Perceived toxicity

[panzerdragon.8791]

Idk. Anecdotes don't do much but all my time in the game is on pugs in t4 and raids. People get annoyed when failing and that's about it. One day I'll find out what a bear bow ranger is but it sounds funny.

Lows dps output , trash builds, and mechanic failure will get people trashed on. If you don't nuke ur team every few seconds you are fine. If you do nuke your team constantly in end game content either you skipped to t4 too fast or the raid guides were not studied.

It's really odd about this toxicity thing. In my experience the more toxic the lfg post is the faster we clear our content and move on. It's usually the generic lf hb alac post that result in hour long t4 runs.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

@yann.1946 said:

@"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:It's no lie. It's personal experience. It has happened in this game, and it has happened in other games. Nearly every game I've played, whether it be MMOs or card battle games or even just regular sports, has had this exact same problem. No matter how niche, nor matter how broadly it appealed, it has the same toxicity issues. This is because toxic people exist, and the same personality traits that make them toxic also make them try really hard in silly and pointless endeavors. I've seen Giraffes, stomping around and being yellow and spotted. It'll take a whole hell of a lot to convince me that Giraffes aren't real, and accusations against my character are not sufficient evidence.

We'll these things are not mutually exclusive. Nobodies disputing toxic people exist. But saying the MAJORITY is wrong, like not a difference of opinion wrong but factually wrong. As their are lots of groups without toxicity problems.

In my opinion people are conflating experiencing 1 toxic encounter with "the majority of players in xyz gamemode are toxic".

There's still a correlation. It just works in the other way. If we presume that the majority of raiders aren't toxic, we still have to deal with the disproportionately large number of toxic players who also happen to be raiders. Whether you want to call it a majority or minority depends on what degree you consider silence to be consent.

[yann.1946]

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:It's no lie. It's personal experience. It has happened in this game, and it has happened in other games. Nearly every game I've played, whether it be MMOs or card battle games or even just regular sports, has had this exact same problem. No matter how niche, nor matter how broadly it appealed, it has the same toxicity issues. This is because toxic people exist, and the same personality traits that make them toxic also make them try really hard in silly and pointless endeavors. I've seen Giraffes, stomping around and being yellow and spotted. It'll take a whole hell of a lot to convince me that Giraffes aren't real, and accusations against my character are not sufficient evidence.

We'll these things are not mutually exclusive. Nobodies disputing toxic people exist. But saying the MAJORITY is wrong, like not a difference of opinion wrong but factually wrong. As their are lots of groups without toxicity problems.

In my opinion people are conflating experiencing 1 toxic encounter with "the majority of players in xyz gamemode are toxic".

There's still a correlation. It just works in the other way. If we presume that the majority of raiders aren't toxic, we still have to deal with the disproportionately large number of toxic players who also happen to be raiders. Whether you want to call it a majority or minority depends on what degree you consider silence to be consent.

This line of reasoning doesn't make much sense to me, as even if I grant you that most toxic players raid, it's still a minority within the community. The silence is mostly a consequence from the fact that most groups don't have toxic players. So I wouldn't call it consent. Otherwise by that logic we should call open world toxic.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

Well, it works like this: all Squares are Rhombuses, and all Rhombuses are Parallelograms. Clearly, not all Parallelograms are Squares, but it is also clear that all Squares are Parallelograms, so there is still a necessary relationship there. Take this, and apply it to GW2. Yes, not all raiders are toxic. But, most toxic players are raiders. So, there is still a necessary relationship there. If the majority of terrible interpersonal interactions happen with raiders, then it doesn't matter if most raiders aren't mean.

The silence = consent thing is about where the moral duties of players lie. You can make a good argument that it is not only the duty of somebody to not be immoral, but to fight immorality actively. That to not fight against evil is, in itself, giving consent for evil to exist. I.E. if there is a stray cat in your house, and you don't drive it away, then it is understood by the cat that it is O.K. to be in your house. This isn't just about the general lack of communication of the playerbase, but the lack of communication when an incident happens. When one person starts personally insulting another in the group for perceived slights, the moral thing to do is to give defense and/or leave the team as to not encourage the toxicity of that player. So, when somebody remains silent, this conveys the message that they either agree with the first person but just don't want to talk, or they are indifferent and are fine with whatever outcome happens.

The natural response to the under-performance of a person IRL is to help them perform. I.E. if somebody has trouble walking, you lift them onto your shoulder and carry them through. But, in an MMO with anonymity and limitless replacements, the natural response is to kick somebody when they are down and get angry at that person for being in the way. This doubles the hurt and makes players hate each other.

[Cyndercat.7615]

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:Well, it works like this: all Squares are Rhombuses, and all Rhombuses are Parallelograms. Clearly, not all Parallelograms are Squares, but it is also clear that all Squares are Parallelograms, so there is still a necessary relationship there. Take this, and apply it to GW2. Yes, not all raiders are toxic. But, most toxic players are raiders. So, there is still a necessary relationship there. If the majority of terrible interpersonal interactions happen with raiders, then it doesn't matter if most raiders aren't mean.

The silence = consent thing is about where the moral duties of players lie. You can make a good argument that it is not only the duty of somebody to not be immoral, but to fight immorality actively. That to not fight against evil is, in itself, giving consent for evil to exist. I.E. if there is a stray cat in your house, and you don't drive it away, then it is understood by the cat that it is O.K. to be in your house. This isn't just about the general lack of communication of the playerbase, but the lack of communication when an incident happens. When one person starts personally insulting another in the group for perceived slights, the moral thing to do is to give defense and/or leave the team as to not encourage the toxicity of that player. So, when somebody remains silent, this conveys the message that they either agree with the first person but just don't want to talk, or they are indifferent and are fine with whatever outcome happens.

The natural response to the under-performance of a person IRL is to help them perform. I.E. if somebody has trouble walking, you lift them onto your shoulder and carry them through. But, in an MMO with anonymity and limitless replacements, the natural response is to kick somebody when they are down and get angry at that person for being in the way. This doubles the hurt and makes players hate each other.

You have no way of knowing whatsoever if the majority of toxic players are in raids in this game. You have only your own anecdotal evidence which is pretty worthless.My experience suggests that PVP has the overwhelming percentage of toxic players, with 'play how i want' casual players coming up second. I have seen far, far more toxicity from open world players than I have ever experienced in a raid.

The reality of it is, any content that requires a base level of competence from your teammates to succeed has the chance to cause tension or attract toxic players. Just look at auric basin on a meta that doesnt oneshot.

