Increasing toxicity in EU WvW.

[Bigpapasmurf.5623]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:

> > > As mentioned on FB/reddit and now here, imo Meta creates a toxicity on its own. People who enforce it in a group (outside raids) are called "elitists". Personally I very rarely follow meta and my builds are typically good for both roaming or zerging. I do well enough both ways. Meta doesnt mean squat if you are not having fun.

> > >

> > > Anywho, thats just my 2cp

> >

> > Well there's always the possibility that "the meta" is incomplete. I myself wonder all the time whether or not there are some really good builds out there that get marginalized or stay undiscovered due to static thinking. It's always interesting to me to see a "meta shift" which is basically when one player or a group of players show something new or brings back some thing old that works well and then all of a sudden it's everywhere.

>

> This is true but still requires organised play.

>

> Perhaps, just maybe, with all the condi damage being out the window it's time to stack full dmg reduction of dwarf, food, frost armor, ... again. After all the majority of the damage I take is power. But goodluck testing that if half your players categorically refuse, and making any push with half the players not even trying will mean you lose half your zerg on first push.

>

> Off-meta players are the ones who prevent the meta from progressing. In WvW, playing organised / coordinated has always been (and will always be) more effective than not doing so. You can try off-meta comps, but that still requires your players to run a composition. Everyone playing a random class because they feel like it, without considering what the rest of the group wants to do prevents the group from playing either meta or off-meta. They force the group to play around them, rather than them playing around the group. And that's pretty selfish, and should be met with toxicity.

> All hail toxicity - meta? No meta? It doesn't matter. If you disagree with how the group you follow plays, just don't follow them. And if you disagree with how your pugs follow, let them know and be toxic!

 

I would agree with your "off meta" statements, however ive seen first hand a disorganized pug group, mosta lot (if not most) running "selfish non meta" builds and they wiped zergs a bit bigger then them (where at least half were the same guild tag so there was at least some sort of coordination).

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:

> > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:

> > > > As mentioned on FB/reddit and now here, imo Meta creates a toxicity on its own. People who enforce it in a group (outside raids) are called "elitists". Personally I very rarely follow meta and my builds are typically good for both roaming or zerging. I do well enough both ways. Meta doesnt mean squat if you are not having fun.

> > > >

> > > > Anywho, thats just my 2cp

> > >

> > > Well there's always the possibility that "the meta" is incomplete. I myself wonder all the time whether or not there are some really good builds out there that get marginalized or stay undiscovered due to static thinking. It's always interesting to me to see a "meta shift" which is basically when one player or a group of players show something new or brings back some thing old that works well and then all of a sudden it's everywhere.

> >

> > This is true but still requires organised play.

> >

> > Perhaps, just maybe, with all the condi damage being out the window it's time to stack full dmg reduction of dwarf, food, frost armor, ... again. After all the majority of the damage I take is power. But goodluck testing that if half your players categorically refuse, and making any push with half the players not even trying will mean you lose half your zerg on first push.

> >

> > Off-meta players are the ones who prevent the meta from progressing. In WvW, playing organised / coordinated has always been (and will always be) more effective than not doing so. You can try off-meta comps, but that still requires your players to run a composition. Everyone playing a random class because they feel like it, without considering what the rest of the group wants to do prevents the group from playing either meta or off-meta. They force the group to play around them, rather than them playing around the group. And that's pretty selfish, and should be met with toxicity.

> > All hail toxicity - meta? No meta? It doesn't matter. If you disagree with how the group you follow plays, just don't follow them. And if you disagree with how your pugs follow, let them know and be toxic!

>

> I would agree with your "off meta" statements, however ive seen first hand a disorganized pug group, mosta lot (if not most) running "selfish non meta" builds and they wiped zergs a bit bigger then them (where at least half were the same guild tag so there was at least some sort of coordination).

 

I've seen organised guilds wipe zergs 2-3 times bigger than them, especially against disorganised selfish non-meta pugs.

I've also seen what you describe. At the end of the day; there are huge differences in player skill and knowledge in the game.

