The Increasing Toxicity in the Community

[nutri.1385]

I've just listened to MightyTeapot's point of view on this topic. Here it is, if someone is interested. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_L4dZCfKFI

[Zok.4956]

41 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

And they still changed the gift of battle such that more WvW is nessecary. Why do you think that is?

Because Anet wants that players grind more for their Legy and players should experience other game types. It still does not mean, that it is a good idea.

I play WvW a lot and have fun in WvW but I had to realize that not everyone likes WvW. Some players (even one or two of my guild mates) hate the mode. It doesn't matter how much I try to show them how fun it can be. And they hate it every time they go into WvW for the Gift of Battle. At some point I learned that there are players in the game that dislike (maybe even hate) parts of the game that I like and that they never will have fun in those modes). Thats why I think that "mixing" is not always a good idea. 

 

[nutri.1385]

Just now, Zok.4956 said:

Some players (even one or two of my guild mates) hate the mode. It doesn't matter how much I try to show them how fun it can be. And they hate it every time they go into WvW for the Gift of Battle. At some point I learned that there are players in the game that dislike (maybe even hate) parts of the game that I like and that they never will have fun in those modes). Thats why I think that "mixing" is not always a good idea. 

 

I think you're right about the hate, but I'd say that while mixing can be a cool idea, it should be an option, not enforced. With the PvP gift (can't remember the name) everyone can just buy the currency on TP and get it (I do it all the time, even though I sometimes enter PvP for dailies and such). 

I can see why forcing people to go to WvW only once a few months to get the Gift Of Battle can be frustrating for both sides: WvW regulars as well. Some changes in acquiring legendaries should be considered here, especially that in this case it's not even a matter of someone being an elitist, it's just an unfortunate design. 

[Astralporing.1957]

2 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

So your saying that after they specificly said that they want DE to be at the level of participation as TT they just pulled that out of thin air, they didnt actually mean that TT had good enough participation? Or are you saying they subtly want DE to die?

I have no idea what they truly think and want, but if they'll indeed reach those stated goals, and DE will end up as the same level of participation as TT, then the end result will be a relatively dead meta.

Edited March 12, 2022 by Astralporing.1957

[Doctor Hide.6345]

19 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:

Because Anet wants that players grind more for their Legy and players should experience other game types. It still does not mean, that it is a good idea.

I play WvW a lot and have fun in WvW but I had to realize that not everyone likes WvW. Some players (even one or two of my guild mates) hate the mode. It doesn't matter how much I try to show them how fun it can be. And they hate it every time they go into WvW for the Gift of Battle. At some point I learned that there are players in the game that dislike (maybe even hate) parts of the game that I like and that they never will have fun in those modes). Thats why I think that "mixing" is not always a good idea. 

 

 

I just had to comment here and reinforce what you said. I am one of those players who hates all SPvP and WvW in this game and refuses to do it. I have had Guild mates try to get me into it, but they have given up on it because I absolutely despise those modes. I will never enjoy them at all. So I agree with you 100% in the mixing part.

[Doggie.3184]

I had someone in the new Strike mission complain about only 3 people doing 10k+ DPS in middle of the encounter and leave, calling us the hard R ~totally unprovoked by anyone. We finished it fine shortly after without fail or deaths~ but someone joined from LFG mid fight (which auto kills them) and got a free ride thanks to him at least.

I dunno~ the game structure just breeds elitism within the community and people often demand pure perfection.

Edited March 12, 2022 by Doggie.3184

[yann.1946]

3 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

Not at all. Thats not what I wrote and what this sub-thread and my post was about. It was about that mixing players that like challenging content with players that dislike challenging content is (mostly) not such a good idea and that content types for each of these groups should not be mixed too much and each should have "their own".

Is there a reason you didnt respond to the rest of my post?

If you dont think so, how do you suggest to stop the mixing you consider a problem in the case of difficult instanced content?

[Doctor Hide.6345]

5 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

Is there a reason you didnt respond to the rest of my post?

If you dont think so, how do you suggest to stop the mixing you consider a problem in the case of difficult instanced content?

 

Well, I am not the person you responded too, but different alternate paths for each of the acquired items in question would be a start. Like they are doing now with 200 scripts. Allow for all play styles to get same thing. Just with different pathways.

[yann.1946]

3 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

Because Anet wants that players grind more for their Legy and players should experience other game types. It still does not mean, that it is a good idea.