[panzerdragon.8791]

Well I would say the natural response to underperforming in real life is indifference. When it costs more to find new bodies than to help people then we see more altruism. From the perspective of players in the hobby we are paying ourselves to play. What's the point of wasting time on under performance when there is readily available talent lying around. Especially in the dps rolls there is little reason to keep a bad player around.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

@zombyturtle.5980 said:

@"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:Well, it works like this: all Squares are Rhombuses, and all Rhombuses are Parallelograms. Clearly, not all Parallelograms are Squares, but it is also clear that all Squares are Parallelograms, so there is still a necessary relationship there. Take this, and apply it to GW2. Yes, not all raiders are toxic. But, most toxic players are raiders. So, there is still a necessary relationship there. If the majority of terrible interpersonal interactions happen with raiders, then it doesn't matter if most raiders aren't mean.

The silence = consent thing is about where the moral duties of players lie. You can make a good argument that it is not only the duty of somebody to not be immoral, but to fight immorality actively. That to not fight against evil is, in itself, giving consent for evil to exist. I.E. if there is a stray cat in your house, and you don't drive it away, then it is understood by the cat that it is O.K. to be in your house. This isn't just about the general lack of communication of the playerbase, but the lack of communication when an incident happens. When one person starts personally insulting another in the group for perceived slights, the moral thing to do is to give defense and/or leave the team as to not encourage the toxicity of that player. So, when somebody remains silent, this conveys the message that they either agree with the first person but just don't want to talk, or they are indifferent and are fine with whatever outcome happens.

The natural response to the under-performance of a person IRL is to help them perform. I.E. if somebody has trouble walking, you lift them onto your shoulder and carry them through. But, in an MMO with anonymity and limitless replacements, the natural response is to kick somebody when they are down and get angry at that person for being in the way. This doubles the hurt and makes players hate each other.

You have no way of knowing whatsoever if the majority of toxic players are in raids in this game. You have only your own anecdotal evidence which is pretty worthless.My experience suggests that PVP has the overwhelming percentage of toxic players, with 'play how i want' casual players coming up second. I have seen far, far more toxicity from open world players than I have ever experienced in a raid.

The reality of it is, any content that requires a base level of competence from your teammates to succeed has the chance to cause tension or attract toxic players. Just look at auric basin on a meta that doesnt oneshot.

Nobody has a way of knowing, because nobody does a detailed statistical analysis of toxicity in these games. There is ONLY anecdotal evidence, and any claims to the contrary are outright lies. The mistake you're making here is you're telling me that what I've seen repeated over and over again is worthless because it isn't formalized. One, you're trying to convince me here, and that is a terrible way to do it. Two, you're being hypocritical, because you have provided absolutely no evidence of your own. You've just asserted that it exists, and never shown any. I demand proof of due diligence. I want a comprehensive, tabulated collection of all interpersonal spats across PVE to demonstrate that raids and raiders are not anomalously responsible. Otherwise, quit calling people liars and work under the assumption that when somebody says something, they're telling the truth.

Consider this: the problem is so bad that it is a transcendental stereotype, the OP had to make a thread specifically addressing the issue, and in this very thread the number one response is that all of the non-raiders are just bad and selfish. It's pretty self-evident. This happens every time this kind of discussion goes up, and without a hint of irony the group in question always says "Well, the other guys are just wimps, terrible wastes of time, they don't deserve to be here, etc." Doesn't matter which game or hobby it is, the response is always the same. The first thing you did upon meeting an iota of resistance was to insult me personally. Know what that means? You yourself are proof of the very problem you deny.

Make no mistake, PVP has its problems, too. But... we're not in the PVP forum, now are we? I guess I should specify that this is all about players in PVE, since PVP is sequestered away as its own separate game type. This is all an aside, however, because where most PVE players have their worst interactions is in fractals and raids.

[yann.1946]

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:Well, it works like this: all Squares are Rhombuses, and all Rhombuses are Parallelograms. Clearly, not all Parallelograms are Squares, but it is also clear that all Squares are Parallelograms, so there is still a necessary relationship there. Take this, and apply it to GW2. Yes, not all raiders are toxic. But, most toxic players are raiders. So, there is still a necessary relationship there. If the majority of terrible interpersonal interactions happen with raiders, then it doesn't matter if most raiders aren't mean.

But that correlation is pretty meaningless, the only thing that should matter is how likely one is to experience toxicity. To me another problem with this correlation is that it ignores all the forms of toxicity which aren't really related to raids as you described before.The placing of stuff in chests forexample.

The silence = consent thing is about where the moral duties of players lie. You can make a good argument that it is not only the duty of somebody to not be immoral, but to fight immorality actively. That to not fight against evil is, in itself, giving consent for evil to exist. I.E. if there is a stray cat in your house, and you don't drive it away, then it is understood by the cat that it is O.K. to be in your house. This isn't just about the general lack of communication of the playerbase, but the lack of communication when an incident happens. When one person starts personally insulting another in the group for perceived slights, the moral thing to do is to give defense and/or leave the team as to not encourage the toxicity of that player. So, when somebody remains silent, this conveys the message that they either agree with the first person but just don't want to talk, or they are indifferent and are fine with whatever outcome happens.

Sure but it gets talked about if it happens, in my experience atleast. Although if the toxic player is from a guild then it probably gets adressed in guildchat etc.This gets compounded by the fact that not everyone views the same things as toxic as Laila pointed out.

The natural response to the under-performance of a person IRL is to help them perform. I.E. if somebody has trouble walking, you lift them onto your shoulder and carry them through. But, in an MMO with anonymity and limitless replacements, the natural response is to kick somebody when they are down and get angry at that person for being in the way. This doubles the hurt and makes players hate each other.

We'll tbh thats not really the natural response of most people, although it would be nice if it was.But not wanting to spend you're time to help someone improve is not really toxic though. it can be perceived that way though.

BTW what is the number one response you talked about with Zombie?

[maddoctor.2738]

@"yann.1946" said:So as a question: What are you're suggestions to reduce this problems.

My only suggestion to help reduce this "problem": Stop replying to posts talking about this so called "toxicity".In almost every single thread talking about toxicity, the OP is either the actual toxic one, or we simply don't get enough information about the situation, leading to the "toxicity just happens, move along", when in reality it's unlikely that there is any form of actual toxicity at work (other than the one making the claims in the first place)And I don't think there is any way to stop players from posting about toxicity without knowing what toxicity is, they will always do it, just ignore them, or set them straight when the OP is toxic, and move on.

It's up to those that claim toxicity exists, to prove that it does.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

@zombyturtle.5980 said:

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:Well, it works like this: all Squares are Rhombuses, and all Rhombuses are Parallelograms. Clearly, not all Parallelograms are Squares, but it is also clear that all Squares are Parallelograms, so there is still a necessary relationship there. Take this, and apply it to GW2. Yes, not all raiders are toxic. But, most toxic players are raiders. So, there is still a necessary relationship there. If the majority of terrible interpersonal interactions happen with raiders, then it doesn't matter if most raiders aren't mean.

