The Increasing Toxicity in the Community

[yann.1946]

16 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:

And that is where we disagree. I think it is totally legit and "valid" gameplay if people want to stay in their comfort zone in a video game (that was more or less designed also for this type of playing) in their leisure time.

I have no problem with people wanting that.

16 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:

I (and I think maybe most players) do not play to serve some "greater good" (as in "a healthy playerbase") but just to have some fun.

But it is in anet interest to serve the greater good of the game. 

16 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:

And: If players are pushed (again and again and again) into some content/sub-community they do not like and they feel miserable because of this, it is not really "healthy for the playerbase".

Like i said before that has to do with degrees of the pushing.

16 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:

Please don't get me wrong: I care about the game. But in the end it is Anets job to make a game I have fun playing, if they want my money (again in the future). I am the customer, not the worker and not the product.

 

I agree, which is why i am in favor to some pushing, as i believe it increase the general fun people will have in the game, even if there might be some shortterm negative emotion.

[Astralporing.1957]

42 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

I have no problem with people wanting that.

But it is in anet interest to serve the greater good of the game. 

First, "Anet's interest" is not equivalent to the good of the game. It was in Anet's interest (or at least they thought so) to offload a ton of resources (both devs and money) from GW2 to some other projects, and try to wind down their investment in GW2 after LS4.  It ended up being very bad for the game. It was also in Anet's interest to drop GW1 and start developing GW2, and that (again) was very bad for that game.

Second, the players are not there to serve the game. The game exists to serve the players.

So, you got it completely backwards - it's the game that is supposed to serve bot Anet's and player's interest. Sure, Anet and players' interests can clash, but neither of those interests should be ever subservient to some "greater good of the game". And it's never the case where it's a good idea for Anet's interest to serve "the greater good of the game" (as some player sees it) at the cost to the players themselves.

Quote

Like i said before that has to do with degrees of the pushing.

I agree, which is why i am in favor to some pushing, as i believe it increase the general fun people will have in the game, even if there might be some shortterm negative emotion.

Considering how many times Anet tried to push me (and many others) again, and again, and again into the same type of content, and never seemed to take "no" for an answer, that negative emotion is anything but shortterm. Nor do i see it increasing the overall fun - quite the opposite. The end result is a community that is far more dispirited, disillusioned and untrusting (and generally less happy, not to mention smaller) than it was before Anet started on that road.

In short, i do not believe it's the game's job to try to tell me what i should and should not like.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Astralporing.1957

[Sylvia.4870]

On 3/11/2022 at 9:01 PM, Zok.4956 said:

 

I noticed it, too and wrote about it a few days ago in 

 

 

"Also not fun is the toxic behaviour during the fight (and after a failure) in the chat blaming other players for the failure and insulting them. Its the most toxic behaviour of a lot of players in open world PvE I saw for a long time."

I do not know, if it has changed since then, because I don't do the meta anymore atm.

Just to clarify: I do not think it is toxic if groups for challenging content like high end fractals or raids ask for some kill proof or requirements in LFG. Thats OK.

But blaming and shaming, bullying, calling names and insulting is definitely not OK for me. That I have witnessed. Not once but a several times after/at a fail.

 

       Can I consider jumping on and laughing at someone who is dying as an insult? I have seen these absurd actions from some of the players in the game more and more often than I used to. 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Sylvia.4870

[Zok.4956]

40 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

I have no problem with people wanting that.

But it is in anet interest to serve the greater good of the game. 

Like i said before that has to do with degrees of the pushing.

I agree, which is why i am in favor to some pushing, as i believe it increase the general fun people will have in the game, even if there might be some shortterm negative emotion.

It is even against the basic design philosophy of the GW2 creators.

"It all gets back to our basic design philosophy. Our games aren't about preparing to have fun, or about grinding for a future fun reward. Our games are designed to be fun from moment to moment."
Mike O'Brien, GW2 Design Manifesto. 

That is, for example, the reason why achievement/rewards have alternative paths to get/finish them. So players could always chose the route to the achievement, they have the most fun with.

Sure, GW2 has deviated several times from this basic design philosophy. But it does not mean that it was (always) a good idea and that it should happen more often. And the more the game deviates from its core design philosophies, the more GW2 becomes a different game. If I would want a different game, I would play a different game.