 

Yet this isn't about if it's better or worse. This is about allowing players who want to play organised; meta or non-meta; to allow them to do so. You're allowed to roam any way you like; just like how they're allowed to try out any style and comp they want. With the players who WANT to do this; rather than having to cater to every player on the map "just because". What gives other players the right to insist they can join any group they well damn please, with no regard for what that group wants to do? How does this make the group; and not the single players refusing to adapt the toxic ones? After all; you don't have to follow this group. You can find another group, make your own, go roam abit, ...

 

This post doesn't say you must run meta. It doesn't even say "meta" is better. This post says you must listen to your group and truly play with them; or find another group to play with. You're allowed to find a group that lets you play whatever way you want, just like a commander is allowed to lead their group whatever way they want. Following groups and commanders without taking their wishes into account isn't nice.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> This is true but still requires organised play.

 

Absolutely.

 

> Off-meta players are the ones who prevent the meta from progressing. In WvW, playing organised / coordinated has always been (and will always be) more effective than not doing so. You can try off-meta comps, but that still requires your players to run a composition. Everyone playing a random class because they feel like it, without considering what the rest of the group wants to do prevents the group from playing either meta or off-meta. **They force the group to play around them, rather than them playing around the group**. And that's pretty selfish, and should be met with toxicity.

 

I bolded the part that I think is really the most important. This is a non exclusivity issue. It is impossible to completely deny access to at least some of the fringe benefits of a well organized squad to those who just happen to follow the squad which means the price of having "non-meta" players hovering around the squad is borne by the squad and not the "non-meta" players themselves, at least not exclusively.

 

> All hail toxicity - meta? No meta? It doesn't matter. If you disagree with how the group you follow plays, just don't follow them. And if you disagree with how your pugs follow, let them know and be toxic!

 

I wouldn't call that "toxic." I think the term "toxic" is being vastly overused. "Toxic" now seems to encompass any sort of critical feedback that could be construed as emphatic or persistent or sometimes even just expressed in an unpleasant manner. There's nothing wrong with being strongly and emphatically critical about someone else's behavior. I personally enjoy an environment where I think people are going to tell me openly and honestly exactly what they think about my behavior and in this case my gameplay decisions in a way that doesn't mince words. If that means that there might be some swearing or some yelling then so be it. I don't see that sort of environment as "toxic" I see it as nourishing. I think the truly toxic environments are the ones where no one is allowed to say anything critical for fear of hurting someone else's feelings god forbid.

[oOStaticOo.9467]

How DARE people play what THEY want to play on a game they payed for and an internet they pay for monthly! The NERVE of some people!!! I mean why would I want to play something I ENJOY playing over playing something that everybody else wants me to play?? Why should I try to have FUN playing a game for enjoyment when I am being selfish and not looking out for the better of my WvW community I play on?? That's just RUDE!

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> I wouldn't call that "toxic." I think the term "toxic" is being vastly overused. "Toxic" now seems to encompass any sort of critical feedback that could be construed as emphatic or persistent or sometimes even just expressed in an unpleasant manner. There's nothing wrong with being strongly and emphatically critical about someone else's behavior. I personally enjoy an environment where I think people are going to tell me openly and honestly exactly what they think about my behavior and in this case my gameplay decisions in a way that doesn't mince words. If that means that there might be some swearing or some yelling then so be it. I don't see that sort of environment as "toxic" I see it as nourishing. I think the truly toxic environments are the ones where no one is allowed to say anything critical for fear of hurting someone else's feelings god forbid.

 

I agree and in all honesty, I try not to fight the players who are playing with me. Even when we disagree, which does happen. At the end of the day, we are there with the same goal and we will continue to play together. This is quite different from teamchat, where I genuinely do not want to play with some players ever again. Not that I have the choice; they will stalk any time you tag up while telling you how awful you are for not being more welcoming.

 

I'm using the term toxic as how it's seen by (a part of) the community of this game; rather than how I'd see it based on the definition.

 

If you aren't welcoming and inviting to whoever wants to join; either in WvW or PvE then you're an elitist and toxic. It doesn't matter how high, how low or what the requirements are. Wether it's asking for meta builds, non-meta builds, specific builds, killproof, a certain skill level, LI, to not chase guild raids... there will always be players who can't instantly join the group they please and... that makes the group toxic. In that right I'd say "toxic" in GW2 is almost synonymous for "exclusive".