The silence = consent thing is about where the moral duties of players lie. You can make a good argument that it is not only the duty of somebody to not be immoral, but to fight immorality actively. That to not fight against evil is, in itself, giving consent for evil to exist. I.E. if there is a stray cat in your house, and you don't drive it away, then it is understood by the cat that it is O.K. to be in your house. This isn't just about the general lack of communication of the playerbase, but the lack of communication when an incident happens. When one person starts personally insulting another in the group for perceived slights, the moral thing to do is to give defense and/or leave the team as to not encourage the toxicity of that player. So, when somebody remains silent, this conveys the message that they either agree with the first person but just don't want to talk, or they are indifferent and are fine with whatever outcome happens.

The natural response to the under-performance of a person IRL is to help them perform. I.E. if somebody has trouble walking, you lift them onto your shoulder and carry them through. But, in an MMO with anonymity and limitless replacements, the natural response is to kick somebody when they are down and get angry at that person for being in the way. This doubles the hurt and makes players hate each other.

You have no way of knowing whatsoever if the majority of toxic players are in raids in this game. You have only your own anecdotal evidence which is pretty worthless.My experience suggests that PVP has the overwhelming percentage of toxic players, with 'play how i want' casual players coming up second. I have seen far, far more toxicity from open world players than I have ever experienced in a raid.

The reality of it is, any content that requires a base level of competence from your teammates to succeed has the chance to cause tension or attract toxic players. Just look at auric basin on a meta that doesnt oneshot.

Nobody has a way of knowing, because nobody does a detailed statistical analysis of toxicity in these games. There is ONLY anecdotal evidence, and any claims to the contrary are outright lies. The mistake you're making here is you're telling me that what I've seen repeated over and over again is worthless because it isn't formalized. One, you're trying to convince me here, and that is a terrible way to do it. Two, you're being hypocritical, because you have provided absolutely no evidence of your own. You've just asserted that it exists, and never shown any. I demand proof of due diligence. I want a comprehensive, tabulated collection of all interpersonal spats across PVE to demonstrate that raids and raiders are not anomalously responsible. Otherwise, quit calling people liars and work under the assumption that when somebody says something, they're telling the truth.

Except, your entire claim is based on anecdotal evidence and the following paragraphs of deductions. It is not the other side that has to prove players are not toxic, it is you who would have to prove they are. At least if we go by the base assumption that all players are not toxic, until proven otherwise. Similar to innocent until proven guilty. You have not provided anything besides personal anecdotal evidence, which by the way has only shown players with different demands from roles and limited skill sets meeting up each other. If we assume all players are toxic as baseline, good luck proving that the vast majority of open world players are not toxic.

So yes, IF you portray your anecdotal evidence as fact, while denying the other side their due process, in this case innocence until proven guilty. One might not call you a liar, but at the very least biased.

Simply put:Unless you can prove that all raiders or a huge majority of raiders are toxic, be so kind and refrain from making this claim. Or if you do, make very sure you mark it as OPINION. It should come as no surprise that people take offense by this kind of unproven blanket statements. Similar to how you seem to take offense to be called a liar. Both seem very relatable and does not need to be due to being toxic.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

@yann.1946 said:

@"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:Well, it works like this: all Squares are Rhombuses, and all Rhombuses are Parallelograms. Clearly, not all Parallelograms are Squares, but it is also clear that all Squares are Parallelograms, so there is still a necessary relationship there. Take this, and apply it to GW2. Yes, not all raiders are toxic. But, most toxic players are raiders. So, there is still a necessary relationship there. If the majority of terrible interpersonal interactions happen with raiders, then it doesn't matter if most raiders aren't mean.

But that correlation is pretty meaningless, the only thing that should matter is how likely one is to experience toxicity. To me another problem with this correlation is that it ignores all the forms of toxicity which aren't really related to raids as you described before.The placing of stuff in chests forexample.

The silence = consent thing is about where the moral duties of players lie. You can make a good argument that it is not only the duty of somebody to not be immoral, but to fight immorality actively. That to not fight against evil is, in itself, giving consent for evil to exist. I.E. if there is a stray cat in your house, and you don't drive it away, then it is understood by the cat that it is O.K. to be in your house. This isn't just about the general lack of communication of the playerbase, but the lack of communication when an incident happens. When one person starts personally insulting another in the group for perceived slights, the moral thing to do is to give defense and/or leave the team as to not encourage the toxicity of that player. So, when somebody remains silent, this conveys the message that they either agree with the first person but just don't want to talk, or they are indifferent and are fine with whatever outcome happens.

Sure but it gets talked about if it happens, in my experience atleast. Although if the toxic player is from a guild then it probably gets adressed in guildchat etc.This gets compounded by the fact that not everyone views the same things as toxic as Laila pointed out.

The natural response to the under-performance of a person IRL is to help them perform. I.E. if somebody has trouble walking, you lift them onto your shoulder and carry them through. But, in an MMO with anonymity and limitless replacements, the natural response is to kick somebody when they are down and get angry at that person for being in the way. This doubles the hurt and makes players hate each other.

We'll tbh thats not really the natural response of most people, although it would be nice if it was.But not wanting to spend you're time to help someone improve is not really toxic though. it can be perceived that way though.

BTW what is the number one response you talked about with Zombie?

The correlation is pretty meaningful, because it does indicate how likely somebody is to experience toxicity. Think of it like this: imagine there are a bunch of restaurants. The chances of getting food poisoning from any of them is less than 1%, except for the sushi place where it is 5%. Even though you're most likely not going to get food poisoning if you eat at the sushi place, that sushi is still going to get a reputation for making people sick. The poisoning rate is way higher than it should be, and also when people start swapping stories about getting sick, the sushi place will stick out far more than any other. The sushi place will get the reputation: don't eat here if you don't want food poisoning.

The number one response is the most common response in these kinds of threads, and coincidentally it is also the first response in this thread. This also ties in to why the toxicity isn't relative. Gratitude is necessary for happiness, and to have gratitude you need to have scope. The notion that all of the complaints just come from bad players who want to be carried all starts from a very perverse assumption: "I am owed victory, and I am owed other people's performance." In reality, you aren't even guaranteed another person's presence. There isn't always going to be someone there to help you, let alone at 80% benchmark. Players coming together to beat a hard boss is a collaborative effort, and unless a player is doing nothing at all, then they are contributing meaningfully. That isn't what you hear on the forums, though. Instead, they're all obsessed with "leeches," which they define as somebody who doesn't do enough DPS. It is as if they assume that they always owned the contribution that other players give, and another player giving less is tantamount to stealing.

