WvW Trolling/Cheating Accounts

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Rampage.7145" said:

> or spend 15 minutes loading up a catapult with 15 guys

To be fair this didnt happen much IRL either. Do you have any idea of hard it is to fit 15 guys in a catapult basket? And even if we assume some of them are children, they'll just fly all over the place when you fire. Its a mess I tell you.

[Slyverine.7081]

You should deal with it the same way you would deal with a kid in real life. You just IGNORE THEM. If you rage on them and start swearing , crying etc you FEED him.He feels good to just see this.Just let him do it and say nothing.He will do it 1,2,3....10 times he will see that what he does doesn't trigger anyone , so he will feel unmotivated to keep doing it and stop. Also setting to private is the most legit way.

[Jeknar.6184]

> @"dezkreet.3472" said:

> A 30 man fully supplied up should be able to build 4 trebs spaced out and a shield gen to break that wall with minimal resistance. The enemy will either rush out to kill siege producing bags, or they will call in a bigger force providing bags, or they will drain the tower to build counter siege preventing repairs and making a second assault at close range successful. Welcome to wvw where the game mode is supposed to be a blend of strategy and fights.

 

Then you just rotate shield generators inside the tower and completely prevent all treb shots from ever reaching the wall... Yay!

There is no counter siege since Shield Gens were implemented. You only lose a sieged T3 structure if you don't have ~~siege monkeys~~ defenders these days.

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Rampage.7145" said:

> > or spend 15 minutes loading up a catapult with 15 guys

> To be fair this didnt happen much IRL either. Do you have any idea of hard it is to fit 15 guys in a catapult basket? And even if we assume some of them are children, they'll just fly all over the place when you fire. Its a mess I tell you.

 

See this is why we need asurapults, economy of scale.

[Balthazzarr.1349]

> @"Optimator.3589" said:

> > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

>

> > In WVW, everyone playing that game mode is there to fight

>

> lolwut? Are you playing the same game we are? Most players on NA seem to be there to dodge fights and backcap empty structures.

>

>

 

Man you definitely must not be on the SoS server. The only people I know in the three wvw guilds I'm in spend most of their time looking for fights... and capping only when there's not much else to do.

[Kylden Ar.3724]

> @"Jeknar.6184" said:

> People played the game for years without tactics and suddenly having their tactics on cooldown are the end of the world...

 

Because anyone can pull them and no way to stop free account spies, TACO never builds or places activated tactics. We only make/use the passive improvements.

[Jeknar.6184]

> @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

> > @"Optimator.3589" said:

> > > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> >

> > > In WVW, everyone playing that game mode is there to fight

> >

> > lolwut? Are you playing the same game we are? Most players on NA seem to be there to dodge fights and backcap empty structures.

> >

> >

>

> Man you definitely must not be on the SoS server. The only people I know in the three wvw guilds I'm in spend most of their time looking for fights... and capping only when there's not much else to do.

 

SoS looking for fights... Where is my omegalul emoji?

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Jeknar.6184" said:

> > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

> > > @"Optimator.3589" said:

> > > > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > >

> > > > In WVW, everyone playing that game mode is there to fight

> > >

> > > lolwut? Are you playing the same game we are? Most players on NA seem to be there to dodge fights and backcap empty structures.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Man you definitely must not be on the SoS server. The only people I know in the three wvw guilds I'm in spend most of their time looking for fights... and capping only when there's not much else to do.

>

> SoS looking for fights... Where is my omeglul emoji?

 

If fairness he said three people. Oh wait.,,,,

[Spartacus.3192]

> @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > @"Rampage.7145" said:

> > I am sorry but if you are outnumbered like that u need to lose everything or actually be extremly talented at the game to fight those odds, you should by no means be able to defend a structure like that for more than 5 mins or whatver times it takes for reincorcements to run there. The game is mean to be for massive battles, it is not tower defense simulator, if you read the WvW description by arenanet on the GW2 website it tells you exactly what the game mode is.

>

> Completely agree. If you are that outnumbered, you should lose objectives. The fact that 10 people, with siege properly placed can defend a structure against 30+ people is just ridiculous. I know it sucks, but what do you expect the other servers to do, not attack you because they have a lot of people in WVW and you don't?

 

Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that how towers/castles/keeps worked back in medieval times? That was the whole point of strategically placed castles/towers. A small force could hold off a much larger army for a very long time operating from well supplied and built (read T3) keep.

 

Not saying i agree with having tactivators etc but just commenting on the the statement that you "should" lose just because outnumbered.