 

Apparently, every group in GW must cater to the desires of all its players, at the same time. Some think this only applies to pugs; where if I play with (some) pugs I must play with all pugs. Playing only with the pugs willing to join on discord, or on a certain build or class, or players who are part of our community or even guild is also elitist / toxic.

Either way, most pugs agree that kicking other players is definitely toxic. Getting them killed and not ressing is even worse. Frankly; I think i'm just managing my group to the best of my abilities. Also, all hail exlusivity doesn't sound as nice.

 

And the truth is, toxicity DOES work. Most special snowflakes are pretty immune to anyone telling them to run or do something else. But the moment you tell them they're not welcome because of that, they suddenly lose their minds. These players play for their own self-interests; and many do get put off by toxicity. If that's really what it takes to be able to play; then that's what will happen. (or rather, that's exactly what already happens all over the game yet they'll blame the meta / arcdps / elitists / everyone else) If I could nicely ASK players and they'd actually be more understanding of our position; then I would have no need to write this post much less promote all other servers to do the same.

 

Imagine for a second that we could create a "friendly" yet "competitive / strong" WvW server. It would be "full" and die of bandwagonners and unmanageable queues and community within a few months. It'd be THE perfect server; which means it would quickly become one of the worst servers. That's the truth. You can be friendly or you can be organised; but I don't think you can be both. Not unless the community starts respecting groups as well as individuals.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> How DARE people play what THEY want to play on a game they payed for and an internet they pay for monthly! The NERVE of some people!!! I mean why would I want to play something I ENJOY playing over playing something that everybody else wants me to play?? Why should I try to have FUN playing a game for enjoyment when I am being selfish and not looking out for the better of my WvW community I play on?? That's just RUDE!

 

Beautiful copy pasta. Not being allowed to join a group doesn't stop you from playing the game. Again, at no point do I say you can't play. I say if you join / follow a group you should respect their wishes OR go do something else.

 

You're very welcome to play the game however way you please. And so are other people. Which means you have to be RESPECTFUL of their wishes too. If your desires and your groups desires don't match, perhaps you should just find another group rather than blaming them? If you follow them and insist they change for YOU, then that's just RUDE.

 

You can make your own group and do whatever you want. You can find a group that lets you do what you want. You can find a group that doesn't care and lets you do whatever you want. You can roam on your own without a group. There's a big difference between not being able to join a group and not being able to play the game.

 

If there's no commanders that want to lead your particularly prefered style; that's not my fault. Feel free to tag up! Clearly, we need more commanders ;)

[Sylosi.6503]

It's funny certain people talking about rudeness or respecting others, back when I played this game I remember certain people (and some of their guildmates) telling "PPT" guilds, roamers, etc to get the **** off their map, go kill themselves, etc, so they could they could have more of their blob on.

 

Interesting level of hypocrisy and shows their true colours.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Sylosi.6503" said:

> It's funny certain people talking about rudeness or respecting others, back when I played this game I remember certain people (and some of their guildmates) telling "PPT" guilds, roamers, etc to get off get the **** off their map, go die, etc, so they could they could have more of their blob on.

>

> Interesting level of hypocrisy and shows their true colours.

 

And I see "roamers" and "PPT" groups demand the blobs come defend objective X they're losing; despite only being able to get in 15 players due to the sheer amount of roamers and PPTers on the map who can't defend on their own. It cuts both ways.

 

Yet this has nothing to do with that. I'm stating ppters can ppt whatever way they like. Roamers can roam whatever way they like. But if you follow a PPT zerg, you don't flame them for building ACs. And if you follow a fight zerg you don't start building ACs. You respect the wishes of the people you follow. Not very difficult to do :+1:

[Sylosi.6503]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"Sylosi.6503" said:

> > It's funny certain people talking about rudeness or respecting others, back when I played this game I remember certain people (and some of their guildmates) telling "PPT" guilds, roamers, etc to get off get the **** off their map, go die, etc, so they could they could have more of their blob on.