This also comes with the perverse implication that anyone who doesn't do well in raids is deliberately trying to steal the effort of other players. It's all really silly, because the average player doesn't think like that at all. The idea that they are owed victory, or that lesser contribution is equivalent to stealing, the idea that their pretend fun-time is extremely valuable and limited, those ideas don't cross their minds. The average player thinks the same way the rest of the world does: "If I'm helping a guy unload a truck, I haven't somehow stolen something from him if I can't carry as much as him." They see playing the game as having fun, and not much beyond that. So, what happens when a casual steps into a raid is they enter a world with bizarre (and often arbitrary) expectations that they don't understand, and are personally insulted as being evil if they don't immediately kneel to those expectations. It doesn't help that the raiders lack the perspective or the wit to understand what is happening.

If you want to fix the toxicity issue surrounding raids, you have to fix this ungratefulness. But there's a problem with fixing it: If the game's population is big enough to permit it, then being toxic works out to the raider's benefit. It is easier just to get rid of somebody, so long as there's another person to replace them. It is a short term benefit of convenience, at the expense of a long-term dwindling population.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

@Cyninja.2954 said:Except, your entire claim is based on anecdotal evidence and the following paragraphs of deductions. It is not the other side that has to prove players are not toxic, it is you who would have to prove they are.

No it isn't. This thread is about dispelling toxicity, and the association with it, from the raider community. In order to do so, the onus is on you to dispel all of the testimonies from players about toxicity in raiding, and to do this in a manner that is itself not toxic. It must be taken as a given that all of these experiences are real, because otherwise accusing every disenfranchised player of being a liar is proof positive of toxicity in the raiding community.

@Cyninja.2954 said:You have not provided anything besides personal anecdotal evidence

And the deductions... as you mentioned above...

@Cyninja.2954 said:Simply put:Unless you can prove that all raiders or a huge majority of raiders are toxic, be so kind and refrain from making this claim

I never made that claim. Silence = consent is waxing philosophic.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:Nobody has a way of knowing, because nobody does a detailed statistical analysis of toxicity in these games. There is ONLY anecdotal evidence, and any claims to the contrary are outright lies.

The thing is, in almost every single case about "toxicity" posted on these forums, the one that was actually toxic was the one complaining about it. Claims about toxicity are also more often than not proven to be outright lies.

[Ooops.8694]

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:Well, it works like this: all Squares are Rhombuses, and all Rhombuses are Parallelograms. Clearly, not all Parallelograms are Squares, but it is also clear that all Squares are Parallelograms, so there is still a necessary relationship there. Take this, and apply it to GW2. Yes, not all raiders are toxic. But, most toxic players are raiders. So, there is still a necessary relationship there. If the majority of terrible interpersonal interactions happen with raiders, then it doesn't matter if most raiders aren't mean.No, that's exactly not how it works: Just claiming that most toxic players are raiders and then deducing "facts" from that wrong assumption is completely meaningless, dumb and just a cheap way of trying to present a claim as a fact.I mean c'mon... Next we are talking about how the moon is made from cheese and why that's the reason pigs can fly...

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:No it isn't. This thread is about dispelling toxicity, and the association with it, from the raider community. In order to do so, the onus is on you to dispel all of the testimonies from players about toxicity in raiding, and to do this in a manner that is itself not toxic. It must be taken as a given that all of these experiences are real, because otherwise accusing every disenfranchised player of being a liar is proof positive of toxicity in the raiding community.

So, you're basically saying: My anecdotal evidence is true, your's is not. And if you aren't willing to disproof any single case of "i wants heard that..." that's a proof of your toxicity all along.That's a very impressive way of bending facts and trying to "win" a discussion instead of having an objective talk.

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:It's not so simple. A recent example I saw of this was in fractals, CM100. We were running the standard Healbrand + Alacrigade + 3 DPS. This run seemed like any other, until we got to Artsariiv. It crashed pretty quickly. I noticed that everyone except me and the HB were being thrown around like rag dolls. In the middle of the attempt, a series of complaints were thrown out that the HB was bad because he wasn't giving stability to the group. The standard Healbrand build at the time was similar to the one now, in that it doesn't run Mantra of Liberation. It runs Feel My Wrath, for quickness and fury.

Of course, a fight broke out between the HB and the other DPS players. The DPSers were angry because they expected the HB to bring Mantra of Liberation... without voicing this concern before the fight. As a consequence of this, they outright refused to dodge Artsariiv's or the elite's ground slam, even after it became clear that they weren't getting stability. They didn't run stunbreaks, either. The HB didn't want to change his lineup, because he was using those skills to buff everyone. He insisted that the other players just dodge the shockwaves, which was standard in PUG runs. But the other guys still outright refused to dodge, and began hurling insults. In the middle of the second attempt, after the first CC-induced death, a series of cascading quits ended the run.Thanks for making that point. We are constantly trying to tell you that the real problem aren't those bad elitist raiders but the guys getting toxic once you refuse to carry theit lazy rear parts. And you give us an example of exactly this: A whole group of bad players, one not willing to change their skills for a fight, and a bunch of guys not even willing to do such a basic thing as dodging mechanics. And then it all breaks apart and they react in a toxic way and even fail on purpose, just because one refused to carry them.So sadly -as there's obviously not a single competent player but much toxicity involved- that's exactly not an example for the point you're trying to make.

[Despot.3048]

No it isn't. This thread is about dispelling toxicity, and the association with it, from the raider community. In order to do so, the onus is on you to dispel all of the testimonies from players about toxicity in raiding, and to do this in a manner that is itself not toxic. It must be taken as a given that all of these experiences are real, because otherwise accusing every disenfranchised player of being a liar is proof positive of toxicity in the raiding community.

After reading some of the posts made by these "disenfranchised players", the clearer it is to me that such players have no business doing raids. While i'm perfectly willing to admit that there's some toxicity in the raiding community, there are also many new raiders coming in, not willing to listen to advice or simply wasting 9 other peoples time.Scroll down the page and you can see complaints from people who "dont want to play meta", who insist on Anet doing a LFG tool that will allow them to skip the hassle of forming their own group, complaining about people asking for KP as a show of experience.

There are ways to get into raiding and there are people perfectly willing to teach, but from what I've seen so far, a fair number of people just want to sit on their behinds and whine and complain.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:Except, your entire claim is based on anecdotal evidence and the following paragraphs of deductions. It is not the other side that has to prove players are not toxic, it is you who would have to prove they are.

No it isn't. This thread is about dispelling toxicity, and the association with it, from the raider community. In order to do so, the onus is on you to dispel all of the testimonies from players about toxicity in raiding, and to do this in a manner that is itself not toxic. It must be taken as a given that all of these experiences are real, because otherwise accusing every disenfranchised player of being a liar is proof positive of toxicity in the raiding community.

No, this thread is from an individual who addresses the perception of possible toxicity from a source, in this case the forums. Not the entire raiding community, in fact, most other players disagreed with this notion. As such, I'd first like proof that this claim is actually true.

