Manipulating WvW by Spamming and Abusing Siege Should Get People Banned — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Manipulating WvW by Spamming and Abusing Siege Should Get People Banned

Riverborn.1542Riverborn.1542 Member ✭✭

Our server [EU] recently got a spike of so-called trolls who manipulate the game by things like:

  • Placing random siege literally everywhere, confusing our team and the enemies
  • Taking up the same tag as the open commander tag and therefore misleading players mostly resulting in death
  • Throwing the server's golems off cliffs so we have to rebuild them every so often
  • Using the siege we built just to stay passive while blocking it (fortunately the one who placed it is able to take it back)
  • Threatening in teamchat to get other players banned for reporting him

It is a certain player I'd not like to mention, yet I think they should not be allowed to do so without consequences. For now the server decided reporting them for Botting is the most accurate, unfortunately System Abuse is meant for LFG only - we should be able to properly report people abusing wvw matches.

Dear Anet, please do something about these type of trolls and spies. Every time they're online it's just very frustrating for lots of us.
We just want a fair game and a fair fight. No spamming, no botting, no drops in frame rate due to like 60 trebuchet siege build sites all over the field.

Even our enemy servers ask us what's wrong with us.

And here are some censored pictures of our server-known troll throwing our golems off a cliff. I have video footage in case it could be useful, too.

<1

Comments

  • DemonSeed.3528DemonSeed.3528 Member ✭✭✭✭

    If it makes you feel any better, both my EU and NA matches have people doing this atm. Some of them try to siege cap as well.

  • Etterwyn.5263Etterwyn.5263 Member ✭✭✭

    I kind of have mixed feelings, because in war, double agents and spies are part of the ordeal. But I understand how annoying it is.

    WvW™ - where you find more Red Rings of Death than an Xbox repair facility.

  • TheQuickFox.3826TheQuickFox.3826 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2019

    Idea: There could be minimum prices for siege blueprints to discourage wasting them. Now many of them are just too cheap, especially the standard ones.
    E.g. reducing the supply until the price reaches a desired level, whatever that may be.

    Ascalon Will Prevail!

    GW Wiki user page | GW2 Wiki user page

  • spectrito.8513spectrito.8513 Member ✭✭✭

    @Riverborn.1542 said:

    @spectrito.8513 said:
    Seems like a good way to protest against Warclaw.
    I'll do the same.

    What does the warclaw have to do with this?
    /ponder

    People are bored because WvW is a PvE mode now.
    They cant kill people anymore, at least they can grief PvErs by slowing down the karma per hour.

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2019

    anet hasn't done anything about this kind of thing for years, sadly. expect no action.

    all is lost.

    Te lazla otstara.

  • reddie.5861reddie.5861 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2019

    @Riverborn.1542 said:

    @spectrito.8513 said:
    Seems like a good way to protest against Warclaw.
    I'll do the same.

    What does the warclaw have to do with this?
    /ponder

    who needs siege when u have warclaw who can pull on doors! i agree nice protest ima gonna run off my servers golems off a cliff also.

    o wait my server doesnt have any golems lol, the kitten u have golems for at first place? if u would find a arrowcart or any kind of deffence siege on my server u should already be surprised :D

    but i guess this is what u get anyway, roamers cant roam gankers cant gank. so why not just irritate ur server ? :D
    in general roamers have never connected with blobbers
    gankers where always the silence guys who start shooting in schools ;)

    so none of the 2 should give a rats kitten about blobbers not being able to do anything, cus they cant also.
    but thats pretty much anet fault not the players and since anet is so busy to not be able to set dodge from mount back to 1 or 2 and remove one 0 from mount hp to fix majority of problems then later on fix cc immunity and u got it al lfixed.

  • SpellOfIniquity.1780SpellOfIniquity.1780 Member ✭✭✭✭

    People probably don't get banned for this because it would be too much effort for ANet to investigate every case. Because new players are often unaware of WvW ethics and will throw bad siege or repair walls that are being damaged, etc., there are many instances where someone will get reported for making genuine mistakes.