> >

> > Interesting level of hypocrisy and shows their true colours.

>

> And I see "roamers" and "PPT" groups demand the blobs come defend objective X they're losing; despite only being able to get in 15 players due to the sheer amount of roamers and PPTers on the map who can't defend on their own. It cuts both ways.

>

> Yet this has nothing to do with that. I'm stating ppters can ppt whatever way they like. Roamers can roam whatever way they like. But if you follow a PPT zerg, you don't flame them for building ACs. And if you follow a fight zerg you don't start building ACs. You respect the wishes of the people you follow. Not very difficult to do :+1:

 

Which is irrelevent to what i wrote.

[Garrus.7403]

> @"Sylosi.6503" said:

> It's funny certain people talking about rudeness or respecting others, back when I played this game I remember certain people (and some of their guildmates) telling "PPT" guilds, roamers, etc to get off get the **** off their map, go kill themselves, etc, so they could they could have more of their blob on.

>

> Interesting level of hypocrisy and shows their true colours.

 

I think I saw ppl other ppl doing the same. Same ppl who brought this up in this thread. :) I think I also saw this person camping on eb and insulting certain servers where they were playing on for the whole evening in map chat for not playing meta builds. :)

[Israel.7056]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> How DARE people play what THEY want to play on a game they payed for and an internet they pay for monthly! The NERVE of some people!!! I mean why would I want to play something I ENJOY playing over playing something that everybody else wants me to play?? Why should I try to have FUN playing a game for enjoyment when I am being selfish and not looking out for the better of my WvW community I play on?? That's just RUDE!

 

Strawman.

[metalTiffy.7106]

Roaming itself only gets a problem, when you have a zerg, that couldn't join and get immediatly a waiting queue, like when there ist someone in Teamchat: "40 people at T3 Tower or garri" you try to jump and only get 8 people on the map, For my server Aba/Dzago this tend to happen on EBG. So many people without TS, meta, etc. all that you would need. Thats why lot of commanders say "EBG manage itself" and often don't even try to jump.

I personally never saw a comm flaming when this happens. worst thing that could happen is that someone write: Instant waiting queue, you are enough, try it on your own ^^

 

F.e. a 50 People Zerg plus 2 groups of Roamers, which get camps and towers to get of the sups is very effective if you want to get a T3 Keep. The 1-5 peops standing in the 1vs. 1 area normally don't hurt that much. But we only got big queues on reset or on 1 or 2 maps if well know comms have their fixed events every week the same time. But we are only medium + medium server. So bigest problem ist to even get enough people together ^^

[oOStaticOo.9467]

You don't have to have Meta in order to contribute. You have to know how to play your build. I could easily roll up a Meta Scourge and go running around with a Zerg and die twice as fast as I would with my Druid that I have ran with from the beginning. Just because something is Meta doesn't mean it equals best. I'd rather have a player that knows how to play to the strengths of their character than a person who just rolls up with a new Spellbreaker and has NO idea how to play it. Experience trumps Meta every time. It's pure BS to expect EVERY person on a server to bow to the whims of the Meta Gods. When I look at the Meta I just use it as a backbone for my character. I play my characters how I know I can play them. Do I die? Sure. Everybody does. But I die less on a character I've played more of than a FotM.

[MUDse.7623]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> You don't have to have Meta in order to contribute. You have to know how to play your build. I could easily roll up a Meta Scourge and go running around with a Zerg and die twice as fast as I would with my Druid that I have ran with from the beginning. Just because something is Meta doesn't mean it equals best. I'd rather have a player that knows how to play to the strengths of their character than a person who just rolls up with a new Spellbreaker and has NO idea how to play it. Experience trumps Meta every time. It's pure BS to expect EVERY person on a server to bow to the whims of the Meta Gods. When I look at the Meta I just use it as a backbone for my character. I play my characters how I know I can play them. Do I die? Sure. Everybody does. But I die less on a character I've played more of than a FotM.