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:You have not provided anything besides personal anecdotal evidence

And the deductions... as you mentioned above...

Exactly, deductions which, if untrue, would be akin to insults. Insults which players who might not fit the criteria would take personal, say players who are not toxic but feel as part of the raiding community.

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:Simply put:Unless you can prove that all raiders or a huge majority of raiders are toxic, be so kind and refrain from making this claim

I never made that claim.

and yet you treat the subject matter as though you had.

[yann.1946]

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:Well, it works like this: all Squares are Rhombuses, and all Rhombuses are Parallelograms. Clearly, not all Parallelograms are Squares, but it is also clear that all Squares are Parallelograms, so there is still a necessary relationship there. Take this, and apply it to GW2. Yes, not all raiders are toxic. But, most toxic players are raiders. So, there is still a necessary relationship there. If the majority of terrible interpersonal interactions happen with raiders, then it doesn't matter if most raiders aren't mean.

But that correlation is pretty meaningless, the only thing that should matter is how likely one is to experience toxicity. To me another problem with this correlation is that it ignores all the forms of toxicity which aren't really related to raids as you described before.The placing of stuff in chests forexample.

The silence = consent thing is about where the moral duties of players lie. You can make a good argument that it is not only the duty of somebody to not be immoral, but to fight immorality actively. That to not fight against evil is, in itself, giving consent for evil to exist. I.E. if there is a stray cat in your house, and you don't drive it away, then it is understood by the cat that it is O.K. to be in your house. This isn't just about the general lack of communication of the playerbase, but the lack of communication when an incident happens. When one person starts personally insulting another in the group for perceived slights, the moral thing to do is to give defense and/or leave the team as to not encourage the toxicity of that player. So, when somebody remains silent, this conveys the message that they either agree with the first person but just don't want to talk, or they are indifferent and are fine with whatever outcome happens.

Sure but it gets talked about if it happens, in my experience atleast. Although if the toxic player is from a guild then it probably gets adressed in guildchat etc.This gets compounded by the fact that not everyone views the same things as toxic as Laila pointed out.

The natural response to the under-performance of a person IRL is to help them perform. I.E. if somebody has trouble walking, you lift them onto your shoulder and carry them through. But, in an MMO with anonymity and limitless replacements, the natural response is to kick somebody when they are down and get angry at that person for being in the way. This doubles the hurt and makes players hate each other.

We'll tbh thats not really the natural response of most people, although it would be nice if it was.But not wanting to spend you're time to help someone improve is not really toxic though. it can be perceived that way though.

BTW what is the number one response you talked about with Zombie?

The correlation is pretty meaningful, because it does indicate how likely somebody is to experience toxicity. Think of it like this: imagine there are a bunch of restaurants. The chances of getting food poisoning from any of them is less than 1%, except for the sushi place where it is 5%. Even though you're most likely not going to get food poisoning if you eat at the sushi place, that sushi is still going to get a reputation for making people sick. The poisoning rate is way higher than it should be, and also when people start swapping stories about getting sick, the sushi place will stick out far more than any other. The sushi place will get the reputation: don't eat here if you don't want food poisoning.

I know what you mean, but thats not what that correlation represents if its real. It's more well you can get salmonella from badly prepared chicken. And for that reason some people will never eat chicken. Their are ofcourse cases of people getting salmonella, but is it a meaningful amount in any way?

The number one response is the most common response in these kinds of threads, and coincidentally it is also the first response in this thread. This also ties in to why the toxicity isn't relative. Gratitude is necessary for happiness, and to have gratitude you need to have scope. The notion that all of the complaints just come from bad players who want to be carried all starts from a very perverse assumption: "I am owed victory, and I am owed other people's performance." In reality, you aren't even guaranteed another person's presence. There isn't always going to be someone there to help you, let alone at 80% benchmark. Players coming together to beat a hard boss is a collaborative effort, and unless a player is doing nothing at all, then they are contributing meaningfully. That isn't what you hear on the forums, though. Instead, they're all obsessed with "leeches," which they define as somebody who doesn't do

enough DPS.

It is as if they assume that they always owned the contribution that other players give, and another player giving less is tantamount to stealing.

I agree that you aren't allowed a persons precense, but sometimes you are allowed their performance though. A friend of mine went on a joint hiking trip last summer, you would expect that everyone would bring hiking shoes right. You are owed this as a group, atleast thats what i would expect. Do you disagree?In that group somebody didn't bring walking shoes, essentially robbing people of some sights they would have seen otherwise.

This also comes with the perverse implication that anyone who doesn't do well in raids is deliberately trying to steal the effort of other players. It's all really silly, because the average player doesn't think like that at all. The idea that they are owed victory, or that lesser contribution is equivalent to stealing, the idea that their pretend fun-time is extremely valuable and limited, those ideas don't cross their minds. The average player thinks the same way the rest of the world does: "If I'm helping a guy unload a truck, I haven't somehow stolen something from him if I can't carry as much as him." They see playing the game as having fun, and not much beyond that. So, what happens when a casual steps into a raid is they enter a world with bizarre (and often arbitrary) expectations that they don't understand, and are personally insulted as being evil if they don't immediately kneel to those expectations. It doesn't help that the raiders lack the perspective or the wit to understand what is happening.

If you want to fix the toxicity issue surrounding raids, you have to fix this ungratefulness. But there's a problem with fixing it: If the game's population is big enough to permit it, then being toxic works out to the raider's benefit. It is easier just to get rid of somebody, so long as there's another person to replace them. It is a short term benefit of convenience, at the expense of a long-term dwindling population.

Quite a few people who i have seen complaining about raids haven't stept into raids. Some have ofcourse. Can these people be convinced by anything inside raids when they don't even enter it?

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

It is a shame that yann is the only person I can properly converse with, and I'm pretty sure they're an ESL.

@Ooops.8694 said:So, you're basically saying: My anecdotal evidence is true, your's is not.

I stopped there. In your attempt to be overly combative you've completely lost everything I've said.

@Cyninja.2954 said:No, this thread is from an individual who addresses the perception of possible toxicity from a source, in this case the forums. Not the entire raiding community, in fact, most other players disagreed with this notion. As such, I'd first like proof that this claim is actually true.

No it isn't.

@Cyninja.2954 said:Exactly, deductions which, if untrue, would be akin to insults. Insults which players who might not fit the criteria would take personal, say players who are not toxic but feel as part of the raiding community.

Now I'm confused. Before I cut the snippet out to show that you're contradicting yourself, and now these unspecified deductions are somehow also insults. I highly suspect that what you call a deduction and what actually is a deduction are two very different things.

@Cyninja.2954 said:and yet you treat the subject matter as though you had.

No I didn't.

---

@"yann.1946" said:I know what you mean, but thats not what that correlation represents if its real. It's more well you can get salmonella from badly prepared chicken. And for that reason some people will never eat chicken. Their are ofcourse cases of people getting salmonella, but is it a meaningful amount in any way?