 

[reddie.5861]

isnt this already a normal thing for months or years?

 

me personally do not do much pve i mean i have lvl 11 fractals but back then they already asked for certain stuff.

they are doing the same for raids from my pov i find it kitten explain some1 the mechanics and pve is a cake walk i dont rly understand what u need experience for in pve when u did the crap from 1 to 80 u probably figured out by then not to stand in circles and shoot your load at some npc.

but hey get over it every game mode has a hand ful of these elitist who feel like they are better then every1 else, and maybe they are. congratz, u can put that down on your CV when ur trying to get a job. i was among the best gw2 players in pve or pvp or wvw, guess what no1 cares 😄 this is why u shouldnt care about toxic players also

[Zok.4956]

17 minutes ago, Sylvia.4870 said:

       Can I consider jumping on and laughing at someone who is dying as an insult? I have seen these absurd actions from some of the players in the game more and more often than I used to. 

Corps jumping, I see it sometimes in WvW, is a very rude behaviour. Whenever I see it in my team I talk/write to the players and ask them to stop.

[Teratus.2859]

15 hours ago, Hesione.9412 said:

1. It's not "venting" to type derogatory/insulting comments in say, or map, or squad chat. It's being derogatory/insulting. Venting is more like "this is the 10th time the event has failed for me, I'm tired of doing this event for nothing". Or: "this meta seems really poorly designed for an open world event". 

That is almost a patronisingly "polite" way to define venting.. and I can assure you that the culture I come from not a single person vents without using at least 10-20 hard profanities xD

The only point I will agree with you on there is derogatory language, but that's only if it's being used to directly attack an individual, like racism and discrimination for example.

15 hours ago, Hesione.9412 said:

2. Player A shouldn't feel the need to block Player B because Player B is being toxic. Player B made a conscious decision to type something nasty in say/map/squad chat. Player B needs to learn self-control.

That is exactly what the block function exists for.

If you choose not to block someone who's opinions or behaviour offends you then you are making a conscious choice to continue to subject yourself to that behaviour.

You are choosing instead to demand control over other people's behaviour rather than use your own freedom to remove that person from your experience which you have the tools to do.

So while I agree Person B needs to learn better self control and stop being a donkey.
Person A also needs to learn personal responsibility and stop expecting the world to revolve around them.

15 hours ago, Hesione.9412 said:

3. the "but" in ... "but censoring people is also not ok" negates everything you typed before the but. You then go on to say that "edgyness" is acceptable behaviour. It is not. Edginess is just another word for a person being horrible.

Nope, not a word of this I agree with.

Your view on edgyness is straight up derogatory.
It's exactly the kind of opinion I see that is often used to justify discrimination, abuse and even violence being used against people who have a different or broader sense of humour than you do.

Edgy humour exists, millions upon millions of people enjoy it and have done for centuries, in my homeland it's even a cultural thing enjoyed by almost the entire population.
 
You may not like it and that's fine, each to their own.
But defining people as "horrible" because they can laugh and joke about things that you don't find funny is incredibly intolerant and bigoted.

15 hours ago, Hesione.9412 said:

4. I had problems coming back to the fight when I died and went to a wp to revive because I have no idea how to get up to that platform in the first place. I also didn't have the bot waypoint unlocked, so putting down a personal wp was not an option.

Nothing wrong with that at all.
Being ignorant about something isn't a crime not does it classify as trolling.

If memory serves there are a few ways to get back up there, I believe there is a waypoint on the airship that shows up during the event.. might be mistaken on that but im sure I saw one circling the arena on the minimap.

There is also the zipline you first use to get upto the platform as well, that remains active through the whole event.

Hope that helps you out in future runs of the event.

15 hours ago, Hesione.9412 said:

5. An event where people can troll by doing the wrong thing *and make the event fail" is a poorly designed event.

I agree, this is one of the bigger issues with the event and why I don't support nerfing it.

Better to improve the event by fixing these issues than just nuking the event like a lot of people are asking for.
In the long run I believe it's the better option that will not only keep the event fun and challenging but will also help bring players to a higher skill level which will make other group content in the game that little bit more accessible.
Which is a good thing all around if you ask me.

[Taclism.2406]

Simple fact you can't get away from : As long as purposefully trolling a meta isnt something ban worthy you can report on, there will be toxicity. How else do you expect people to answer to their time being wasted?