 

3 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

I play WvW a lot and have fun in WvW but I had to realize that not everyone likes WvW. Some players (even one or two of my guild mates) hate the mode. It doesn't matter how much I try to show them how fun it can be. And they hate it every time they go into WvW for the Gift of Battle. At some point I learned that there are players in the game that dislike (maybe even hate) parts of the game that I like and that they never will have fun in those modes). Thats why I think that "mixing" is not always a good idea. 

 

Not everyone needs to enjoy WvW to make pushing people into WvW a good idea.

[yann.1946]

2 minutes ago, Doctor Hide.6345 said:

 

Well, I am not the person you responded too, but different alternate paths for each of the acquired items in question would be a start. Like they are doing now with 200 scripts. Allow for all play styles to get same thing. Just with different pathways.

That is a way

[IndigoSundown.5419]

I've not experienced the behavior the OP complains about lately, but that is hardly surprising, as I despise the large group content in GW2.  There are a couple of causes for that sort of behavior.  Sometimes, a single cause is enough, sometimes multiple are in play in a circumstance.

 

Human Tendencies

1) Frustrated Expectations: NO Players go to an event wanting to fail.  When the expected victory does not materialize, they sling blame out of frustration.

2) Deflecting Blame: Some people (perhaps most) are not going to internalize the reasons for failure.  They blame others.  In cases where the people in question actually do share some fault for the failure, but their minds won't permit them to accept that, they deflect blame away from themselves. This behavior is very common in IRL endeavors as well as games.

 

Game Design Necessities

Game designers' need (or want) to appeal to "better" players.  Complaints by that group about any content being "too easy" sting, and so they strive to make newer content more challenging as a result.  In ANet's case, they've been pushing harder content since day 1, and most new iterations of content have been a step up (in very few cases a step back, in some a lateral change) in difficulty.  Increased difficulty also accompanies power creep, which developers provide because it's a way to appeal to that same demographic.  The truth is, though, that games like GW2 need both types of players to thrive (or maybe, survive).  Take away either efficiency or laissez-faire players and the game takes a hit to its revenue.  While the efficiency players may be a smaller demographic, their defection would have a knock-on effect, as many of those who promote the game on Youtube and other platforms are in that group.

 

In short, while reporting "toxicity" (whatever that is) may have an immediate effect, it's not going to solve the issue, which is rooted in factors that are extremely resistant to change.

[Hesione.9412]

4 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

I have no idea what they truly think and want, but if they'll indeed reach those stated goals, and DE will end up as the same level of participation as TT, then the end result will be a relatively dead meta.

Exactly. And others can be named, such as Serpents Ire - which is a relatively short meta, and Dragonstand, neither of which have the difficulty level of DE. Serpents Ire has low rewards, and Dragonstand is a long meta that is not player-led, unlike Dragonfall which is player-led and is *still* popular. Other examples of relatively popular chained event maps are the Silverwastes and Drizzlewood Coast. 

 

It's almost like a combination of the timer being player-led and having quite good rewards gives a map replayability. Who could have guessed? (Sarcasm not directed at you.)

[Wizecrack.5713]

Iv never been around at the start of these things so I don't know how it always is here. I do know how out right unbearable other games get. I used to be super into a game that has been slowly cannibalizing itself over the years and it's to a point where mostly only toxic people are doing the games content while the casual playerbase role plays (tho those role players get Hella toxic alot too when it comes to rp)

 

Gw2 from what iv seen in my limited observations tends to be less toxic the longer time goes on each content cycle. 

 

I feel like it makes sense for the first month of a new meta is gonna be chaotic, nobody knows the fights, people are learning new traits and skills, the zone is new and being filled with people trying to get completions and achievements done and aren't there for the meta, things aren't tuned, bugs, etc. It's not like all the open betas they did previewing eod like being able to try classes prepared us for the meta but I'm sure in a few months it will balance itself out between anet making things easier, the toxic tryhards either quit to the next flavor of the month/get their turtle, things like the turtle going on a vendor happen, whatever. 

 

I will also say though that unlike previously said game where you can be barred from groups simply because some website said you haven't personally done enough of the content and there's always better gear to equip...with how loot is in gw2, you can only be so strong before your skill as a player holds you back I'm surprised this game isn't more toxic.

[Zok.4956]

4 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

Is there a reason you didnt respond to the rest of my post?

If you dont think so, how do you suggest to stop the mixing you consider a problem in the case of difficult instanced content?

To answer your first question: Because the "new" UI of this forum (at least in my browser) makes it a pain to quote and respond to different parts of a post without loosing the relation.

To answer your second question: There is not really a problem with difficult instanced content just because it exists. Players that don't like it do not go there. Problems only could arise, if Anet makes some achievement, collections, etc. for "other" game/player  types where you have to go into it, but gives no alternative path for players that did not like that difficult instanced content.