 

but surviving is not everything you got to do. i mean i can stand in spawn 24/7 and survive you know..

do you provide actually more in the time you survive with your personal build then you would provide with the meta build in a shorter time lived? that is what matters, not the time lived.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> You don't have to have Meta in order to contribute. You have to know how to play your build. I could easily roll up a Meta Scourge and go running around with a Zerg and die twice as fast as I would with my Druid that I have ran with from the beginning. Just because something is Meta doesn't mean it equals best. I'd rather have a player that knows how to play to the strengths of their character than a person who just rolls up with a new Spellbreaker and has NO idea how to play it. Experience trumps Meta every time. It's pure BS to expect EVERY person on a server to bow to the whims of the Meta Gods. When I look at the Meta I just use it as a backbone for my character. I play my characters how I know I can play them. Do I die? Sure. Everybody does. But I die less on a character I've played more of than a FotM.

 

You state that you have to contribute, yet you play druid. Druid doesnt really contribute much. You could die twice as early on scourge and still contribute more than on druid.

It's also not about meta, it's about playing organised with your group. If your group wants you to play what you're best at , join on that. If a group doesn't want druids, then you shouldn't insist on following anyways. If you think that's a mistake, it's still their mistake to make.

 

Commanders do not have to bow to the whims of the ranger gods either. I personally kick all rangers from squad unless they're very, very special.

[oOStaticOo.9467]

> @"MUDse.7623" said:

> > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > You don't have to have Meta in order to contribute. You have to know how to play your build. I could easily roll up a Meta Scourge and go running around with a Zerg and die twice as fast as I would with my Druid that I have ran with from the beginning. Just because something is Meta doesn't mean it equals best. I'd rather have a player that knows how to play to the strengths of their character than a person who just rolls up with a new Spellbreaker and has NO idea how to play it. Experience trumps Meta every time. It's pure BS to expect EVERY person on a server to bow to the whims of the Meta Gods. When I look at the Meta I just use it as a backbone for my character. I play my characters how I know I can play them. Do I die? Sure. Everybody does. But I die less on a character I've played more of than a FotM.

>

> but surviving is not everything you got to do. i mean i can stand in spawn 24/7 and survive you know..

> do you provide actually more in the time you survive with your personal build then you would provide with the meta build in a shorter time lived? that is what matters, not the time lived.

 

I guarantee I contribute way more staying alive than I do dieing and giving the opposition someone to rally off of and one less person to worry about that is now having to run back from spawn point instead of being in Zerg.

[oOStaticOo.9467]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > You don't have to have Meta in order to contribute. You have to know how to play your build. I could easily roll up a Meta Scourge and go running around with a Zerg and die twice as fast as I would with my Druid that I have ran with from the beginning. Just because something is Meta doesn't mean it equals best. I'd rather have a player that knows how to play to the strengths of their character than a person who just rolls up with a new Spellbreaker and has NO idea how to play it. Experience trumps Meta every time. It's pure BS to expect EVERY person on a server to bow to the whims of the Meta Gods. When I look at the Meta I just use it as a backbone for my character. I play my characters how I know I can play them. Do I die? Sure. Everybody does. But I die less on a character I've played more of than a FotM.

>

> You state that you have to contribute, yet you play druid. Druid doesnt really contribute much. You could die twice as early on scourge and still contribute more than on druid.

> It's also not about meta, it's about playing organised with your group. If your group wants you to play what you're best at , join on that. If a group doesn't want druids, then you shouldn't insist on following anyways. If you think that's a mistake, it's still their mistake to make.

>

> Commanders do not have to bow to the whims of the ranger gods either. I personally kick all rangers from squad unless they're very, very special.

 

According to you. I lay down traps on top of downed enemies. I shoot from a distance picking off some of those that are downed so they can't rally and rejoin the fight. I interrupt Scourges that are getting ready to lay down their AoE's of doom. Etc. Contributing comes in many different forms. Just because you don't see it in the way you want it doesn't mean it's not contributing.

