"Need help at XYZ" "My grp has been fighting zergs all night"

[cesmode.4257]

Then open up your tags to randoms and/or stop booting randoms out. 

Saw some discussion in WvW tonight that my server didnt have enough numbers to fight larger zergs.  The guy complaining had his tag set to invite only.  So, as a random I went somewhere else, another tag, another borderlands. You lost this body.  Im only one person, but if a dozen or more people were deterred the same way I was, then that does matter.

 

Then joined up with a tag later in the evening only to get booted because I wasnt part of the two guilds in the squad.  Again... this isn't helping the cause of the server having issues against large zergs.  Enjoy your niche small group of 11 people.  I guess the one extra was a burden?  

 

tldr; stop being cliquey and open things up so that we randoms can join up, hop on comms, and help out.  Closing it off to just your little group of friends and then complaining about why we dont have sizeable zergs is just silly.  Most tags are open and its a fun experience, but tonight was the most unpleasant in WvW that Ive experienced in a long while.

[Justine.6351]

Yeah that always made me cringe a little. Visible tags set to invite only when they can make a squad with no tag and use a marker I believe? I remember the guild I played with used the purple triangle on our leader because it was the only one I could see.

[ASP.8093]

22 minutes ago, Justine.6351 said:

Visible tags set to invite only when they can make a squad with no tag and use a marker I believe?

A closed group running with a visible tag is a courtesy to allow the rest of the map to see where they are and what they're up to.

 

I understand that it's annoying if they're lecturing everyone else on what to do or being fussy about numbers, but if they're actually cooperating with everyone else on the strategic level then I see no reason to get mad that they have a limited group comp.

[SweetPotato.7456]

Enemy approaching Tier 3 Stoic Rampart, scouted them, call out their intention of taking the objective, before they even reach the North East wall,  saw them at the North East wall,  called out again, enemy started to build Catapult to break the wall,  call again, our "tag" with their zerg was active in south of Osprey's Palace. 

No only did the "tag" didn't respond to the call out, they said they are un tagging for the day and left. 

These is the type of players I deal with everyday. Now they go invisible tag or ask another person to tag. They only want to play with their own people and do their own thing, their intention is not for the server.  

Just block them and carry on doing what you like doing, server pride is dead.

 

[Justine.6351]

2 hours ago, ASP.8093 said:

A closed group running with a visible tag is a courtesy to allow the rest of the map to see where they are and what they're up to.

 

I understand that it's annoying if they're lecturing everyone else on what to do or being fussy about numbers, but if they're actually cooperating with everyone else on the strategic level then I see no reason to get mad that they have a limited group comp.

Aka we want pugs around only when we need their numbers otherwise they can get lost.

[ArchonWing.9480]

I mean sometimes I create a squad because our party has more than 5 people and have no real intent of actually "commanding". In those cases showing a tag is more or less just for intel purposes.  I prefer visible but closed squads opposed to invisible tags doing God knows what.

 

 

Just because we want to run with a dozen does not mean I'm in the mood to command the whole map unless it truly is necessary and we need everyone to rally on the map. I agree it's silly to complain when nobody can see where you are.

 

Also you have to understand that guilds have to act more formal when open to the public and they may want to have private conversations that may offend random people coming in. But simply put, I'm just going to put friends and guildies above everyone else.

 

All and all, I do agree that people need to know when it is to rally and not just screw around in some random corner of the map. And certainly don't complain about it.

I do strongly oppose booting randoms for arbitrary reasons. Like if you let people in the squad, then treat them with a little respect. People aren't tools. You can't just ask for pugs when you need them, kick them when you don't, and then demand they join you later.

 

Granted, I actually very rarely join any squad on my own, unless it's clear it's an open/rally tag, or the commander decided to mass invite us. Unless they map hop a lot, it doesn't bother me much since most of my builds can support themselves.

 

I do often switch to firebrand/scrapper in bigger fights, and those are in high demand. Commanders will often try to pick you up regardless of what you're actually running due to the huge base kits of these classes.

Edited August 24, 2021 by ArchonWing.9480

[displayname.8315]

4 hours ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

I actually very rarely join any squad on my own... it doesn't bother me much since most of my builds can support themselves

^         ^     ^    ^

 

This is probably the best advice anyone can give.  Why he used to be the community liaison for anet.