    Since ANet is also pretty strict about naming and shaming, this goes for photo evidence as well, the best you can hope for is that they're caught in the act.

    So unless ANet has the resources to monitor this kind of stuff, which they don't, then it's gonna keep happening as unfortunate as that may be.

    My advice is to make friends with a few people on the offending servers and see if you can get them to harass the trolls by killing them repeatedly and griefing them until they stop. It isn't a foolproof solution, but it's something.

    Witchery [YWY] | Maguuma/Anvil Rock | Diamond Legend
    Hate me if it makes you feel better ... ♫

  • Mokk.2397Mokk.2397 Member ✭✭✭

    Unfortunately theirs not a lot anyone can do with sociopaths except block and ignore them.You can't let them win by allowing their actions to bother you.
    It's a catch 22 when this is brought up in the forums but be advised not to play into their hand any further .Don't give them any personal information about yourself or team mates . If you find yourself getting upset take a break and try not to escalate the situation. Hope this helps.

  • Yes this sucks, but I'd like to throw in that I think people pulling the Emergency Waypoint to manipulate the Queue is just as bad if not a worse offence. I had forgotten this was a thing until a recent server linking occured to show me it's still a thing even some commanders do to manipulate the queues.

  • Griefing in WvW is a punishable offense, although I'm not sure if you're supposed to report them in-game or through customer support.

  • Burnfall.9573Burnfall.9573 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    anet hasn't done anything about this kind of thing for years, sadly. expect no action.

    all is lost.

  • Karnasis.6892Karnasis.6892 Member ✭✭✭

    I LOVE how everything has to do with the Warclaw. People are trolling, it's the warclaws fault. I can't kill people, it's the warclaws fault. I don't know how to do anything but kill, it's the warclaws fault. Scourges are op, it's the warclaws fault. Class balance is awful, it's the warclaws fault. I need to rethink my strategies to combat mounts AND players and I refuse to, it's the warclaws fault.

    Seriously, give it up. The Warclaw is here to stay, it IS getting changes. But the 3 dodges should stay, the mount shouldn't be cc'able (I mean we're getting a dismount skill, why do we need CC too?) and for funsies just to troll the people that hate the thing it should also remain able to contest points.

  • Karnasis.6892Karnasis.6892 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2019

    @DemonSeed.3528 said:

    I don't mind them contesting points, just cut their dodge, make them cc'able with lower health pool and it should be fine.

    But why? It's not like 11k hp is even that much, especially 11k that's has no way to be healed. Also why CC at all, again with a dismount skill coming you don't need this (also that would just encourage all the pew pew immob rangers more than there already are >.>) And the dodge has been cut, it had a longer range before. They halved it essentially. 3 dodges aren't THAT big of a deal. I mean we have to put up with thieves right?

    I do recall reading a chat where multiple people did say they would troll exactly like this in protest of the warclaw though, so it really isn't out of the reasoning of trolling for that reason. It's not the only reason for the trolls though, there are many reasons they do it, but it's untrue to also say some aren't rebelling because of the warclaw.

    Like 2 and a half months late right?

  • Karnasis.6892Karnasis.6892 Member ✭✭✭

    @bigo.9037 said:

    Okay but any class or spec that relies on melee is screwed basically. You could've just ignored the warclaw and kept the thread on track but here we are. I'll be happy to disagree that the warclaw is a bigger issue than you suggest lol

    Except that melee classes should have 0 problems with people when they are OFF mounts. They aren't going to be on them 24/7. If they want to take anything, or are already in a form of combat with ANYTHING they are probably off their mount. If they aren't, why bother chasing them. Move on to the next target. That's why the warclaw really isn't a big issue at all. People have a weird expectation that if you see it, you should be able to fight it every time. It's not how WvW worked previously, and that hasn't changed at all.