[Israel.7056]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> You don't have to have Meta in order to contribute. You have to know how to play your build. I could easily roll up a Meta Scourge and go running around with a Zerg and die twice as fast as I would with my Druid that I have ran with from the beginning. Just because something is Meta doesn't mean it equals best. I'd rather have a player that knows how to play to the strengths of their character than a person who just rolls up with a new Spellbreaker and has NO idea how to play it. Experience trumps Meta every time. It's pure BS to expect EVERY person on a server to bow to the whims of the Meta Gods. When I look at the Meta I just use it as a backbone for my character. I play my characters how I know I can play them. Do I die? Sure. Everybody does. But I die less on a character I've played more of than a FotM.

 

I guess it just depends on how good you are at Druid because you'd be in direct competition for a spot in squad with a firebrand.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > You don't have to have Meta in order to contribute. You have to know how to play your build. I could easily roll up a Meta Scourge and go running around with a Zerg and die twice as fast as I would with my Druid that I have ran with from the beginning. Just because something is Meta doesn't mean it equals best. I'd rather have a player that knows how to play to the strengths of their character than a person who just rolls up with a new Spellbreaker and has NO idea how to play it. Experience trumps Meta every time. It's pure BS to expect EVERY person on a server to bow to the whims of the Meta Gods. When I look at the Meta I just use it as a backbone for my character. I play my characters how I know I can play them. Do I die? Sure. Everybody does. But I die less on a character I've played more of than a FotM.

> >

> > You state that you have to contribute, yet you play druid. Druid doesnt really contribute much. You could die twice as early on scourge and still contribute more than on druid.

> > It's also not about meta, it's about playing organised with your group. If your group wants you to play what you're best at , join on that. If a group doesn't want druids, then you shouldn't insist on following anyways. If you think that's a mistake, it's still their mistake to make.

> >

> > Commanders do not have to bow to the whims of the ranger gods either. I personally kick all rangers from squad unless they're very, very special.

>

> According to you. I lay down traps on top of downed enemies. I shoot from a distance picking off some of those that are downed so they can't rally and rejoin the fight. I interrupt Scourges that are getting ready to lay down their AoE's of doom. Etc. Contributing comes in many different forms. Just because you don't see it in the way you want it doesn't mean it's not contributing.

 

Just because you're doing something doesn't mean you're contributing. If squad spends more resources on a player (heals, buffs, ressing, place in squad, place on map, ...) than they contribute they're still a net loss for the group.

 

Which is still not the point. Why do you get to decide the playstyle of the squad? Why msut every squad be open for everyone, and allow them to play whatever way they wish? I notice that if that's how it is, most comms don't even want to bother.

[MUDse.7623]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > @"MUDse.7623" said:

> > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > You don't have to have Meta in order to contribute. You have to know how to play your build. I could easily roll up a Meta Scourge and go running around with a Zerg and die twice as fast as I would with my Druid that I have ran with from the beginning. Just because something is Meta doesn't mean it equals best. I'd rather have a player that knows how to play to the strengths of their character than a person who just rolls up with a new Spellbreaker and has NO idea how to play it. Experience trumps Meta every time. It's pure BS to expect EVERY person on a server to bow to the whims of the Meta Gods. When I look at the Meta I just use it as a backbone for my character. I play my characters how I know I can play them. Do I die? Sure. Everybody does. But I die less on a character I've played more of than a FotM.

> >

> > but surviving is not everything you got to do. i mean i can stand in spawn 24/7 and survive you know..

> > do you provide actually more in the time you survive with your personal build then you would provide with the meta build in a shorter time lived? that is what matters, not the time lived.

>

> I guarantee I contribute way more staying alive than I do dieing and giving the opposition someone to rally off of and one less person to worry about that is now having to run back from spawn point instead of being in Zerg.

 

again its not about dying and not dying, dying is part of the game without people dying you wouldnt make kills.

oke lets say you just deal damage and you got 2 builds one does 5000 damage per second and one does 500 damage per second.

for the 2nd to be better he has to live 10x longer. now the fight might not last as long or the first build returned again or hey got rezzed because this is a team game and people care for each other. and they will especially care for you if they think your valueable. i was on kodash a while and not really popular among the zerg elite because i did frequently when passing by snipe the opposing commander, wich lead to us winning the fight but somehow they didnt like it ( little exception here altho i sniped the thread opener multiple times while he was leading, his zerg still defeated ours while he was dead) anyway now they started to all use arcdps to track who is doing good damage etc. and as it happens when i joined with my ele i was mostly top 1-3 damage dealer so if i went downstate all the elitist jumped to rezz me. i would have survived alot easier on my thief, cause i am a thief main .. yet it is nearly impossible for a thief to do in a zerg fight what an ele can do with a single well placed meteor. i could die with my ele after 1 good meteor and would be better then i could have been with my thief surviving. and again if your doing your job, the elitists will support you and keep you alive.