 

I go further and make a solo squad so don't have to deal with invites popping up on the screen.  Shrink the window down so it doesn't obscure my view.

 

Boons work fine out of squad, and your sharing with the people who actually push frontline.

 

[ASP.8093]

5 hours ago, Justine.6351 said:

Aka we want pugs around only when we need their numbers otherwise they can get lost.

What do you *want* from them?

[nativity.3057]

1 hour ago, ASP.8093 said:

What do you *want* from them?

Not sure if servers don't do this anymore, but maybe we go back to color coded tags? 
Like in the past, blue/cat tags used to mean open squad pugmanders, and the other colors meant guild/closed groups with more restricted invitations.

[Bristingr.5034]

9 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

These is the type of players I deal with everyday. Now they go invisible tag or ask another person to tag. They only want to play with their own people and do their own thing, their intention is not for the server.  

Just block them and carry on doing what you like doing, server pride is dead.

Server Pride has been dead for years. Sure certain servers behave in certain ways (Mag and their fetish for SMC for example) but when large guilds switch servers en mass weekly, there has never been any real identity of the servers.

Also, if I'm tagged up and I only have 5 on me, I'm not responding to a zerg of 40 people hitting our T3 Garri, especially when winning/losing means nothing in WvW these days. We'd be nothing more than extra bags on their path towards the Lord's Room. That's also why tags generally have been doing their own thing, PPTing, fights, etc., there no incentive to holding something when the reward is to just move up to a match up against stronger servers.

Like right now, TC has zero business being in T1 -- we're getting shell shocked by BG and FC and our activity can't defend much, especially outside of NA Prime-time. Why try hard when it would just mean trying to stay in T1 against 2 powerhouses?

[ArchonWing.9480]

3 hours ago, displayname.8315 said:

^         ^     ^    ^

 

This is probably the best advice anyone can give.  Why he used to be the community liaison for anet.

 

I go further and make a solo squad so don't have to deal with invites popping up on the screen.  Shrink the window down so it doesn't obscure my view.

 

Boons work fine out of squad, and your sharing with the people who actually push frontline.

 

Yea solo squads or friend squads can be good to deal with invite spam.

 

I mean even if you get accepted into some of these squads, you just get launched into group 1 with a smattering of random classes. So the real advantage is almost nonexistent. Yes, comms would be nice of couirse but that doesn't explicitly require to be in squad either.

 

30 minutes ago, Bristingr.5034 said:

Server Pride has been dead for years. Sure certain servers behave in certain ways (Mag and their fetish for SMC for example) but when large guilds switch servers en mass weekly, there has never been any real identity of the servers.

Kinda true. I feel no particular obligation to my server, and certainly not to the host server especially if they're disorganized or incompetent. I mean, if you're downed, I'll probably try to save you given the opportunity.  But I am not going to go out of my way  to help lead for every rando that comes in, especially if they're not here to fight seriously, go down like 2-3 times vs npcs in a zerg or in Narnia doing whatever.

Edited August 24, 2021 by ArchonWing.9480

[cesmode.4257]

Things like 'server pride' or actual incentive for your realm or cluster of servers to do well needs a look at.  I think at launch it meant that overworld PVE got some sort of boost to magic find or something.  This might have even been in beta, I cant remember.  Ive been in and out of Gw2 for the last 5-7 years.

 

More to my original topic: I've read the responses, and I understand your points.  On the flip side of it, Solo and roamers are less likely to respond to tags if they choose to close them selves off, as evident as last night was on my server.  And when it got to the point that there werent any open tags to run with because commanders either tagged down, closed their squads to invite only, or booted for whatever reason.. I exited WvW.  Less people to respond to your pleas for help, and in the future less incentive to switch borderlands when im having fun in the current one Im in doing whatever.

 

  

[Bristingr.5034]

4 minutes ago, cesmode.4257 said:

Things like 'server pride' or actual incentive for your realm or cluster of servers to do well needs a look at.  I think at launch it meant that overworld PVE got some sort of boost to magic find or something.  This might have even been in beta, I cant remember.  Ive been in and out of Gw2 for the last 5-7 years.