It happens on Tarir whenever it isnt 1st try and thats just 10-15 minutes beating the boss & looting. 
DE is 2h long, and now they limited the "trolling capacity" out of green zones, its all about DPS and surviving. Something that's way beyond the average needed to beat the story. Low dps isnt trolling, but the unwillingness to learn "I didnt need to so far, so I wont start today" will also creates friction and a lot of bad faith "If you don't wanna learn, why should I care about your point of view"

Making a skill floor that low is a double edge sword : More people can experience the base of the game, BUT it creates a MASSIVE skill gap between the different types of players, having to learn boons, proper dodges, well adapted gear, specs and DPS rotation ... Forcing these two types of players to play together for a story related event was the real mistake. They could have the meta boss play in solo with Aurene's boost like they did for every other boss, and let team players beat the hard meta they crave.

[Zok.4956]

39 minutes ago, Taclism.2406 said:

Making a skill floor that low is a double edge sword : More people can experience the base of the game, BUT it creates a MASSIVE skill gap between the different types of players, having to learn boons, proper dodges, well adapted gear, specs and DPS rotation ... Forcing these two types of players to play together for a story related event was the real mistake.

I agree. The DPS of a highly skilled player is 10-times the DPS of the average player (says Anet).  Thats why balancing a challenging encounter around DPS is difficult if it is designed for several types of players at once. A better design in these situations would be, if the encounter is not so much about DPS but more about mechanics.

[Hume.2876]

1 hour ago, Zok.4956 said:

I agree. The DPS of a highly skilled player is 10-times the DPS of the average player (says Anet).  Thats why balancing a challenging encounter around DPS is difficult if it is designed for several types of players at once. A better design in these situations would be, if the encounter is not so much about DPS but more about mechanics.

 

Should have been a fractal or strike mission or 1 boss raid..  Just be explicit with it - grind or difficulty.   Players who want to grind can do the meta easily 20 times. Players who successfully do the difficult thing once - get the turtle quest line.

 

Expecting casual grinders to do difficult content is dumb.  There is a reason why this kind of thing doesn't work. We know this from triple trouble.. You want difficult content use an instance type of mechanic. Yes its more elitist - so what. Give a grind option for the try hards.

[RyuDragnier.9476]

1 hour ago, Zok.4956 said:

I agree. The DPS of a highly skilled player is 10-times the DPS of the average player (says Anet).  Thats why balancing a challenging encounter around DPS is difficult if it is designed for several types of players at once. A better design in these situations would be, if the encounter is not so much about DPS but more about mechanics.

It's something FFXIV does a lot, encounters being based on mechanics in Main Story content. Note that they DO include DPS checks in their fights still though, because they want players to at least be decent at doing damage. Said DPS checks are usually enrage meters as well, but give enough leeway to where it's not horrific. In a good group, it's possible to have the enrage "meter" under 50%, while in a bad group you're just barely meeting it. But said DPS check is very often once per fight, so if you pass that you don't have to worry too much about it again.

[yann.1946]

6 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

First, "Anet's interest" is not equivalent to the good of the game.

Technically you are correct, there inters is making money. 

6 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

It was in Anet's interest (or at least they thought so) to offload a ton of resources (both devs and money) from GW2 to some other projects, and try to wind down their investment in GW2 after LS4.  It ended up being very bad for the game. It was also in Anet's interest to drop GW1 and start developing GW2, and that (again) was very bad for that game.

Second, the players are not there to serve the game. The game exists to serve the players.

You misunderstood what I mean apperently. When I say for the greater good of the game I mean the total "fun" of the playerbase longterm. I don't know what you think I think the greater good is. 

6 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

So, you got it completely backwards - it's the game that is supposed to serve bot Anet's and player's interest. Sure, Anet and players' interests can clash, but neither of those interests should be ever subservient to some "greater good of the game". And it's never the case where it's a good idea for Anet's interest to serve "the greater good of the game" (as some player sees it) at the cost to the players themselves.

The greater good is the players, that does not mean that every player will always be happy. 

6 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Considering how many times Anet tried to push me (and many others) again, and again, and again into the same type of content, and never seemed to take "no" for an answer, that negative emotion is anything but shortterm.

How big do you think the community is that feels that way. Those that hate it that much. 