I agree that you aren't allowed a persons precense, but sometimes you are allowed their performance though. A friend of mine went on a joint hiking trip last summer, you would expect that everyone would bring hiking shoes right. You are owed this as a group, atleast thats what i would expect. Do you disagree?In that group somebody didn't bring walking shoes, essentially robbing people of some sights they would have seen otherwise.

Quite a few people who i have seen complaining about raids haven't stept into raids. Some have ofcourse. Can these people be convinced by anything inside raids when they don't even enter it?

Sushi is raw fish. The exact numbers I gave aren't too important. It is just an example to show the mindset. Particularly, even if the chances of a toxic encounter in this game are low, if the chances are higher in raids, then people will avoid raids. Nobody knows what the real percentage of toxic players in raids are. When I say the problem is transcendental, I mean that this problem is much bigger than Guild Wars 2. Here's an

by Tyger, where he goes over the problem from 5 years ago. He has many other videos that also touch on the subject, but he also rambles and beats around the bush a lot. The short version is this: any place where you have "hardcore content," you're going to get hardcore people who do not mesh well with others. The raids in DCUO are toxic, the raids in WoW are toxic, and if there is some other game that has raids, then they'll be toxic, too, for the exact same reasons. It's been like this for... well over a decade.

This is why some people won't step into fractals, raids, or even dungeons. Raids coming to GW2 was a controversial move, and the original game was made without raids partly because Anet didn't want raid toxicity to be in the game. This is an age old problem, and there's not a lot of evidence that it has been fixed. Or even evidence that it can be fixed. MMOs aren't new. GW2 drew a large casual crowd at launch, full of people who had been burned by the hardcore players of other MMOs. They've learned their lesson, and all of that grief isn't worth the risk that this time, for no apparent reason, raids are a better place now. Hence, why I say the problem cannot be fixed.

Demanding a person's presence and demanding a person's performance is the same thing. In order to do something, they have to be there to do it. The fact is that the person who didn't bring hiking shoes didn't owe your friend a full trip with them as a companion. It sucks, but unfulfilled expectations always do. That's why they lead to unhappiness.

[voltaicbore.8012]

@"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

The short version is this: any place where you have "hardcore content," you're going to get hardcore people who do not mesh well with others. The raids in DCUO are toxic, the raids in WoW are toxic, and if there is some other game that has raids, then they'll be toxic, too, for the exact same reasons. It's been like this for... well over a decade.

This is why some people won't step into fractals, raids, or even dungeons. Raids coming to GW2 was a controversial move, and the original game was made without raids partly because Anet didn't want raid toxicity to be in the game. This is an age old problem, and there's not a lot of evidence that it has been fixed. Or even evidence that it can be fixed. MMOs aren't new. GW2 drew a large casual crowd at launch, full of people who had been burned by the hardcore players of other MMOs. They've learned their lesson, and all of that grief isn't worth the risk that this time, for no apparent reason, raids are a better place now. Hence, why I say the problem cannot be fixed.

As much as I disagree with your general contentions about necessity vs sufficiency when it comes to labeling the raiding community, I have to agree with you here.

I think the fundamental problem is well, well beyond just GW2. Anytime you have an in-game activity where your investment of time and effort carries a disproportionately high (relative to the rest of the game) risk of failure and no consolation prize for said failure, you'll get the age-old clash between players.

In my experience, the problem and conflict arises from two extremes: the high-performing elitists (who demand that PUG players conform to the meta or get lost), and the low-performing elitists who insist that they can play however inefficiently they want, but are still entitled to get carried. The vast majority of players seem to fall into a more reasonable middle ground. We even have some folks, like @LadyKitty.6120 who are obviously skilled and experienced, yet put a lot of effort into finding more forgiving builds and comps that are still powerful enough to successfully clear hard content.

I think what makes the GW2 raiding situation unique is how vocal and empowered the low-performing elitist group is. In other games, the baseline requirement to 'git gud' to an acceptable degree is taken for granted. GW2, for better or for worse, is extremely forgiving to people who are just awful at combat. Because so much of the game caters to this lower level of skill, it's hard to blame this group for feeling like they're the normal ones and raiding (along with the natural increase in group demands) is the alien presence. It's not just that the game's design allows the top players in an open world account to hard carry by doing 10x the damage of lower-tier players - it's that the game allows the lower-tier players to never find out just how hard they're getting carried.

As such, I don't think there's anything that could (or even should) be done regarding perceived toxicity. I just think the overall forgiving nature of GW2 PvE makes it a hugely uphill battle (that is also not worth the effort) to address how new folks feel about raids. The people who really want to raid will generally find a way in despite the perception, the people clamoring for carries will continue to be berated and ignored, and the elitists tend not to last too long in large numbers anyways. The rest of us will quietly go about our training runs and normal clears, as we always have.

[Ooops.8694]

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

@"Ooops.8694" said:So, you're basically saying: My anecdotal evidence is true, your's is not.

I stopped there. In your attempt to be overly combative you've completely lost everything I've said.

And the part before that you conveniently ignored because -while true- it didn't fit your narrative? So what did i lose from your text besides you stating untrue claims ("most toxic players are raiders") as facts, then deduce even more "facts" from there?But then, if you can't see the problem in your posts when being explicitly told how your arguing and deducing is worthless when based on an unproven claim, there's not much reason to go on with this...

[Teratus.2859]

@"Yasai.3549" said:

2. Refuse to use a meta build despite being new

See this is the bigest contributer of the toxicity for 2 simple reasons.

1: Metabuilds are not the only way to beat this content, plenty of groups/players have succeeded in raids without using Metabuilds.2: Most people want to play the content for fun and do not want to be bossed around and forced into playing a severely different class or playstyle that they have no idea how to use.. making them effectively useless and resulting in them possibly being berated for it.Good example being a Ranger player who's never used Druid before being forced into a support, healing role and not having the first clue how to play it.

Most people can't be bothered to deal with that kind of thing, and it's only reinforced by the negative stories the hear about in game or on the forums or reddit.

Reality is there is a toxicity problem perpetuated by some raiders and the so called "elite" players that has resulted in a minority of players putting a bunch of rules and expectations on raid content.. essentially demanding that everyone who wants to play the content must play the game in the very small amount of ways that they accept are the "right" ways to play the content, and so most players generally accepted that they were just not welcome there.´and it was not worth bothering to try.The end result was obvious, raid content ended up appealing to a very small minority of players and most just stopped caring about it.

Anet has tried to remedy this problem with strike missions, bringing easier, more forgiving raid style content to the game that is more easily accessable and welcoming to non raiders to get them interested in and slightly experienced in raid content.But the same toxic attitudes that turned people off raiding in the first place has spread to strike missions as well, becoming another game mode that a minority of players have put a bunch of rules and expectations on that has driven most players away despite that the content was designed for those players and not the toxic minority that ruined raids for most people in the first place.