 

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Spartacus.3192" said:

> > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > > @"Rampage.7145" said:

> > > I am sorry but if you are outnumbered like that u need to lose everything or actually be extremly talented at the game to fight those odds, you should by no means be able to defend a structure like that for more than 5 mins or whatver times it takes for reincorcements to run there. The game is mean to be for massive battles, it is not tower defense simulator, if you read the WvW description by arenanet on the GW2 website it tells you exactly what the game mode is.

> >

> > Completely agree. If you are that outnumbered, you should lose objectives. The fact that 10 people, with siege properly placed can defend a structure against 30+ people is just ridiculous. I know it sucks, but what do you expect the other servers to do, not attack you because they have a lot of people in WVW and you don't?

>

> Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that how towers/castles/keeps worked back in medieval times? That was the whole point of strategically placed castles/towers. A small force could hold off a much larger army for a very long time operating from well supplied and built (read T3) keep.

>

> Not saying i agree with having tactivators etc but just commenting on the the statement that you "should" lose just because outnumbered.

>

 

Nope!

In medevil times, fortifications were a delaying tactic.

If friends didn't eventually come to break the siege you'd starve to death... Unless the attacking force starved out first.. Which I guess equates in game to attackers getting bored and logging off.

 

[Princess.7584]

> @"Rampage.7145" said:

> I am sorry but if you are outnumbered like that u need to lose everything or actually be extremly talented at the game to fight those odds, you should by no means be able to defend a structure like that for more than 5 mins or whatver times it takes for reincorcements to run there. The game is mean to be for massive battles, it is not tower defense simulator, if you read the WvW description by arenanet on the GW2 website it tells you exactly what the game mode is.

 

 

 

Let me understand this, fight guilds hit the already outnumbered side expecting a good fight? Or are you defending the pip/wxp/karma trains that play off hours? Assuming you want fights why would you hit the weaker side that's only crutch is siege against larger numbers. Or why should the stacked server get a easy run into prime time ensuring everything is paper bar theirs.

 

 

" World versus World (also known as WvW) is a combination Player versus Player/Player versus Environment game mode where players from three different servers (worlds), or more, battle in the Mists. It features open-world combat on five large maps with up to several dozens of players per map. **_In World versus World, players can besiege objectives such as Keeps and Towers with siege weapons, and battle over resources**_, as well as complete other PvE-type content to win World Experience for themselves."

(from the GW2 wiki)

 

 

But this OP was about a tactic/siege griefer and that does have a impact on a match up, people log out since there is no way to counter it, meaning less people to donate you bags just more doors. The main reason people stay is because they are having fun, someone that griefs a server ensures there is no fun to be had, why play a game that becomes a struggle during your free time.

 

[Legendary Defender.5631]

> @"duckgirl.8769" said:

> I've been a dedicated WvW player for many years. WvW may sometimes be full of blobs, naysayers and drama, but despite this I enjoy it because I think combat and gameplay in WvW is one of the best among all other similar games; I have been addicted to it for 6 years and am wondering why Guild Wars 2 does not advertise it more (along with PvP).

>

> But the worst thing that is really making me almost give up is WvW trolling. Troll accounts systematically pulling tactivators and coming back to do it again when they're off cooldown. Tagging up the same color as the actual commander, joining the zerg and misleading pugs. Spamming team chat. Sometimes it's obvious that it's one person with multiple accounts. It was just a minor annoyance at first, but we are already the underdog in our matchup, and one person has been doing it every day for the past few weeks at a timezone where we're especially weak against our blobby enemy.

>

> Many many people have been reporting him everyday. There is no option to click that says "WvW Trolling" or "Cheating" so we click some of the other options even though we know it doesn't make sense. We even tried to report it using Bug Report so we could attach a screenshot. Every day for weeks. Nothing happens. Why? It's literally destroying the entire game mode for everybody in that server that plays during that time of day.

>

> After 6 years of WvW I think this is the first time I've felt like quitting the game. I could transfer servers, but why should I do that? I enjoy playing with my friends here, and what's to stop other trolls popping up on other servers too?

>

> It's so easy to solve too. Keep a history on each tactivator (if you can keep track of which player dropped what siege, I'm sure this is very doable) and on players with regards to what tactivators they pulled. Add a Report option for WvW Trolling. When someone is reported, review the player's history. When someone is reported a LOT, investigate it further. WvW is a great game mode but this very stupid thing that one person is doing is making a toxic game environment for hundreds of players and causing people to quit the game. I don't know why this is not a bigger issue.