    Also, the thread was already focusing on the warclaw due to people protesting about the warclaw anyway. Which doesn't surprise me given how much "forum" hate there is for the mount. In reality the mount isn't a big deal to most players, the forums are just the most vocal about it.

    Sucks about the griefers but unfortunately that's been that way for a long time. I wish there was something that could be done, but I think that would need an overhaul to how tactics/seige placement works in general. That's time I think the wvw doesn't have given how many plates are being spun right now between working on the warclaw, the eventual release of alliances (maybe?) and whatever else they have in the pipeline.

  • L A T I O N.8923L A T I O N.8923 Member ✭✭✭

    @Etterwyn.5263 said:
    I kind of have mixed feelings, because in war, double agents and spies are part of the ordeal. But I understand how annoying it is.

    Just as friendly fire is not possible?

  • Just make it so if you find the spy you can kill them....cause that's how it happens in war.

  • Zaraki.5784Zaraki.5784 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ArchonWing.9480 said:
    Real life arguments don't make sense in a game.... I should be able to kill my own teammates then.

    And that would be so sweet is some cases....

    "Sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never be able to injure you!"
    The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy

  • Klypto.1703Klypto.1703 Member ✭✭✭

    I do not see anything wrong with doing this I mean its just some RP player roleplaying Dredge. Everyone has their fun in their own way and not know it is bothering you or a bad thing it just makes you look like the bad guy when its dredge because ceaseless flame must not go out.

  • bigo.9037bigo.9037 Member ✭✭✭

    @Karnasis.6892 said:

    @bigo.9037 said:

    Okay but any class or spec that relies on melee is screwed basically. You could've just ignored the warclaw and kept the thread on track but here we are. I'll be happy to disagree that the warclaw is a bigger issue than you suggest lol

    Except that melee classes should have 0 problems with people when they are OFF mounts. They aren't going to be on them 24/7. If they want to take anything, or are already in a form of combat with ANYTHING they are probably off their mount. If they aren't, why bother chasing them. Move on to the next target. That's why the warclaw really isn't a big issue at all. People have a weird expectation that if you see it, you should be able to fight it every time. It's not how WvW worked previously, and that hasn't changed at all.

    Also, the thread was already focusing on the warclaw due to people protesting about the warclaw anyway. Which doesn't surprise me given how much "forum" hate there is for the mount. In reality the mount isn't a big deal to most players, the forums are just the most vocal about it.

    Sucks about the griefers but unfortunately that's been that way for a long time. I wish there was something that could be done, but I think that would need an overhaul to how tactics/seige placement works in general. That's time I think the wvw doesn't have given how many plates are being spun right now between working on the warclaw, the eventual release of alliances (maybe?) and whatever else they have in the pipeline.

    From a game design standpoint, where the
    map(s) are an open battlefield, it is bad that it's SO easy to avoid certain people. Necros who have low mobility just flying right past you, without him being in any sort of danger unless there are multiple players that can try to dismount him or a slb.

    You're supposed to sort of ""be in danger"" as soon as you leave your spawn area. There used to be a reason to take high mobility utility skills or weapons. Now it doesn't matter nearly as much.

  • HazyDaisy.4107HazyDaisy.4107 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Why not just join an enemy party and target the spy so they can hunt him and kill him? I mean it'd make you sort of a spy as well and at the very least a traitor, but it's not like others haven't done the exact same thing with far less cause before.

  • Been happening for years.
    And as we know Anet didnt even have enough devs for PvE, let alone employing GMs to monitor players like these.
    Oh yeah they did that suicide of that one hacker, but as usual it was yet another attempt to show us they are doing something, when in fact they werent!

  • Karnasis.6892Karnasis.6892 Member ✭✭✭

    @bigo.9037 said:

    From a game design standpoint, where the
    map(s) are an open battlefield, it is bad that it's SO easy to avoid certain people. Necros who have low mobility just flying right past you, without him being in any sort of danger unless there are multiple players that can try to dismount him or a slb.