[oOStaticOo.9467]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > > You don't have to have Meta in order to contribute. You have to know how to play your build. I could easily roll up a Meta Scourge and go running around with a Zerg and die twice as fast as I would with my Druid that I have ran with from the beginning. Just because something is Meta doesn't mean it equals best. I'd rather have a player that knows how to play to the strengths of their character than a person who just rolls up with a new Spellbreaker and has NO idea how to play it. Experience trumps Meta every time. It's pure BS to expect EVERY person on a server to bow to the whims of the Meta Gods. When I look at the Meta I just use it as a backbone for my character. I play my characters how I know I can play them. Do I die? Sure. Everybody does. But I die less on a character I've played more of than a FotM.

> > >

> > > You state that you have to contribute, yet you play druid. Druid doesnt really contribute much. You could die twice as early on scourge and still contribute more than on druid.

> > > It's also not about meta, it's about playing organised with your group. If your group wants you to play what you're best at , join on that. If a group doesn't want druids, then you shouldn't insist on following anyways. If you think that's a mistake, it's still their mistake to make.

> > >

> > > Commanders do not have to bow to the whims of the ranger gods either. I personally kick all rangers from squad unless they're very, very special.

> >

> > According to you. I lay down traps on top of downed enemies. I shoot from a distance picking off some of those that are downed so they can't rally and rejoin the fight. I interrupt Scourges that are getting ready to lay down their AoE's of doom. Etc. Contributing comes in many different forms. Just because you don't see it in the way you want it doesn't mean it's not contributing.

>

> Just because you're doing something doesn't mean you're contributing. If squad spends more resources on a player (heals, buffs, ressing, place in squad, place on map, ...) than they contribute they're still a net loss for the group.

>

> Which is still not the point. Why do you get to decide the playstyle of the squad? Why msut every squad be open for everyone, and allow them to play whatever way they wish? I notice that if that's how it is, most comms don't even want to bother.

 

You see 6. I see 9. Just because you are right doesn't mean I am wrong.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"MUDse.7623" said:

> > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > @"MUDse.7623" said:

> > > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > > You don't have to have Meta in order to contribute. You have to know how to play your build. I could easily roll up a Meta Scourge and go running around with a Zerg and die twice as fast as I would with my Druid that I have ran with from the beginning. Just because something is Meta doesn't mean it equals best. I'd rather have a player that knows how to play to the strengths of their character than a person who just rolls up with a new Spellbreaker and has NO idea how to play it. Experience trumps Meta every time. It's pure BS to expect EVERY person on a server to bow to the whims of the Meta Gods. When I look at the Meta I just use it as a backbone for my character. I play my characters how I know I can play them. Do I die? Sure. Everybody does. But I die less on a character I've played more of than a FotM.

> > >

> > > but surviving is not everything you got to do. i mean i can stand in spawn 24/7 and survive you know..

> > > do you provide actually more in the time you survive with your personal build then you would provide with the meta build in a shorter time lived? that is what matters, not the time lived.

> >

> > I guarantee I contribute way more staying alive than I do dieing and giving the opposition someone to rally off of and one less person to worry about that is now having to run back from spawn point instead of being in Zerg.

>

> i was on kodash a while and not really popular among the zerg elite because i did frequently when passing by snipe the opposing commander, wich lead to us winning the fight but somehow they didnt like it ( little exception here altho i sniped the thread opener multiple times while he was leading, his zerg still defeated ours while he was dead)

 

waw. when was this? Against bonzo or nika? o:

 

> if your doing your job, the elitists will support you and keep you alive.

 

I don't know a single commander or guild in the game that doesn't want more good players. Even newer players that want to learn are very much welcome.