 

I wouldn't call it cheating as sabotage is an accepted part of war. And these individuals that are doing this are doing this for one of 3 reasons, 1) they have no lives and get off on doing this mainly the response in chat after it happens, 2) they are getting paid by commanders from enemy servers and there have been many that have done this (not naming names) 3) they used to be on the same server as you and somebody or a group had trolled them off so they are getting revenge.

I don't think this constitutes a ban as i said earlier that sabotage is a part of war, but it costs guilds gold to craft all them tactivators so maybe if this person gets caught they can be made to "pay a fine" or pay back the guild whos tactivators they used.

[Spartacus.3192]

> @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > @"Spartacus.3192" said:

> > > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > > > @"Rampage.7145" said:

> > > > I am sorry but if you are outnumbered like that u need to lose everything or actually be extremly talented at the game to fight those odds, you should by no means be able to defend a structure like that for more than 5 mins or whatver times it takes for reincorcements to run there. The game is mean to be for massive battles, it is not tower defense simulator, if you read the WvW description by arenanet on the GW2 website it tells you exactly what the game mode is.

> > >

> > > Completely agree. If you are that outnumbered, you should lose objectives. The fact that 10 people, with siege properly placed can defend a structure against 30+ people is just ridiculous. I know it sucks, but what do you expect the other servers to do, not attack you because they have a lot of people in WVW and you don't?

> >

> > Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that how towers/castles/keeps worked back in medieval times? That was the whole point of strategically placed castles/towers. A small force could hold off a much larger army for a very long time operating from well supplied and built (read T3) keep.

> >

> > Not saying i agree with having tactivators etc but just commenting on the the statement that you "should" lose just because outnumbered.

> >

>

> Nope!

> In medevil times, fortifications were a delaying tactic.

> If friends didn't eventually come to break the siege you'd starve to death... Unless the attacking force starved out first.. Which I guess equates in game to attackers getting bored and logging off.

>

 

So you just agreed with what i said? you said "delaying tactic" and i said " A small force could hold off a much larger army for a very long time"

you said they would "eventually starve" and i said "well supplied and built (read T3) keep"

 

I think we're saying the same thing

 

[Henry.5713]

It happens that you may not have lost certain structures if there hadn't been someone pulling all Tactivators right before the enemy blob came to knock on your door. It even happens that you lost the entire matchup because of stuff like this. Certainly understandable why this frustrates you.

But it is like people said. Turn off public use if you can. Report the person but there is no rule preventing new players on new accounts from using Tactivators badly out of their inexperience. Honestly, there is no rule preventing anyone from using Tactivator whichever way they desire. Not to mention that calling this griefing is a far stretch as they aren't targeting any one person in particular (the one thing ArenaNet doesn't tolerate). Which is why it remains rather unlikely that any action is going to be taken agaist the person in question.

[zionophir.6845]

should not complain if tactivators are pulled in keep and ogre watch and anzalias pass are in T3.

[Balthazzarr.1349]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Jeknar.6184" said:

> > > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

> > > > @"Optimator.3589" said:

> > > > > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > > >

> > > > > In WVW, everyone playing that game mode is there to fight

> > > >

> > > > lolwut? Are you playing the same game we are? Most players on NA seem to be there to dodge fights and backcap empty structures.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Man you definitely must not be on the SoS server. The only people I know in the three wvw guilds I'm in spend most of their time looking for fights... and capping only when there's not much else to do.

> >

> > SoS looking for fights... Where is my omeglul emoji?

>

> If fairness he said three people. Oh wait.,,,,

 

If I had replied in this way as I have a time or two in the past, I would have seen a warning in my mailbox by now.

 

I just don’t understand what the personal and/or server attacks are about. pfft

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Jeknar.6184" said:

> > > > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

> > > > > @"Optimator.3589" said:

> > > > > > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > In WVW, everyone playing that game mode is there to fight

> > > > >

> > > > > lolwut? Are you playing the same game we are? Most players on NA seem to be there to dodge fights and backcap empty structures.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Man you definitely must not be on the SoS server. The only people I know in the three wvw guilds I'm in spend most of their time looking for fights... and capping only when there's not much else to do.

> > >

> > > SoS looking for fights... Where is my omeglul emoji?

> >

> > If fairness he said three people. Oh wait.,,,,

>

> If I had replied in this way as I have a time or two in the past, I would have seen a warning in my mailbox by now.

>

> I just don’t understand what the personal and/or server attacks are about. pfft

 

My apologies.

 

It wasn’t meant as a personal attack. It was a flippant remark.