    You're supposed to sort of ""be in danger"" as soon as you leave your spawn area. There used to be a reason to take high mobility utility skills or weapons. Now it doesn't matter nearly as much.

    See I don't know why people care that much about it. It's not like your losing out on anything by having "some" people walk by freely than others. I haven't had an issue getting fights since the warclaw has come out, and most of the roamers I know are in the same boat. Some even say their fights have increased since then since people run back to them faster.

    Warclaws are part of the mobility toolkit, you still would want some of those utility skills since some can be beneficial in combat (and some aren't). It's not like everyone is on their mount 24/7. There are times people can't or won't be on them.

  • Balthazzarr.1349Balthazzarr.1349 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @melandru.3876 said:
    a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

    the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building it
    supply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

    this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints

    which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

    go figure

    nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...

    Just another WvW lifer who'll never say die... while dying again and again!

  • Balthazzarr.1349Balthazzarr.1349 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @HazyDaisy.4107 said:
    Why not just join an enemy party and target the spy so they can hunt him and kill him? I mean it'd make you sort of a spy as well and at the very least a traitor, but it's not like others haven't done the exact same thing with far less cause before.

    Even if you're in the same party or squad as the enemy you can't see where they are. If you're on the other side you don't see the party/squad dots like you do when you're grouped with your own team.

    Just another WvW lifer who'll never say die... while dying again and again!

  • melandru.3876melandru.3876 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @melandru.3876 said:
    a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

    the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building it
    supply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

    this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints

    which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

    go figure

    nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...

    did you even read the full sentence? because i can tell you didn't

    wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader.
    where is the error in that?

    that would only be a issue for pugmanders, and those can't be taken serious anyway lol

    isn't it GUILD wars for a reason? as allready said in my first post, which you read 7%

  • Balthazzarr.1349Balthazzarr.1349 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @melandru.3876 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @melandru.3876 said:
    a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

    the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building it
    supply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

    this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints

    which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

    go figure

    nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...

    did you even read the full sentence? because i can tell you didn't

    wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader.
    where is the error in that?

    that would only be a issue for pugmanders, and those can't be taken serious anyway lol

    isn't it GUILD wars for a reason? as all ready said in my first post, which you read 7%

    "distributed by the guild leader..." yes I missed that.... No reason to get cranky about it. The bottom line is that when I'm commanding I don't want people throwing siege down when most people don't know where and how to place it, and that's important. When I'm dropping siege I drop it quickly and where I want it. If I have to tell people where to drop each one that would defeat the whole purpose of having the siege placement function staying on me so I can drop multiple items.

    As for consuming supply to drop siege? no thanks... I'd rather be able to drop a few catas for example and build two if that's all we can build for some reason without having to waste a handful of supplies on the third one just for dropping it.

    From ideas come answers, so your ideas are good to see. For me they simply don't work.... and I'm not trolling you or being nasty... just the way I see it.

    Just another WvW lifer who'll never say die... while dying again and again!

  • Balthazzarr.1349Balthazzarr.1349 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @melandru.3876 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @melandru.3876 said:
    a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

    the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building it
    supply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

    this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints

    which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

    go figure

    nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...

    did you even read the full sentence? because i can tell you didn't

    wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader.
    where is the error in that?

    that would only be a issue for pugmanders, and those can't be taken serious anyway lol

    isn't it GUILD wars for a reason? as all ready said in my first post, which you read 7%

    "distributed by the guild leader..." yes I missed that.... No reason to get cranky about it. The bottom line is that when I'm commanding I don't want people throwing siege down when most people don't know where and how to place it, and that's important. When I'm dropping siege I drop it quickly and where I want it. If I have to tell people where to drop each one that would defeat the whole purpose of having the siege placement function staying on me so I can drop multiple items.

    As for consuming supply to drop siege? no thanks... I'd rather be able to drop a few catas for example and build two if that's all we can build for some reason without having to waste a handful of supplies on the third one just for dropping it.