It used to be that if your server won their match up, everyone in the server got a chest (2nd) or 2 (1st) and a small PvE buff. There definitely needs to be an incentive to fix what WvW has become these days, but at the same time -- the devs have to be careful not to make the incentive so powerful that the servers/alliances will burn themselves out after weeks of playing to try and win each week. It's a delicate balance.

[displayname.8315]

4 hours ago, Bristingr.5034 said:

Also, if I'm tagged up and I only have 5 on me, I'm not responding to a zerg of 40 people hitting our T3 Garri

Your 5 group, the 15 group, the 25 roamers all have that same though in their heads. 

 

Takes what 15 - 25 seconds to make it to garri + the load time maybe another 5 or 10 if you need more ram

 

Nobody expects you to W key into them.  Maybe you server just dead or bad oh well

 

[Bristingr.5034]

1 minute ago, displayname.8315 said:

Maybe you server just dead or bad oh well

And maybe you could be less of a kitten with your response oh well.

[Dawdler.8521]

53 minutes ago, displayname.8315 said:

Your 5 group, the 15 group, the 25 roamers all have that same though in their heads. 

Or the more plausible scenario, the 5 man responds but are too few, the 15 man is AFK in spawn another 15 minutes becuse the clock isnt exactly 20:00 yet and most of the 25 roamers take 5 minutes to slowly respond one by one.

[displayname.8315]

1 hour ago, Bristingr.5034 said:

And maybe you could be less of a kitten with your response oh well.

No hard feelers just PvF.  You get a smiley.

 

Edit: Being on TC is no cake walk but I play there sometimes since they are trying so hard.  I can see why you wouldn't respond to stuff..

Edited August 24, 2021 by displayname.8315

[ArchonWing.9480]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Or the more plausible scenario, the 5 man responds but are too few, the 15 man is AFK in spawn another 15 minutes becuse the clock isnt exactly 20:00 yet and most of the 25 roamers take 5 minutes to slowly respond one by one.

 

People (or even entire groups) responding one by one is the worst. It's better to wait for everyone or just abandon the structure. If you're running those mildly trolly mass invul/dodge builds to troll the enemy that's fine, but most of the time people just explode in 0.1s when diving into a large group. *Surprised Pikachu Face ensues*  Even more comedic if it's multiple "fite guilds" that wipe individually and blame each other for not being the meat shield.

 

Well ok, it's up there with people linking random low-tier objectives with no details. I've been even told "count it yourself". I'm just like "so did you want a scout there?" instead of being a scout. I can't reroute everyone just to defend something that might not even be under attack or could be deterred by oils every time.

 

Then again the best thing they do is tell us something has just been lost. Yea, we can see that, but those double orange swords in garrison need a little more attention.

 

I'll usually make an effort to stall the enemy, but if people are just running around like headless chickens and not taking it seriously, then I'll just assume they don't want to keep it.

Edited August 24, 2021 by ArchonWing.9480

[displayname.8315]

8 minutes ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

most of the time people just explode in 0.1s when diving into a large group.

Ive never seen a build that last 0.1 seconds sounds like trash or user error.  Dodges alone gives you movement and a few seconds,  instant cast all you want while you have those evade frames.  Most all utility is instant after all.

 

I guess don't engage if your meta spec is designed to be carried by 25 minstrel metaboys.  That's probably why it's either blob or ninja PPT snoozefest for most.

[subversiontwo.7501]

This thread and its issues can be chalked up to the same remarks as everything else.

 

It is a question of the organised portion of the WvW playerbase diminishing more than the unorganised. Not only does this mean that whoever still organises is very uninspired to begin with. It also means that they become even more so when there are an overabundance of players who are unorganised, inexperienced, new or seclusive. More than the commander alone can hope to help and more than the commander gets help. I'm not really taking either side here, I know how to make things better, but I can also understand why so few aspires to do better atm.

 

A commander can open the tag and see the squad fill to 75% with completely disorganised players, at which point they can't do much. A commander can also close the tag, to rely on its core world community, demand people turn up on voice and find themselves lacking comparative numbers at which point they may also be limited to do little.

 

Then there are all other options that requires preparatory work in guilds and other communities but works better. Few people still know how. Fewer people do it. It is equally sad to see and understandable. Hopefully World Restructuring will turn that around.