 

[dezkreet.3472]

> @"Rampage.7145" said:

> > @"dezkreet.3472" said:

> > I see it a bit differently on where siege balance is, I think a tier 3 sieged up tower should be able to hold with 10 defenders, that is if the assault siege is built in range of the defenders siege.

> >

> > Because commanders of larger squads are lazy and don't like to wait out long range assaults it's rare for that first assault to be successful. That is on them not the game siege balance. Just because you are after bags doesn't mean they should run right into you (although TC loves to do that). Once those walls are open though, if the attacking force knows how to sustain then it should be an easy take.

> >

> > A 30 man fully supplied up should be able to build 4 trebs spaced out and a shield gen to break that wall with minimal resistance. The enemy will either rush out to kill siege producing bags, or they will call in a bigger force providing bags, or they will drain the tower to build counter siege preventing repairs and making a second assault at close range successful. Welcome to wvw where the game mode is supposed to be a blend of strategy and fights.

>

> Ehm no, i mean It is a videogame, you do not need to go and chop trees to make arrows for your arrowcart, or spend 15 minutes loading up a catapult with 15 guys, i mean the game it is supposed to be fun that is why things are not supposed to last hours like, most people play this game for 1 or 2 hours a day, if atacking a tower takes that ammount of time how do you expect for the game to be any successfull and fun for those players??? Yes there is strategy involved, but sieging is just not fun, getting inside any structure should take 15 minutes tops specially if the enemy force is all insde defending wiht siege, only way to stop a bigger force should be by going out there and kiling them all, the game mode is all about the engaging massive fights that is the reasson why people play WvW. If you just wanna play strategy games go play starcraft or something.

 

Its very rare to see some try hards rotating shield gens for a tower wall. 4 trebs will take it down quicker than they can build shield gens if your people actually listen and Build. If people are swarming around ahead of the trebs in AC range, they will be manning the ACs vs speed building shield gens. The main goal in the end from your stand point is to illicit a defensive response, the tower itself is just an extra champ bag. We already know VR is unwilling to play the long game when it comes to capping objectives and no one is forcing you to, im just saying sometimes its not as long drawn out as you think it is. If it fails, so what, move to another objective or map, find your bags. If that tower is eating at you ask a havoc squad to focus the map for a while then show up later and get your cap without a defense, since you seem to want that as much as easy bags.

 

Its not all about engaging in massive fights, that was their Hyped up selling point as a feature, but not the sole purpose of wvw. Its an RvR mode, not a team death match mode despite how much you wish for it to be. There is just as much population who play for that score board vs the massive fights, and quite a bit who play for both. Although not an opinion i share, there is also many who think people organized for fights like your guild have too much of an advantage. Anet needs to thread the needle to figure out how to balance between opposing opinions on RvR, and i'd say they have recently done a great job doing so. Siege changes have been made, and i think most of it is in a good place. Shield gens if they want them to remain, need to somehow be prevented from rotating bubbles and i'll be fine with them.

[Pelto.9364]

GW2 should be rated K16 for these reasons. This is not a Moomin game for children. Just a game where adults rage and complain for the reason.

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Spartacus.3192" said:

> > @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > > @"Spartacus.3192" said:

> > > > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > > > > @"Rampage.7145" said:

> > > > > I am sorry but if you are outnumbered like that u need to lose everything or actually be extremly talented at the game to fight those odds, you should by no means be able to defend a structure like that for more than 5 mins or whatver times it takes for reincorcements to run there. The game is mean to be for massive battles, it is not tower defense simulator, if you read the WvW description by arenanet on the GW2 website it tells you exactly what the game mode is.

> > > >

> > > > Completely agree. If you are that outnumbered, you should lose objectives. The fact that 10 people, with siege properly placed can defend a structure against 30+ people is just ridiculous. I know it sucks, but what do you expect the other servers to do, not attack you because they have a lot of people in WVW and you don't?

> > >

> > > Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that how towers/castles/keeps worked back in medieval times? That was the whole point of strategically placed castles/towers. A small force could hold off a much larger army for a very long time operating from well supplied and built (read T3) keep.

> > >

> > > Not saying i agree with having tactivators etc but just commenting on the the statement that you "should" lose just because outnumbered.

> > >

> >

> > Nope!

> > In medevil times, fortifications were a delaying tactic.

> > If friends didn't eventually come to break the siege you'd starve to death... Unless the attacking force starved out first.. Which I guess equates in game to attackers getting bored and logging off.