6 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Nor do i see it increasing the overall fun - quite the opposite. The end result is a community that is far more dispirited, disillusioned and untrusting (and generally less happy, not to mention smaller) than it was before Anet started on that road.

Depending on which push, I already agreed that there are cases where they overpuched. 

6 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

In short, i do not believe it's the game's job to try to tell me what i should and should not like.

It absolutely is, because the goal is to get as many people to have fun as possible. As such some pushing into areas they didn't consider is not a bad thing. 

 

You seem to think I don't care about how people feel, while it's the complete opposite. I just did not stop at the people being unhappy about something to then conclude that thing was bad. Instead of trying to look at the people who were helped by something. 

[yann.1946]

6 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

It is even against the basic design philosophy of the GW2 creators.

"It all gets back to our basic design philosophy. Our games aren't about preparing to have fun, or about grinding for a future fun reward. Our games are designed to be fun from moment to moment."

 

6 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

Mike O'Brien, GW2 Design Manifesto. 

That is, for example, the reason why achievement/rewards have alternative paths to get/finish them. So players could always chose the route to the achievement, they have the most fun with.

That is just not true, from the beginning there were achievements which you can only get one way. 

 

If the turtle was acquired by completion of the story, would you think it needed an alternative path of acquisition there to? 

Do you consider the need for an alternative acquisition method of the jade bot mastery? 

6 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

Sure, GW2 has deviated several times from this basic design philosophy. But it does not mean that it was (always) a good idea and that it should happen more often. And the more the game deviates from its core design philosophies, the more GW2 becomes a different game. If I would want a different game, I would play a different game.

 

 

[Zok.4956]

40 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

When I say for the greater good of the game I mean the total "fun" of the playerbase longterm. I don't know what you think I think the greater good is. 

The greater good is the players, that does not mean that every player will always be happy. 

It absolutely is, because the goal is to get as many people to have fun as possible. As such some pushing into areas they didn't consider is not a bad thing. 

I just did not stop at the people being unhappy about something to then conclude that thing was bad.

So, if people tell you something is bad or that they don't like something, you do not accept it and it does not stop you to try to change their behaviour?

Because you better know whats best for them than those themselves? My kid learned around 2nd grade in school the rule "no means no" to show bullies (and others) that there is no consent and that the other kid must accept that and stop.

This game is around 10 years old, EoD is not primarily for new players but more likely for veterans. Most players in the game know already what they like and what they don't like. Most players want to continue (with new content) in the content-types they already like. Not really healthy or fun-increasing to try again to push or force them in any content, they really don't like. No means no.

[Zok.4956]

44 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

That is just not true, from the beginning there were achievements which you can only get one way. 

First: I did not wrote "all achievements". Second: I did wrote that the game deviated several times from that design philosophy.

[Astralporing.1957]

43 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

Technically you are correct, there inters is making money. 

You misunderstood what I mean apperently. When I say for the greater good of the game I mean the total "fun" of the playerbase longterm. I don't know what you think I think the greater good is. 

I don't know what you think it is. And i don;t know what Anet seems to think it is - but whatever they think it does not seem to be working the way they want.

43 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

The greater good is the players, that does not mean that every player will always be happy. 

True. It's impossible to make everyone happy. We should however aim to make happy as many players as possible, while trying to minimize the number of those that will end up unhappy. Making few happy at the cost of unhappiness of many is generally a bad idea however.

43 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

How big do you think the community is that feels that way. Those that hate it that much. 

let's just say that so far the number of players that have no interest in high-end content seems to massively outweight those that like it.

43 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

Depending on which push, I already agreed that there are cases where they overpuched. 

I'd say that it is usually the case. Anet just does not do "subtle" well, and they always prefer to brute force things.

43 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

It absolutely is, because the goal is to get as many people to have fun as possible. As such some pushing into areas they didn't consider is not a bad thing. 

What about pushing into areas they have already considered and rejected? I mean, it's not the first or second time Anet tries to do that, and all the previous attempts were anything but succesful. And yet, instead of considering the option that the players they keep pushing over and over again actually do know better, they try to do it once more, in an even more blatant way than before. There's a certain word that describes doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Besides, if your goal is to get as many people to have fun as possible, you should be expanding their options. Pushing is the opposite of that, as it is being done by restricting options.