Small example: The Living World episodes meta achievements had for a long time more achievements than were required for the meta. So players could choose and do the achievements they liked and could ignore the others. But then, with an IBS episode, Anet removed this choice and players had to do strike missions if they wanted to complete the LW-story-meta. There was a lot of anger because of this, "open world" players felt forced to go into (more or less challenging) instanced content.

And from what I read a lot of players are not really happy, that they have to do the kaineng-strike mission (I personally like that strike mission) for the turtle. Some players may experience, that it is not too hard and maybe fun (and they do more strike missions in the future)  but some, for sure, will have an unpleasant and unfun experience and will not go into strikes again after that. I think it would be better, if Anet had an alternative path for this: Positively motivate players to try the new strikes, but do not "force" them (if they want the turtle).

[Zok.4956]

10 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

1. Do you think it would be good for the game if more people pplayed more gamemodes?

2. If i would give an analogy, you have shown me a list of problems that can arise from taking  a headache medication, and then said you should never take headache medication. That logic does not really follow.

1: Yes and no. I think it could be good for the game if players had fun in several game modes and would understand each other better. But it is my opinion that the different game modes of this game attract a lot of different player types, and that players should not be "forced" into game modes they do not like. Players should play the type of content they like and have fun with. The purpose of this game is, that players are having fun (and Anet gets money from these players). 

2: If you have problems from taking a headache medication, then you should stop taking it and ask a healthcare professional. It does not mean, that you never should take any other headache medication. But I think this analogy is stretched a little.

 

[Alcatraznc.3869]

Depends what you call toxicity. There are toxic people in every game, GW2 makes no exception. However some behavior are not toxic but simply fact.

 

-Tell somebody "you only do X damage you suck" --> toxic

-Tell somebody "you dont do enough damage" --> not toxic

 

This is a simple example of 1 message worded in 2 differents ways. Assuming that statement is true, the idea behind both message is the same :" you have to do more damage" . I can agree that if someone meets the first answer he'll call that toxic however if you meet the second answer and you call that toxic, I'm sorry but where is the toxicity in that ? 

 

Another example of a player entering a group. If you enter a group and a player kicks you for no reason, that is toxicity. But if you join a group, people ask you if you bring X, Y or Z, you say no and they kick you, that isnt toxicity. If someone ask for a gear check, it isnt toxicity.

[Doctor Hide.6345]

9 minutes ago, Alcatraznc.3869 said:

Depends what you call toxicity. There are toxic people in every game, GW2 makes no exception. However some behavior are not toxic but simply fact.

 

-Tell somebody "you only do X damage you suck" --> toxic

-Tell somebody "you dont do enough damage" --> not toxic

 

This is a simple example of 1 message worded in 2 differents ways. Assuming that statement is true, the idea behind both message is the same :" you have to do more damage" . I can agree that if someone meets the first answer he'll call that toxic however if you meet the second answer and you call that toxic, I'm sorry but where is the toxicity in that ? 

 

Another example of a player entering a group. If you enter a group and a player kicks you for no reason, that is toxicity. But if you join a group, people ask you if you bring X, Y or Z, you say no and they kick you, that isnt toxicity. If someone ask for a gear check, it isnt toxicity.

 

I'll be honest here. Gear check will always be toxicity in my opinion and you don't do enough damage because that kind of talk is elitism in my eyes. And I personally despise Elitism because to me it is people lording over others. It doesn't matter if they mean it or not. The very fact you have requirements makes it toxic, and I will call it just that. I know a lot would disagree with me there, but I have had this opinion a long time in games and all the MMO play.  Just my take at least. /shrug

[MineMeMy.7854]

32 minutes ago, Doctor Hide.6345 said:

 

I'll be honest here. Gear check will always be toxicity in my opinion and you don't do enough damage because that kind of talk is elitism in my eyes. And I personally despise Elitism because to me it is people lording over others. It doesn't matter if they mean it or not. The very fact you have requirements makes it toxic, and I will call it just that. I know a lot would disagree with me there, but I have had this opinion a long time in games and all the MMO play.  Just my take at least. /shrug

this is not elitism , this just filter some bad peoples/leecher

 

Edited March 13, 2022 by MineMeMy.7854

[Doctor Hide.6345]

3 minutes ago, MineMeMy.7854 said:

this is not elitism , this just filter some bad peoples/leecher

 

 Like I already stated, I know a lot won't agree on it, but I don't care at this point. I am set in my ways.

