ERm sry i was just happy with the old way. U had one or 2 that faked u could identy easyly try to carry them, if they were really bad just kick. Now nearly everyone is faking. U have to disband the entire team. It takes nearyl 30 min to 1h to build up a pug team inserting api will add 30 min as well. I dont want perfect pug teams. If i want a perfect team i would just play with my raid guild and gg.

 

Their is not just the problem about the fakers. I have seen alot of 250+ Li raiders who just joined a 100+li pug team to test out their builds. or train their new toon and ruin the entire run and blame the pugs for the failure. Hk is an example or Druid pusher. i got even called autism cause i refused to play the testing area of the 250+ guys.

 

Everything in the normal parameters.

 

Now nothing works!!!!

[azizul.8469]

install GW2 LI Bots to your discord channel, ask those in the raid group to the channel and register API key , and then ask the to type LI, that will show the true LI they have.

[Vinceman.4572]

There are still solid ways to get experienced people even with chat restriction for example let them ping 250 and 249 (or another number) directly afterwards without spamming. With this method it is very unlikely that somebody is using a normal chat code. He will need a macro (very rare and was used anyways even before the patch when spamming ) or there is a longer time between posting those so you can easily find out the fakes. As an experienced commander you should also recognize the bad apples within seconds on every boss by now. You definitely have to run arcdps to make sure you can see dps and boon uptime and another help is the mechanic tool letting you have an overview over the people that fail mechanics.

 

Over the last weeks my static guild has viewed a lot of casual raiding streams while we were on discord. Since there are a lot of "not very good" players with an amount of 250+ LI we decided to go back to ask for a dps with 50 LIs for W1-4 because it rly doesn't matter or if it matters we can easily detect who is slacking because druid and chronos are covered by us. Sure, it's not a solution for a full pug group but nevertheless you have to keep in mind that 250 LIs are nothing special any longer!

[maddoctor.2738]

Maybe Arenanet should add an !LI command in the game, similar to the one Discord bots use. It's really frustrating that you need to "keep" your LI to prove how many you have and when you make your first Legendary Armor your LI will be reduced by a lot and if you don't play on the character that has the Legendary Armor you are at a disadvantage.

 

Same with kill proof. Having a filled inventory with your proofs of a kill is really stupid.

[Eramonster.2718]

@"Deaths.9165" the Li system is unreliable from the start and won't last anyway even if there's no way to fake X numbers of Li. Players will eventually get the artificial gating from farming easy encounters. Further raising the Li requirement according to time(?) will just make players trying to start raids, harder to get into the content. New players will have difficulties or unable to join the ranks of veteran players as the requirement kept increasing.

 

> Cause if the run fails it is the fault of the commander and not of the pug group. And ppl call the commander noob.

 

Most of the time its just self-guilt from responsibility but I won't deny some players(PuGs especially) have that train of thoughts when the squad they joined fails an encounter.

[Glider.5792]

Cant you just figure it out if its fake in this method:

"Pug joins, links 250li"

Since he aperently has 250li, you require him to split the stack to like 22 and 228 and link them.

If he doesn't do that fast, its fake.

[yann.1946]

> @"Glider.5792" said:

> Cant you just figure it out if its fake in this method:

> "Pug joins, links 250li"

> Since he aperently has 250li, you require him to split the stack to like 22 and 228 and link them.

> If he doesn't do that fast, its fake.

 

And what of hes Just slow in splitting stacks?

[Kal Bhairav.6589]

> @"Glider.5792" said:

> Cant you just figure it out if its fake in this method:

> "Pug joins, links 250li"

> Since he aperently has 250li, you require him to split the stack to like 22 and 228 and link them.

> If he doesn't do that fast, its fake.

 

its decent way but i didnt know how to split stack for a long long time.

on the other hand, i only pug. Manage to get over 1k li by pugging except 1 week where i joined static. you want challenging content? Look no further but pug raids, week in week out. Some weeks goes smooth and sometime, i get called out on VG :D by bunch of know it all peeps.

 

imo, i see elitism from people who has beaten boss couple of times and they think, they know everything and control the whole universe. I have never encounter elitism from people with in depth raid experience.

 

Eitherway, pugging works just gotta have some experience commanding pug. I always go with minimum requirement when I command, but get good people for vital mechanics and 99% of time we clear.

 

 

 

[Glider.5792]

> @"yann.1946" said:

> > @"Glider.5792" said:

> > Cant you just figure it out if its fake in this method:

> > "Pug joins, links 250li"

> > Since he aperently has 250li, you require him to split the stack to like 22 and 228 and link them.

> > If he doesn't do that fast, its fake.

>

> And what of hes Just slow in splitting stacks?