    From ideas come answers, so your ideas are good to see. For me they simply don't work.... and I'm not trolling you or being nasty... just the way I see it.

    ... and I 'missed' that because you never said it... "wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader." The only place this line is found is in your reply to me giving me hell for not seeing it in the first message... that it doesn't appear in.

    What you said was: "this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints" -- which might imply "wvw-focused guilds".. or just guilds in wvw... and "shared guild-blueprints", which implies distribution by the commander or someone else... but doesn't define what you mean.

    If you're going to come after me for something I didn't read, please make sure it was actually said in the first place. I stand by all my comments.

    Just another WvW lifer who'll never say die... while dying again and again!

  • melandru.3876melandru.3876 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 23, 2019

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @melandru.3876 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @melandru.3876 said:
    a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

    the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building it
    supply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

    this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints

    which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

    go figure

    nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...

    did you even read the full sentence? because i can tell you didn't

    wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader.
    where is the error in that?

    that would only be a issue for pugmanders, and those can't be taken serious anyway lol

    isn't it GUILD wars for a reason? as all ready said in my first post, which you read 7%

    "distributed by the guild leader..." yes I missed that.... No reason to get cranky about it. The bottom line is that when I'm commanding I don't want people throwing siege down when most people don't know where and how to place it, and that's important. When I'm dropping siege I drop it quickly and where I want it. If I have to tell people where to drop each one that would defeat the whole purpose of having the siege placement function staying on me so I can drop multiple items.

    As for consuming supply to drop siege? no thanks... I'd rather be able to drop a few catas for example and build two if that's all we can build for some reason without having to waste a handful of supplies on the third one just for dropping it.

    From ideas come answers, so your ideas are good to see. For me they simply don't work.... and I'm not trolling you or being nasty... just the way I see it.

    ... and I 'missed' that because you never said it... "wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader." The only place this line is found is in your reply to me giving me hell for not seeing it in the first message... that it doesn't appear in.

    What you said was: "this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints" -- which might imply "wvw-focused guilds".. or just guilds in wvw... and "shared guild-blueprints", which implies distribution by the commander or someone else... but doesn't define what you mean.

    If you're going to come after me for something I didn't read, please make sure it was actually said in the first place. I stand by all my comments.

    "this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints"

    fourth sentence

    @melandru.3876 said:
    a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

    the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building it
    supply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

    =>>>>>> this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints <<<<<<=

    which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

    go figure

    did i make i clear enough now

    if the commander is not in the guild/guiuld leader how would he even have access to the guild-blueprints, to distribute

    YOU ARE TRYING TOO HARD TO BAIL OUT NOW

  • Balthazzarr.1349Balthazzarr.1349 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 23, 2019

    @melandru.3876 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @melandru.3876 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @melandru.3876 said:
    a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

    the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building it
    supply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

    this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints

    which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

    go figure

    nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...

    did you even read the full sentence? because i can tell you didn't

    wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader.
    where is the error in that?

    that would only be a issue for pugmanders, and those can't be taken serious anyway lol

    isn't it GUILD wars for a reason? as all ready said in my first post, which you read 7%

    "distributed by the guild leader..." yes I missed that.... No reason to get cranky about it. The bottom line is that when I'm commanding I don't want people throwing siege down when most people don't know where and how to place it, and that's important. When I'm dropping siege I drop it quickly and where I want it. If I have to tell people where to drop each one that would defeat the whole purpose of having the siege placement function staying on me so I can drop multiple items.

    As for consuming supply to drop siege? no thanks... I'd rather be able to drop a few catas for example and build two if that's all we can build for some reason without having to waste a handful of supplies on the third one just for dropping it.

    From ideas come answers, so your ideas are good to see. For me they simply don't work.... and I'm not trolling you or being nasty... just the way I see it.