[Alcatraznc.3869]

3 hours ago, Doctor Hide.6345 said:

 

I'll be honest here. Gear check will always be toxicity in my opinion and you don't do enough damage because that kind of talk is elitism in my eyes. And I personally despise Elitism because to me it is people lording over others. It doesn't matter if they mean it or not. The very fact you have requirements makes it toxic, and I will call it just that. I know a lot would disagree with me there, but I have had this opinion a long time in games and all the MMO play.  Just my take at least. /shrug

 

If I use your logic pretty much anything that is instance content or "hard" content is toxic. Dungeon is toxic, Fractal is toxic, raid is toxic,DE is toxic, strike is toxic, Dragonstand is toxic. To an extent real life is also toxic.

 

I dont think you know what toxic means

Edited March 13, 2022 by Alcatraznc.3869

[yann.1946]

3 hours ago, Doctor Hide.6345 said:

 

I'll be honest here. Gear check will always be toxicity in my opinion and you don't do enough damage because that kind of talk is elitism in my eyes. And I personally despise Elitism because to me it is people lording over others. It doesn't matter if they mean it or not. The very fact you have requirements makes it toxic, and I will call it just that. I know a lot would disagree with me there, but I have had this opinion a long time in games and all the MMO play.  Just my take at least. /shrug

Isnt forcing other people to play with you also lording over others?

[yann.1946]

4 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

1: Yes and no. I think it could be good for the game if players had fun in several game modes and would understand each other better. But it is my opinion that the different game modes of this game attract a lot of different player types, and that players should not be "forced" into game modes they do not like. Players should play the type of content they like and have fun with. The purpose of this game is, that players are having fun (and Anet gets money from these players). 

How do you make people experience different gamemodes without pushing them to some degree.

4 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

2: If you have problems from taking a headache medication, then you should stop taking it and ask a healthcare professional. It does not mean, that you never should take any other headache medication. But I think this analogy is stretched a little.

 

The point of the analogy is that you showed a list of potential negatives of mixing (some which i dont think had really to do with mixing or were problems  but that is not important atm) and then conclude that mixing is a bad thing, but even if there are bad things that can happen that does not mean they will or that the positives cant outweigh the bad.

[Zok.4956]

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

How do you make people experience different gamemodes without pushing them to some degree.

Don't push people but make them an offer that they can accept (or not). Players that already know that they do not like some type of content should NOT be pushed into that content.

I am not a game designer. But instead of forcing people ("you MUST do the strike if you want the advertised turtle") you can give players an incentive to do so without punishing them and give them a positive motivation.

Two examples:  "fractal week" (a special event with extra loot and more, that Anet did and advertised). Or give alternative ways to achieve something that are sligthly longer (player can get the turtle without strike mission, but it will take a little bit longer). And then players have the choice to choose the fastest way (strike) and check it out (if they are unsure if they like strikes) or take the longer way (if they really don't like strikes).

GW2 is a game that, in its core design philosophy, gives players a choice (in a lot of things) to achieve something in doing the type of content they have most fun with.

And: Its sometimes not only the content but the behaviour of players that are attracted to that content. Example: Gear check and DPS meter controversy.  GW2 does not have it itself because Anet thinks this is a not a good idea and it can create toxicity and they created the test golems instead. But Anet allowed ArcDPS use under some conditions/compromises because the raid community asked for it. One of this is: It is only allowed for players in the same group/squad. For instanced content you have to be in the same group with others and you can not "opt out" so others using ArcDPS do not see your numbers. The only "opt out" is not to go in those instances.

[Zok.4956]

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

The point of the analogy is that you showed a list of potential negatives of mixing and then conclude that mixing is a bad thing, but even if there are bad things that can happen that does not mean they will or that the positives cant outweigh the bad.

Sure, it is not only 1/0 or yes/no. I just gave same examples where I experienced first-hand the negative effects of mixing that would not happen without mixing.  Does it mean it happens always? No.  Maybe it is not the mixing itself that creates the problems but some underlying issue that only manifests because of mixing? Yes.  Could Anet solve some of this problems by changing the game? Yes.  Should Anet and the Community have an open discussion about all this to reduce the problems and negative effects? Yes. Do I belive that Anet would do this? No.

 

[Blaeys.3102]

Pretty sure this is a result of the dev team being different one from game launch. They seem to care a lot less about building a community than they do about making a fight seem hard.

 

You can still have an inclusive fight that offers a challenge and encourages the community to work together - just use the bronze silver gold reward model.

Right now the last fight, because it is so dps/build dependent, has become a toxic cesspool of people blaming each other and venting their hate at the community.

 

I hate that Arenanet seems to be okay with that.

Edited March 13, 2022 by Blaeys.3102