43 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

You seem to think I don't care about how people feel, while it's the complete opposite. I just did not stop at the people being unhappy about something to then conclude that thing was bad. Instead of trying to look at the people who were helped by something. 

Well, you certainly seem to think that players are incapable of knowing what's best for them and it's up to game devs that somehow know better to show them the way. I think that it is both very condescending mentality, and one that indeed does not care about how people feel.

[Hesione.9412]

8 hours ago, Teratus.2859 said:

That is almost a patronisingly "polite" way to define venting.. and I can assure you that the culture I come from not a single person vents without using at least 10-20 hard profanities xD

The only point I will agree with you on there is derogatory language, but that's only if it's being used to directly attack an individual, like racism and discrimination for example.

That is exactly what the block function exists for.

If you choose not to block someone who's opinions or behaviour offends you then you are making a conscious choice to continue to subject yourself to that behaviour.

You are choosing instead to demand control over other people's behaviour rather than use your own freedom to remove that person from your experience which you have the tools to do.

So while I agree Person B needs to learn better self control and stop being a donkey.
Person A also needs to learn personal responsibility and stop expecting the world to revolve around them.

Nope, not a word of this I agree with.

Your view on edgyness is straight up derogatory.
It's exactly the kind of opinion I see that is often used to justify discrimination, abuse and even violence being used against people who have a different or broader sense of humour than you do.

Edgy humour exists, millions upon millions of people enjoy it and have done for centuries, in my homeland it's even a cultural thing enjoyed by almost the entire population.
 
You may not like it and that's fine, each to their own.
But defining people as "horrible" because they can laugh and joke about things that you don't find funny is incredibly intolerant and bigoted.

Nothing wrong with that at all.
Being ignorant about something isn't a crime not does it classify as trolling.

If memory serves there are a few ways to get back up there, I believe there is a waypoint on the airship that shows up during the event.. might be mistaken on that but im sure I saw one circling the arena on the minimap.

There is also the zipline you first use to get upto the platform as well, that remains active through the whole event.

Hope that helps you out in future runs of the event.

I agree, this is one of the bigger issues with the event and why I don't support nerfing it.

Better to improve the event by fixing these issues than just nuking the event like a lot of people are asking for.
In the long run I believe it's the better option that will not only keep the event fun and challenging but will also help bring players to a higher skill level which will make other group content in the game that little bit more accessible.
Which is a good thing all around if you ask me.

I have no idea how to split up quotes on this forum, so here goes.

 

1. Your "culture" is definitely a sub-culture. There is no national or ethnic culture where it is acceptable behaviour to spout multiple profanities at people. What you are describing is not a norm, but a deviation from one. Learn self-control. Learn not to bully.

 

2. Someone spewing profanities and/or bullying is not merely opinions or behaviour that is subjectively offensive. It is objectively offensive. Learn self-control. Learn not to bully.

 

3. I have taken your use of "edginess" to mean an "edgelord", or edgelord wannabe, is doing this. "Edginess" or "edgelord" are word used to describe people who are purposely offensive/bullying. Giving it another name doesn't change the behaviour.

 

4. Calling me intolerant and bigoted is DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. 

 

5. Thank you for the tips on how to get up to the platform.

 

6. If lots of people are asking for the event to get nerfed, there is a reason for that: the event needs to be nerfed as it stands in open world. One option is to nerf the open world one and leave the current one as instanced content. Then people could choose which one they wanted to do. I can predict which one will die. I'm also predicting that DE will die as a map once lots of people get their turtle, as there is no reason to replay that map.

[Gehenna.3625]

On 3/13/2022 at 1:52 PM, Astralporing.1957 said:

Content itself is never toxic. It can however push players towards toxic behaviour.

Yes, a content that requires a certain level of dps that group will never be able to reach does push players towards toxicity. That toxicity will or will not happen depending on specific personalities of players, of course, but the design of that content will make the toxicity far more likely.

What I mean is that you say that players with requirements are always toxic. Correct me if I misinterpret that but that's what it sounds like at least.

But then ArenaNet creates content that comes with those requirements of you want to beat it. So in that respect, players are forced to require certain things from their team mates or they simply won't beat that content. That's not toxic to me, but it is to you apparently.

If you prefer to say it differently then I will say that by your definition ArenaNet makes content that require people to be toxic... at least by your definition.