    ... and I 'missed' that because you never said it... "wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader." The only place this line is found is in your reply to me giving me hell for not seeing it in the first message... that it doesn't appear in.

    What you said was: "this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints" -- which might imply "wvw-focused guilds".. or just guilds in wvw... and "shared guild-blueprints", which implies distribution by the commander or someone else... but doesn't define what you mean.

    If you're going to come after me for something I didn't read, please make sure it was actually said in the first place. I stand by all my comments.

    "this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints"

    fourth sentence

    oh dear... and you didn't read my whole message either... see? It happens... lol. That's exactly what I said and explained why it wasn't what you said you wrote... let's just drop it and let the thread carry on.. we could go back and forth not reading each other's msgs all day and make people, other than us.. insane. :P

    ... and the reason it's Guild Wars has nothing to do with us having guilds. If you read the Lore for the original GW you will see what I mean. :)

    Just another WvW lifer who'll never say die... while dying again and again!

  • Balthazzarr.1349Balthazzarr.1349 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @melandru.3876 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @melandru.3876 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @melandru.3876 said:
    a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

    the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building it
    supply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

    this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints

    which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

    go figure

    nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...

    did you even read the full sentence? because i can tell you didn't

    wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader.
    where is the error in that?

    that would only be a issue for pugmanders, and those can't be taken serious anyway lol

    isn't it GUILD wars for a reason? as all ready said in my first post, which you read 7%

    "distributed by the guild leader..." yes I missed that.... No reason to get cranky about it. The bottom line is that when I'm commanding I don't want people throwing siege down when most people don't know where and how to place it, and that's important. When I'm dropping siege I drop it quickly and where I want it. If I have to tell people where to drop each one that would defeat the whole purpose of having the siege placement function staying on me so I can drop multiple items.

    As for consuming supply to drop siege? no thanks... I'd rather be able to drop a few catas for example and build two if that's all we can build for some reason without having to waste a handful of supplies on the third one just for dropping it.

    From ideas come answers, so your ideas are good to see. For me they simply don't work.... and I'm not trolling you or being nasty... just the way I see it.

    ... and I 'missed' that because you never said it... "wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader." The only place this line is found is in your reply to me giving me hell for not seeing it in the first message... that it doesn't appear in.

    What you said was: "this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints" -- which might imply "wvw-focused guilds".. or just guilds in wvw... and "shared guild-blueprints", which implies distribution by the commander or someone else... but doesn't define what you mean.

    If you're going to come after me for something I didn't read, please make sure it was actually said in the first place. I stand by all my comments.

    "this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints"

    fourth sentence

    @melandru.3876 said:
    a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

    the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building it
    supply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

    =>>>>>> this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints <<<<<<=

    which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

    go figure

    did i make i clear enough now

    if the commander is not in the guild/guiuld leader how would he even have access to the guild-blueprints, to distribute

    YOU ARE TRYING TOO HARD TO BAIL OUT NOW

    I'm bailing out of nothing... although you continue to be condescending.... I stand by everything I said.. period. I don't support your suggestion in any way shape or form... respectfully.

    Just another WvW lifer who'll never say die... while dying again and again!

  • Anput.4620Anput.4620 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2019

    @Karnasis.6892 said:

    @bigo.9037 said:

    From a game design standpoint, where the
    map(s) are an open battlefield, it is bad that it's SO easy to avoid certain people. Necros who have low mobility just flying right past you, without him being in any sort of danger unless there are multiple players that can try to dismount him or a slb.

    You're supposed to sort of ""be in danger"" as soon as you leave your spawn area. There used to be a reason to take high mobility utility skills or weapons. Now it doesn't matter nearly as much.

    See I don't know why people care that much about it. It's not like your losing out on anything by having "some" people walk by freely than others. I haven't had an issue getting fights since the warclaw has come out, and most of the roamers I know are in the same boat. Some even say their fights have increased since then since people run back to them faster.