 

Still faster than generating 2 new LI codes, no ? I dont think splitting one item will take him over 10sec. Heck, even 5 sec should be more than enough imo. Meanwhile making new codes would take at least a min i guess ? (never did it) There could be a case that he could copy them from a word file or something, but then he couldnt link both codes one after another.

[Zaraki.5784]

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> Perhaps that is true, or perhaps you are simply using the wrong method to collect players for your PUG raids? If the amount of Li linked in chat is not representative of actual performance, you could approach various other solutions, such as requiring the user register with gw2efficience.com and show the appropriate achievements, or supply an API key allowing the same?

 

The amount of pugs willing to do something as annoying as that, just to join a squad, may be approximately 0.001%.

[Turin.6921]

Man this forum is prone to overreaction. Its a bug and they will fix it:

 

https://old.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/8pdn4e/chat_is_completely_and_utterly_broken_now/e0aowmi/

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > Perhaps that is true, or perhaps you are simply using the wrong method to collect players for your PUG raids? If the amount of Li linked in chat is not representative of actual performance, you could approach various other solutions, such as requiring the user register with gw2efficience.com and show the appropriate achievements, or supply an API key allowing the same?

>

> The amount of pugs willing to do something as annoying as that, just to join a squad, may be approximately 0.001%.

 

I completely agree. The OP mention two problems, though: their demands that players link their LI so frequently that it gets the individual throttled, and that players can fake their LI count and/or perform poorly anyway. This addresses the second problem. Also has the side benefit that they can *also* do gear checks, and make whatever other checks they want to think will act as a proxy for "is this player competent" at the same time. Plus, by being out of chat, the whole "individual players have to write links so often they get throttled" stops being a thing.

 

It won't do anything except reduce the number of people joining, of course. LI, legendary gear, achievements, kill proof, whatever ... none of those are actually a meaningful proxy for being competent, but who am I to tell the OP that their plan demonstrably failed, if they can't come to that conclusion themselves from the evidence they themselves presented?

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > Perhaps that is true, or perhaps you are simply using the wrong method to collect players for your PUG raids? If the amount of Li linked in chat is not representative of actual performance, you could approach various other solutions, such as requiring the user register with gw2efficience.com and show the appropriate achievements, or supply an API key allowing the same?

> >

> > The amount of pugs willing to do something as annoying as that, just to join a squad, may be approximately 0.001%.

>

> I completely agree. The OP mention two problems, though: their demands that players link their LI so frequently that it gets the individual throttled, and that players can fake their LI count and/or perform poorly anyway. This addresses the second problem. Also has the side benefit that they can *also* do gear checks, and make whatever other checks they want to think will act as a proxy for "is this player competent" at the same time. Plus, by being out of chat, the whole "individual players have to write links so often they get throttled" stops being a thing.

>

> It won't do anything except reduce the number of people joining, of course. LI, legendary gear, achievements, kill proof, whatever ... none of those are actually a meaningful proxy for being competent, but who am I to tell the OP that their plan demonstrably failed, if they can't come to that conclusion themselves from the evidence they themselves presented?

 

How do we figure if a "player is competent"?

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> > > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > > Perhaps that is true, or perhaps you are simply using the wrong method to collect players for your PUG raids? If the amount of Li linked in chat is not representative of actual performance, you could approach various other solutions, such as requiring the user register with gw2efficience.com and show the appropriate achievements, or supply an API key allowing the same?

> > >

> > > The amount of pugs willing to do something as annoying as that, just to join a squad, may be approximately 0.001%.

> >

> > I completely agree. The OP mention two problems, though: their demands that players link their LI so frequently that it gets the individual throttled, and that players can fake their LI count and/or perform poorly anyway. This addresses the second problem. Also has the side benefit that they can *also* do gear checks, and make whatever other checks they want to think will act as a proxy for "is this player competent" at the same time. Plus, by being out of chat, the whole "individual players have to write links so often they get throttled" stops being a thing.

> >

> > It won't do anything except reduce the number of people joining, of course. LI, legendary gear, achievements, kill proof, whatever ... none of those are actually a meaningful proxy for being competent, but who am I to tell the OP that their plan demonstrably failed, if they can't come to that conclusion themselves from the evidence they themselves presented?

>

> How do we figure if a "player is competent"?

 

Play with them, observe if they are or not. There is no other way; WoW has given us plenty of evidence to say that any attempt to make in-game things a proxy for "are you competent" worthless: unforgeable achievements, gear checks, build checks, the whole shebang, no use at all. The very best they can achieve is to raise the price of being able to present whatever the proxy is, because you have to buy, eg, carries through enough raids to get the achievement or whatever.

 

This is a people problem, and there is no technical solution to it. If there was, the WoW community over the last ten years, with vastly more access to character data, and vastly more ability to build in-game tooling around these checks, would almost certainly have found it, yes?