> >

>

> So you just agreed with what i said? you said "delaying tactic" and i said " A small force could hold off a much larger army for a very long time"

> you said they would "eventually starve" and i said "well supplied and built (read T3) keep"

>

> I think we're saying the same thing

>

 

Agreed, the tower should automatically flip and all the defenders die when supplies reach zero and all defenders should consume supply regularly.

[Balthazzarr.1349]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"Jeknar.6184" said:

> > > > > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

> > > > > > @"Optimator.3589" said:

> > > > > > > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > In WVW, everyone playing that game mode is there to fight

> > > > > >

> > > > > > lolwut? Are you playing the same game we are? Most players on NA seem to be there to dodge fights and backcap empty structures.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Man you definitely must not be on the SoS server. The only people I know in the three wvw guilds I'm in spend most of their time looking for fights... and capping only when there's not much else to do.

> > > >

> > > > SoS looking for fights... Where is my omeglul emoji?

> > >

> > > If fairness he said three people. Oh wait.,,,,

> >

> > If I had replied in this way as I have a time or two in the past, I would have seen a warning in my mailbox by now.

> >

> > I just don’t understand what the personal and/or server attacks are about. pfft

>

> My apologies.

>

> It wasn’t meant as a personal attack. It was a flippant remark.

>

 

lol.. I actually know that... it was actually more directed to the other reply included in here which isn't actually an issue either.... and I would never report it as an attack... but I gotta tell ya... I've been zapped by sensitive people more times than I care to remember and warned a few times for such things.. It makes me crazy because frankly this is a forum of gamers. A little banter, imo, should be welcome so no offense taken here. Just a word of caution.. some people are more sensitive and when you least expect it.. BAM. :)

 

[Handin.4032]

Anet won't do crap about it. They don't care about fostering a good competitive environment or good communities. They don't. If people cheated in pvp (especially ranked pvp), it would be dealt with quickly. If people started cheating in raids, they'd stop it. But WvW? nah. People just have to adapt and learn to deal with the toxicity and trolls like we've had to since the beginning. (The one redeeming act they did historically was removed the matchup sub-forum.)

[Optimator.3589]

> @"Handin.4032" said:

> Anet won't do kitten about it. They don't care about fostering a good competitive environment or good communities. They don't. If people cheated in pvp (especially ranked pvp), it would be dealt with quickly. If people started cheating in raids, they'd stop it. But WvW? nah. People just have to adapt and learn to deal with the toxicity and trolls like we've had to since the beginning. (The one redeeming act they did historically was removed the matchup sub-forum.)

 

Dude, in a game mode that's all about matchups, banning discussion of matchups is one of the most bass ackwards things I've ever seen. Also, banning people for publicly naming known cheaters is absurd. A little toxicity never hurt anyone. People just need to toughen up a bit.

 

 

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Optimator.3589" said:

> > @"Handin.4032" said:

> > Anet won't do kitten about it. They don't care about fostering a good competitive environment or good communities. They don't. If people cheated in pvp (especially ranked pvp), it would be dealt with quickly. If people started cheating in raids, they'd stop it. But WvW? nah. People just have to adapt and learn to deal with the toxicity and trolls like we've had to since the beginning. (The one redeeming act they did historically was removed the matchup sub-forum.)

>

> Dude, in a game mode that's all about matchups, banning discussion of matchups is one of the most bass ackwards things I've ever seen. Also, banning people for publicly naming known cheaters is absurd. A little toxicity never hurt anyone. People just need to toughen up a bit.

>

>

 

Yeah, (current) Anet and some of their customers seem to be of the opinion that this isn't the kind of game where we shove a flag through the chest of wounded and helpless opponents.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > @"Optimator.3589" said:

> > > @"Handin.4032" said:

> > > Anet won't do kitten about it. They don't care about fostering a good competitive environment or good communities. They don't. If people cheated in pvp (especially ranked pvp), it would be dealt with quickly. If people started cheating in raids, they'd stop it. But WvW? nah. People just have to adapt and learn to deal with the toxicity and trolls like we've had to since the beginning. (The one redeeming act they did historically was removed the matchup sub-forum.)

> >

> > Dude, in a game mode that's all about matchups, banning discussion of matchups is one of the most bass ackwards things I've ever seen. Also, banning people for publicly naming known cheaters is absurd. A little toxicity never hurt anyone. People just need to toughen up a bit.

> >

> >

>

> Yeah, (current) Anet and some of their customers seem to be of the opinion that this isn't the kind of game where we shove a flag through the chest of wounded and helpless opponents.

 

Dang it.. there goes our finishers