    Warclaws are part of the mobility toolkit, you still would want some of those utility skills since some can be beneficial in combat (and some aren't). It's not like everyone is on their mount 24/7. There are times people can't or won't be on them.

    Still didn't answer why from a game-design standpoint you shouldnt be able to fight it every time. One has the chance of 100% non-interaction meaning it is flawed in a mode where no one has to care about objectives if they don't want tro, while the other is fair game. See; literally every other game with open PvP.

    This works in instanced PvP games like MOBA's or Spvp because you are forced to care about the objective, in WvW 90% don't care and it doesn't make a difference/matter besides ppt(which just needs you killing a sentry every now and then) for 100%.

    There are no stakes, i am not upset if poeple get away in other games like my MOBA or BR. When my enemy mid ragequit i didn't think "darn i can't kill them now" i thought "free lane win game".

    WvW is either about PPT(pugs, GOB farmers) or the PvP(Roamers, fight guilds) for most poeple, nobody cares about jack for the most part otherwise.

    Also the whole dangerous warzone thing they mentioned.

  • Karnasis.6892Karnasis.6892 Member ✭✭✭

    @Anput.4620 said:

    Still didn't answer why from a game-design standpoint you shouldnt be able to fight it every time. One has the chance of 100% non-interaction meaning it is flawed in a mode where no one has to care about objectives if they don't want tro, while the other is fair game. See; literally every other game with open PvP.

    Because the mode isn't JUST pvp. And according to you it's a sandbox, where you get to choose what you want to do. By your own logic if I don't want to pvp I shouldn't have to, just like you shouldn't have to take objectives because you are only looking for fights.

    Also, there are already builds that really don't encourage fights either. Nike warriors for example can run and run and run, that basically is like 99% non interaction with other players. Or if a Mesmer uses Mimic/Blink or a thief uses shortbow/shadowstep. All of these things cause non-interaction if someone wanted to. It gives the other classes that don't have those options ways to also have the same level of non-interaction. Not saying I particularly use those skills, as I like fighting, but if someone runs away I'm not really upset at it. I move on..... like you should.

  • misterman.1530misterman.1530 Member ✭✭✭

    @ArchonWing.9480 said:
    Real life arguments don't make sense in a game.... I should be able to kill my own teammates then.

    I think there should be a facility that, if enough established people (guild leaders, etc. Anet knows who plays on a server and how often) mark a player, that player then is killable by players on their own server, cannot drop siege anywhere, cannot pull tacts, and has a mark above their head indicating a "spy" which also applies a massive debuff (no stealth, for instance).

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Etterwyn.5263 said:

    @Kylden Ar.3724 said:

    @DAN.7314 said:
    Except in real life when a spy is caught they kill them. End of story.

    @Etterwyn.5263 said:
    I kind of have mixed feelings, because in war, double agents and spies are part of the ordeal. But I understand how annoying it is.

    Game needs a vote to tag as spy, which puts them as an enemy status. Takes like 10 votes and lasts for an hour. They get auto targeted at spawn by defenders. So they need to hide on map for an hour or get out of WvW.

    Of course the obvious problem with this is the inevitable "my 9 friends and I don't like you, so we're going to prevent you from playing." I don't have an answer to the griefing problem, but I can tell you any system that allows players to control whether other players can participate will become a griefing method in itself.

    Yep. Remember "other players are a good thing" is one of gw2's core principles. Introducing another way for players to troll each other isn't a very good solution to players trolling each other . . .

  • Bigpapasmurf.5623Bigpapasmurf.5623 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @melandru.3876 said:
    a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

    the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building it
    supply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

    this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints

    which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

    go figure

    I spam paper siege prints as my strat for solo'ing tower lords and their NPC's. Helps with adding targets for them to focus on.

    Red = Dead...or someone runs away. Either way it's gone.
    twitch.tv/TRMC
    Lover of Jumping puzzles, Squirrels, WvW, and Taimi
    Co-Leader of SOmething inAPpropriate {SOAP}