Is that a fair interpretation of your opinion?

[yann.1946]

5 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

I don't know what you think it is. And i don;t know what Anet seems to think it is - but whatever they think it does not seem to be working the way they want.

 

5 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

True. It's impossible to make everyone happy. We should however aim to make happy as many players as possible, while trying to minimize the number of those that will end up unhappy. Making few happy at the cost of unhappiness of many is generally a bad idea however.

Agreed

5 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

let's just say that so far the number of players that have no interest in high-end content seems to massively outweight those that like it.

That is not what i asked though. Actually engage with the question please.

5 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

I'd say that it is usually the case. Anet just does not do "subtle" well, and they always prefer to brute force things.

It is entirly possible that they suck at doing the pushing well, although i dont think thats the case. It just so happened that the good cases people dont remember because they are not that contraversial. 

5 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

What about pushing into areas they have already considered and rejected?

The playerbase gets new people constantly. 

5 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

I mean, it's not the first or second time Anet tries to do that, and all the previous attempts were anything but succesful. And yet, instead of considering the option that the players they keep pushing over and over again actually do know better, they try to do it once more, in an even more blatant way than before. There's a certain word that describes doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Do you actually have any way to back up that claim? In the end the succesfullnes of a lot of the pushes can only be observed by Anet.

5 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Besides, if your goal is to get as many people to have fun as possible, you should be expanding their options. Pushing is the opposite of that, as it is being done by restricting options.

No, expanding options doesnt always increase fun. That is a pretty well understood phenomena. A part of gamedesign is restricting options. (A hopefully non controversial example of restricting options is removing the option to run in serious storysteps)

5 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Well, you certainly seem to think that players are incapable of knowing what's best for them and it's up to game devs that somehow know better to show them the way. I think that it is both very condescending mentality, and one that indeed does not care about how people feel.

Do you really think the world is that black and white, or do you think i think that way? I honestly cant tell anymore.

I said that people are not perfect beings who understand themselves perfectly and wont willingly move outside their comfortzone most of the time. And people when pushed outside of their comfortzone sometimes discover things they enjoy.  Is their anything you actually disagree with here?

 

I never made the claim that the devs know better, subtle pushing/motivations needs to happen in all directions, so more people  stumble into the things they enjoy but didnt realise. 

[Astralporing.1957]

1 hour ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

What I mean is that you say that players with requirements are always toxic. Correct me if I misinterpret that but that's what it sounds like at least.

No. I meant that players that for some reason have difficulties completing the content (or are just plain unable to do it) get frustrated. And frustration breeds toxic behaviour. And that toxic behaviour is (again) multiplied when Anet pushes into the same content groups of players with different gameplay styles/different gaming goals.

1 hour ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

But then ArenaNet creates content that comes with those requirements of you want to beat it. So in that respect, players are forced to require certain things from their team mates or they simply won't beat that content. That's not toxic to me, but it is to you apparently.

If you prefer to say it differently then I will say that by your definition ArenaNet makes content that require people to be toxic... at least by your definition.

Is that a fair interpretation of your opinion?

See above. Some types of content that Anet creates generate more toxicity in players than others. And that generally happens with content that puts more pressure on the players involved.

 

[Astralporing.1957]

51 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

That is not what i asked though. Actually engage with the question please.

I have already answered it. The amount of players that do not like raids/other forms of high end content is significantly greater than the amount of players that like it. As such, the amount of players that will be unhappy for being pushed will be greater than those that will end up happy.

Quote

It is entirly possible that they suck at doing the pushing well, although i dont think thats the case. It just so happened that the good cases people dont remember because they are not that contraversial. 

No, it's not just about pushing. Anet just doesn't do subtle, unless by accident. They always use hammers and nukes to kill flies.

Quote

The playerbase gets new people constantly. 

Sure, but the old methods of pushing do not disappear. They are still there. Anet just keeps adding more and more, unsatisfied with the response it got from players to those so far.

Quote

Do you actually have any way to back up that claim? In the end the succesfullnes of a lot of the pushes can only be observed by Anet.

Well, if the previous pushes were succesful, Raids would not have ended up being abandoned, and Anet would not feel the need to keep pushing and pushing again towards the very same goal.

Quote

No, expanding options doesnt always increase fun. That is a pretty well understood phenomena. A part of gamedesign is restricting options. (A hopefully non controversial example of restricting options is removing the option to run in serious storysteps)

Expanding fun options.