 

So if you really are contributing, show it and they'll gladly take you. But just because a player thinks they are amazing doesn't mean they are.

 

[MUDse.7623]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"MUDse.7623" said:

> > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > > @"MUDse.7623" said:

> > > > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > > > You don't have to have Meta in order to contribute. You have to know how to play your build. I could easily roll up a Meta Scourge and go running around with a Zerg and die twice as fast as I would with my Druid that I have ran with from the beginning. Just because something is Meta doesn't mean it equals best. I'd rather have a player that knows how to play to the strengths of their character than a person who just rolls up with a new Spellbreaker and has NO idea how to play it. Experience trumps Meta every time. It's pure BS to expect EVERY person on a server to bow to the whims of the Meta Gods. When I look at the Meta I just use it as a backbone for my character. I play my characters how I know I can play them. Do I die? Sure. Everybody does. But I die less on a character I've played more of than a FotM.

> > > >

> > > > but surviving is not everything you got to do. i mean i can stand in spawn 24/7 and survive you know..

> > > > do you provide actually more in the time you survive with your personal build then you would provide with the meta build in a shorter time lived? that is what matters, not the time lived.

> > >

> > > I guarantee I contribute way more staying alive than I do dieing and giving the opposition someone to rally off of and one less person to worry about that is now having to run back from spawn point instead of being in Zerg.

> >

> > i was on kodash a while and not really popular among the zerg elite because i did frequently when passing by snipe the opposing commander, wich lead to us winning the fight but somehow they didnt like it ( little exception here altho i sniped the thread opener multiple times while he was leading, his zerg still defeated ours while he was dead)

>

> waw. when was this? Against bonzo or nika? o:

>

i dont know but yes while they were on the server. none of them actually had the guts to tell me to not do it, they just complained about me in their guild chat :)

and i had then people telling me to keep doing that as they enjoyed reading the complains.

 

but i remember one of those fights was between our garri and bay, i sniped you they got some more kills then in previous fights were i didnt snipe you. then they were like 'we making progress, a little more and we might succeed' in that fight they didnt notice you were dead half the fight i guess.

[reddie.5861]

90% of these toxic players dont even know how to play.

 

NEED SCOURGE AND FB..

 

okay? some ele's with FB support are far superior to scourge even before all the nerfs on scourge.

a proper played engi is far superior to any burst class

a proper played Thief will wreck most scourges without a problem.

 

but hey we must play meta not knowning smashing the meta is easy.

the game is just plain stupid right now, if u dont play scourge or FB just go roam and enjoy if u cant play sPvP or PvE cus in WvW there are many braindead commanders praised into heaven.> @"Optimator.3589" said:

> Demanding meta builds is all well and good if the squad is full or nearly so. I'd call it a perfectly reasonable stance. But when you're scraping together whatever you can get (e.g. Izzy making a squad out of the Mag cloud) for a SMC defense or something of that nature, beggars can't be choosers.

>

> Personally, I pick what build I'm going to run based on what I'm going to be doing. If I'm on my holo or my cancer mes running around with a havoc squad and that squad grows into a full-on blob, I'll grab a different character if queue allows.

 

why would u pick different character? holo completely wrecks in blob fights mesmer if u change ur play style a little can do amazing job also.

mesmer isnt just a hide bot or w/e else its doing.

 

people just need learn to adjust and trust in w/e people play as main. every1 hating on ranger yet when u face a ranger a well played one he will completely out play you and kill you without trouble i hit far harder then my warrior with ranger using my greatsword.

tho i have given up on blob game play mainly cus people always think w/e isnt meta must be a complete retarded player, yet all these retarded players tear all these meta newbies a new hole when they arent with their group. dont give me the bullshit they are build for blob playing.

so is my thief yet i dont have that much of a problem with roamers even on my blob necro which i havent touched for a while now i could handle em simply cus maybe i knew their play style knowning how to act? instead of followin commander like a brainless monkey ;)

[Israel.7056]

People don't bring spellbreakers because they hit harder than rangers.

 

I will grant that it may make more sense to bring weavers over scourges after this last patch.