This is not a new problem though, this same problem existed in fractals many years ago and Dungeons as well long before that.There has and likely always will be a toxic minority problem in GW2.. and any MMO for that matter because there will always be players who think that their way of playing the game is the right or only way to play the game.

In regards to raids and strikes.. sure there is an "optimal" way to play that content and get the fastest kills.. that isn't and never has been up for debate.But when you start restricting that content to only players who accept that "optimal" way to play.. then all you've succeeded in doing is making that content playable by a small minority of players where it will eventually stagnate, wither and die thanks to low population/interest... just like raids has in Gw2 and likely where the future of strikes is heading to as well.

At that point there will be a lot of whining from that minority of players about how unfair it is they Anet doesn't spend time and resources making content that most people won't play or even bother to try anymore.. while they refuse to accept that the reason most people won't try or play it is because of that minority of players and nothing else.

So what is the solution?Honestly, I don't think there is one.. Raider minotiry aint going to change their ways and the majority player base ain't going to change theirs either..What we can all agree on though is that without more players.. these raid game modes will be regarded as a failure and Anet will probably stop supporting them at some point.I think it's a safe bet that most players really wouldn't care though if that happened.. it's to be expected all things considered.

[Laila Lightness.8742]

@Teratus.2859 said:

@"Yasai.3549" said:

2. Refuse to use a meta build despite being new

See this is the bigest contributer of the toxicity for 2 simple reasons.

1: Metabuilds are not the only way to beat this content, plenty of groups/players have succeeded in raids without using Metabuilds.2: Most people want to play the content for fun and do not want to be bossed around and forced into playing a severely different class or playstyle that they have no idea how to use.. making them effectively useless and resulting in them possibly being berated for it.Good example being a Ranger player who's never used Druid before being forced into a support, healing role and not having the first clue how to play it.

Most people can't be bothered to deal with that kind of thing, and it's only reinforced by the negative stories the hear about in game or on the forums or reddit.

Reality is there is a toxicity problem perpetuated by some raiders and the so called "elite" players that has resulted in a minority of players putting a bunch of rules and expectations on raid content.. essentially demanding that everyone who wants to play the content must play the game in the very small amount of ways that they accept are the "right" ways to play the content, and so most players generally accepted that they were just not welcome there.´and it was not worth bothering to try.The end result was obvious, raid content ended up appealing to a very small minority of players and most just stopped caring about it.

Anet has tried to remedy this problem with strike missions, bringing easier, more forgiving raid style content to the game that is more easily accessable and welcoming to non raiders to get them interested in and slightly experienced in raid content.But the same toxic attitudes that turned people off raiding in the first place has spread to strike missions as well, becoming another game mode that a minority of players have put a bunch of rules and expectations on that has driven most players away despite that the content was designed for those players and not the toxic minority that ruined raids for most people in the first place.

This is not a new problem though, this same problem existed in fractals many years ago and Dungeons as well long before that.There has and likely always will be a toxic minority problem in GW2.. and any MMO for that matter because there will always be players who think that their way of playing the game is the right or only way to play the game.

In regards to raids and strikes.. sure there is an "optimal" way to play that content and get the fastest kills.. that isn't and never has been up for debate.But when you start restricting that content to only players who accept that "optimal" way to play.. then all you've succeeded in doing is making that content playable by a small minority of players where it will eventually stagnate, wither and die thanks to low population/interest... just like raids has in Gw2 and likely where the future of strikes is heading to as well.

At that point there will be a lot of whining from that minority of players about how unfair it is they Anet doesn't spend time and resources making content that most people won't play or even bother to try anymore.. while they refuse to accept that the reason most people won't try or play it is because of that minority of players and nothing else.

So what is the solution?Honestly, I don't think there is one.. Raider minotiry aint going to change their ways and the majority player base ain't going to change theirs either..What we can all agree on though is that without more players.. these raid game modes will be regarded as a failure and Anet will probably stop supporting them at some point.I think it's a safe bet that most players really wouldn't care though if that happened.. it's to be expected all things considered.

Meta builds is most effiecient but not needed to beat content the meta is built around other meta builds but i wouldnt give a new player a meta build as its probly above their skill unless for warrior, sword holo those 2 are easy

[Cyninja.2954]

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:No, this thread is from an individual who addresses the perception of possible toxicity from a source, in this case the forums. Not the entire raiding community, in fact, most other players disagreed with this notion. As such, I'd first like proof that this claim is actually true.No it isn't.

Literally the opening post for this thread:

@yann.1946 said:The recent tread about matchmaking has made me think about an important problem in raids.

The perceived toxicity that gets complained about [contextual: on the forums]. Because it doesn't really matter that it's a false observation (no complete group of people is toxic unless they are defined by being toxic)When new players think that raiders are toxic it will scare people away which is a problem as it might be content they enjoy.

You might want to consider occasionally double checking and reading WHAT a topic is about. This thread is more akin to a question and how one would deal IF the answer to that question is true. You have not yet shown that the answer is: raiders are toxic.

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:Exactly, deductions which, if untrue, would be akin to insults. Insults which players who might not fit the criteria would take personal, say players who are not toxic but feel as part of the raiding community.

Now I'm confused. Before I cut the snippet out to show that you're contradicting yourself, and now these unspecified deductions are somehow also insults. I highly suspect that what you call a deduction and what actually is a deduction are two very different things.

Unfounded, not unspecified. Not sure how this is unclear. You are making claims which are hurtful and basing those claims on unfounded facts which at best you serve as anecdotal evidence.

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:and yet you treat the subject matter as though you had.

No I didn't.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and given how you are smarter than everyone else by your own claim, none of us will be able to convince you otherwise.

[yann.1946]

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:It is a shame that yann is the only person I can properly converse with, and I'm pretty sure they're an ESL.

Quite curious, why do you think I'm an esl?

@"Cyninja.2954" said:No, this thread is from an individual who addresses the perception of possible toxicity from a source, in this case the forums. Not the entire raiding community, in fact, most other players disagreed with this notion. As such, I'd first like proof that this claim is actually true.

I'm actually confused about this. I merely observed that on the forums raiders get called toxic, and we have anecdotes from people who where scared of at first and later came around and where pleasently surprised.

And most of the people I've seen disagree are using the argument

"perceived toxicity = actual toxicity"

@"yann.1946" said:I know what you mean, but thats not what that correlation represents if its real. It's more well you can get salmonella from badly prepared chicken. And for that reason some people will never eat chicken. Their are ofcourse cases of people getting salmonella, but is it a meaningful amount in any way?