Edited August 25, 2021 by subversiontwo.7501

[ArchonWing.9480]

2 hours ago, displayname.8315 said:

Ive never seen a build that last 0.1 seconds sounds like trash or user error.  Dodges alone gives you movement and a few seconds,  instant cast all you want while you have those evade frames.

Well hyperbole. Maybe a few seconds, but you go try telling them to dodge and you get a screen full of salt.

Case in point, I saw 12+ people struggle very hard to take on 3 players and most of them had to die and respawn constantly. I did come into stop them, and tried to give advice on who to target, and people were just like "who cares, they're not fighting fair anyways!!!" If people are struggling 4:1 and finding excuses, I dread to see what happens when the odds are worse.

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by ArchonWing.9480

[Svarty.8019]

18 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

No only did the "tag" didn't respond to the call out, they said they are un tagging for the day and left. 
 

At one point, in EU, Whiteside Ridge some influential players changed the thinking on their server. They made nearly everybody on their server stack on tag, and abandon defending entirely. This was an interesting twist on the norm, displaying an amazing control over the mentality of others. Unfortunately, it also happened to be extremely bad for the game as a whole and that mentality pervades the game to this day*.

 

When alliances come:

There will be a wave of old Commanders who try to spread the old philosophy of, "We only play for fights".

SO

The new "rewards for winning" that Grouch talked about have to be sufficient enough to warrant dissent in the ranks when the Commanders try to indoctrinate them.

 

 

 

 

 

*Why was it bad for the game as a whole?

It was bad for the game as a whole because it made holding structures impossible. This was done via a concerted attack on two fronts;

1. A lengthy campaign of whining on the forums forced Arenanet to change the game so that defensive siege was nigh worthless.

2. Damage mitigation when stacking a whole map population on the tag is phenomenal. It's almost impossible to stop such a group.

When defending is literally impossible, it's bad for the game.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

I'll tag up on occasion.  It has been my general experience that when a call is made to either attack or defend a place, nobody shows up.  At all.  I've solo-taken keeps multiple times now just because the time it took for someone to come and help was longer than the time it took for me to siege down and destroy both walls, defenders and all.  

[schokelmei.8271]

I partially agree with the op, but still I see why people tag hidden.

The big problem with GW2 are self-sustaining builds. Yes, you should be able to have good fights in small scale, but a huge group should by definition (and if they know how to cleanse, dodge, dps) be always superior to a solo player. In GW2 this isn't necessarily true. That's why clouding is so popular (and stupid at once)

This leads to mostly terrible gameplay as you can see on many servers these days. One server sits inside SMC, sieges it up to the roof and all that's going on is a bunch of solo players  (up to 50 per side) shooting each other to no end. With a tag and those players you could at least going for the objective and still fight, but which tag wants to fight off 50 solo players that just run around you, pull you, shoot you with open field siege, etc? Only tags that are organized, on voice, having a "structured" group composition. Everyone else will just get annoyed

So, you can either run closed and do your stuff without all the rangers, thieves and siege-people that won't get into voice coms anyway or you run open and have 20 people that just rallybot around you.

 

[Dawdler.8521]

10 hours ago, gebrechen.5643 said:

I partially agree with the op, but still I see why people tag hidden.

The big problem with GW2 are self-sustaining builds. Yes, you should be able to have good fights in small scale, but a huge group should by definition (and if they know how to cleanse, dodge, dps) be always superior to a solo player. In GW2 this isn't necessarily true. That's why clouding is so popular (and stupid at once)

This leads to mostly terrible gameplay as you can see on many servers these days. One server sits inside SMC, sieges it up to the roof and all that's going on is a bunch of solo players  (up to 50 per side) shooting each other to no end. With a tag and those players you could at least going for the objective and still fight, but which tag wants to fight off 50 solo players that just run around you, pull you, shoot you with open field siege, etc? Only tags that are organized, on voice, having a "structured" group composition. Everyone else will just get annoyed

So, you can either run closed and do your stuff without all the rangers, thieves and siege-people that won't get into voice coms anyway or you run open and have 20 people that just rallybot around you.

 

So, what came first - the zerg or the cloud?

If you say cloud, I'll argue that it was formed to fight the zerg.

If you say zerg, I'll argue it was formed to fight the cloud.