Quote

Do you really think the world is that black and white, or do you think i think that way? I honestly cant tell anymore.

I do not know what do you think. I only know how you sound. And you sound very sure that pushing people toward content they do not like is generally beneficial. For some "greater good".

Quote

I said that people are not perfect beings who understand themselves perfectly and wont willingly move outside their comfortzone most of the time. And people when pushed outside of their comfortzone sometimes discover things they enjoy.  Is their anything you actually disagree with here?

Why do you not use the very same measure towards devs? How are you so sure that on average players are generally wrong about what they like, but devs (that aren;t even playing this game) know better? Because if the hits are to outweight the misses to a big enough degree for this to work out, the players need to be wrong most of the time, and devs do need to know better, and to a very high degree. 

Quote

I never made the claim that the devs know better, subtle pushing/motivations needs to happen in all directions, so more people  stumble into the things they enjoy but didnt realise. 

If you keep pushing people in all directions, you will end up with those pushes, most of the time, generating not happiness increase, but more discontent and unhappiness.

Pushes are good only in at least one of two cases: either if players do not see they are pushed, or if they are almost always pushed in the right direction (notice, that by nature of how human mind works, we're more likely to remember the push failures than push successes, so successes must massively outweight the failures for the net result to be positive).

Edited March 15, 2022 by Astralporing.1957

[yann.1946]

7 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Why do you not use the very same measure towards devs? How are you so sure that on average players are generally wrong about what they like, but devs (that aren;t even playing this game) know better? Because if the hits are to outweight the misses to a big enough degree for this to work out, the players need to be wrong most of the time, and devs do need to know better, and to a very high degree. 

I never said devs know better.

7 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

If you keep pushing people in all directions, you will end up with those pushes, most of the time, generating not happiness increase, but more discontent and unhappiness.

Pushes are good only in at least one of two cases: either if players do not see they are pushed, or if they are almost always pushed in the right direction (notice, that by nature of how human mind works, we're more likely to remember the push failures than push successes, so successes must massively outweight the failures for the net result to be positive).

Well that is true if a specific pushes can only be a positive or negative experience. (And if that was the case i would probably agree).

But pushes can also have a neutral effect emotionally. In the sense that a person does not really care.   

[Astralporing.1957]

7 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

I never said devs know better.

If they do not, then this whole pushing just cannot work. In order for it to work well, they have to know better than players what content players might be interested in.

7 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

Well that is true if a specific pushes can only be a positive or negative experience. (And if that was the case i would probably agree).

But pushes can also have a neutral effect emotionally. In the sense that a person does not really care.   

Sure, individual pushes can have that effect, but overall players that will be constantly prevented from playing the game the way they want by devs equally constantly pushing them in every direction except the one they want to go will eventually end up with negative experience. There's no way around it.

Also, contrary to what you seem to think, most players are not sheep, and do care.

[Tails.9372]

9 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Expanding fun options.

Which for most players would be to expand instanced content options with various things which are actually geared towards the enjoyment of the average casual player (without any other ulterior motives). But something tells me that many of the players who praise hard / challenging OW content as much needed diversity would find this rather objectionable.

Edited March 15, 2022 by Tails.9372

[Gehenna.3625]

9 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

No. I meant that players that for some reason have difficulties completing the content (or are just plain unable to do it) get frustrated. And frustration breeds toxic behaviour. And that toxic behaviour is (again) multiplied when Anet pushes into the same content groups of players with different gameplay styles/different gaming goals.

See above. Some types of content that Anet creates generate more toxicity in players than others. And that generally happens with content that puts more pressure on the players involved.

 

Well, then you are saying that Anet, with some content, is responsible for causing toxic behavior... in your view that is. The problem I have with your definition of toxic is that I don't agree that it's always toxic when people set requirements. I mean, if you want to drive a car you have to take lessons and pass an exam. That ensures at least a basic level of knowing how to drive a car. It's not the same thing of course but there is content in MMOs that also requires a basic understanding of your class and when you are not willing to have that understanding but still want to do said content, I feel you're the toxic one.

Now I will say that gating the turtle mount behind the end meta is wrong. That's essentially putting something that should be accessible for all behind content that's not for all. And afaic that is the issue.