I agree that you aren't allowed a persons precense, but sometimes you are allowed their performance though. A friend of mine went on a joint hiking trip last summer, you would expect that everyone would bring hiking shoes right. You are owed this as a group, atleast thats what i would expect. Do you disagree?In that group somebody didn't bring walking shoes, essentially robbing people of some sights they would have seen otherwise.

Quite a few people who i have seen complaining about raids haven't stept into raids. Some have ofcourse. Can these people be convinced by anything inside raids when they don't even enter it?

Sushi is raw fish.I am aware of this fact, how. Is it relevant?

The exact numbers I gave aren't too important. It is just an example to show the mindset. Particularly, even if the chances of a toxic encounter in this game are low, if the chances are higher in raids, then people will avoid raids.

We'll I can agree that this perception can cause problems. But nothing inside raids/restaurant can change that because it's based on the perception, not nessecarily the truth.

Nobody knows what the real percentage of toxic players in raids are. When I say the problem is transcendental, I mean that this problem is much bigger than Guild Wars 2. Here's an

by Tyger, where he goes over the problem from 5 years ago. He has many other videos that also touch on the subject, but he also rambles and beats around the bush a lot. The short version is this: any place where you have "hardcore content," you're going to get hardcore people who do not mesh well with others.

I think you're right here but not in the way you think. When raids where announced their were already claiming raiders where going to be toxic etc. So perception was already against them.

The raids in DCUO are toxic, the raids in WoW are toxic, and if there is some other game that has raids, then they'll be toxic, too, for the exact same reasons. It's been like this for... well over a decade.

So this is the core of the problem then, people perceived raids a toxic even before they where added and after that confirmation bias took hold.

Humor this question for a second, if we assume the toxicity in raids is not higher then open world. How would you change the current perception.

This is why some people won't step into fractals, raids, or even dungeons. Raids coming to GW2 was a controversial move, and the original game was made without raids partly because Anet didn't want raid toxicity to be in the game. This is an age old problem, and there's not a lot of evidence that it has been fixed. Or even evidence that it can be fixed. MMOs aren't new. GW2 drew a large casual crowd at launch, full of people who had been burned by the hardcore players of other MMOs. They've learned their lesson, and all of that grief isn't worth the risk that this time, for no apparent reason, raids are a better place now. Hence, why I say the problem cannot be fixed.

Demanding a person's presence and demanding a person's performance is the same thing. In order to do something, they have to be there to do it. The fact is that the person who didn't bring hiking shoes didn't owe your friend a full trip with them as a companion. It sucks, but unfulfilled expectations always do. That's why they lead to unhappiness.

Here we will fundamentaly disagree then because this is the principle of all societal constructs. For example you're owed that somebody won't murder you and you won't murder anyone. That's how society works.

The thing about presence vs performance is the following.You're not owed it that anyone wants to join whatever thing you want to do,help you move for example, but once they said they where going to and committed to the social contract you are owed both their presence and performance.

[Laila Lightness.8742]

@yann.1946 said:

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:It is a shame that yann is the only person I can properly converse with, and I'm pretty sure they're an ESL.

Quite curious, why do you think I'm an esl?

@"Cyninja.2954" said:No, this thread is from an individual who addresses the perception of possible toxicity from a source, in this case the forums. Not the entire raiding community, in fact, most other players disagreed with this notion. As such, I'd first like proof that this claim is actually true.

I'm actually confused about this. I merely observed that on the forums raiders get called toxic, and we have anecdotes from people who where scared of at first and later came around and where pleasently surprised.

And most of the people I've seen disagree are using the argument

"perceived toxicity = actual toxicity"

@yann.1946 said:I know what you mean, but thats not what that correlation represents if its real. It's more well you can get salmonella from badly prepared chicken. And for that reason some people will never eat chicken. Their are ofcourse cases of people getting salmonella, but is it a meaningful amount in any way?

I agree that you aren't allowed a persons precense, but sometimes you are allowed their performance though. A friend of mine went on a joint hiking trip last summer, you would expect that everyone would bring hiking shoes right. You are owed this as a group, atleast thats what i would expect. Do you disagree?In that group somebody didn't bring walking shoes, essentially robbing people of some sights they would have seen otherwise.

Quite a few people who i have seen complaining about raids haven't stept into raids. Some have ofcourse. Can these people be convinced by anything inside raids when they don't even enter it?

Sushi is raw fish.I am aware of this fact, how. Is it relevant?

The exact numbers I gave aren't too important. It is just an example to show the mindset. Particularly, even if the chances of a toxic encounter in this game are low, if the chances are higher in raids, then people will avoid raids.

We'll I can agree that this perception can cause problems. But nothing inside raids/restaurant can change that because it's based on the perception, not nessecarily the truth.

Nobody knows what the real percentage of toxic players in raids are. When I say the problem is transcendental, I mean that this problem is much bigger than Guild Wars 2. Here's an

by Tyger, where he goes over the problem from 5 years ago. He has many other videos that also touch on the subject, but he also rambles and beats around the bush a lot. The short version is this: any place where you have "hardcore content," you're going to get hardcore people who do not mesh well with others.

I think you're right here but not in the way you think. When raids where announced their were already claiming raiders where going to be toxic etc. So perception was already against them.

The raids in DCUO are toxic, the raids in WoW are toxic, and if there is some other game that has raids, then they'll be toxic, too, for the exact same reasons. It's been like this for... well over a decade.

So this is the core of the problem then, people perceived raids a toxic even before they where added and after that confirmation bias took hold.

Humor this question for a second, if we assume the toxicity in raids is not higher then open world. How would you change the current perception.

This is why some people won't step into fractals, raids, or even dungeons. Raids coming to GW2 was a controversial move, and the original game was made without raids partly because Anet didn't want raid toxicity to be in the game. This is an age old problem, and there's not a lot of evidence that it has been fixed. Or even evidence that it can be fixed. MMOs aren't new. GW2 drew a large casual crowd at launch, full of people who had been burned by the hardcore players of other MMOs. They've learned their lesson, and all of that grief isn't worth the risk that this time, for no apparent reason, raids are a better place now. Hence, why I say the problem cannot be fixed.

Demanding a person's presence and demanding a person's performance is the same thing. In order to do something, they have to be there to do it. The fact is that the person who didn't bring hiking shoes didn't owe your friend a full trip with them as a companion. It sucks, but unfulfilled expectations always do. That's why they lead to unhappiness.

Here we will fundamentaly disagree then because this is the principle of all societal constructs. For example you're owed that somebody won't murder you and you won't murder anyone. That's how society works.

The thing about presence vs performance is the following.You're not owed it that anyone wants to join whatever thing you want to do,help you move for example, but once they said they where going to and committed to the social contract you are owed both their presence and performance.

Funny as dungeons back then were toxic you couldnt play class you want like ranger necro sure make own team but you would wait hours