Toxic player on the rise ?

[Embered.5089]

I haven't seen a rise in toxicity except in forums. People go to forums to complain or ask questions. People play when they like the game.

I think that squad commanders and party LFG posters have the right to demand whatever they want from the group. The flip side is that the commander is expected to lead the group. Not carry the group, but lead it. More recently, people have been posting in LFG with the expectation of being carried by others, despite the LFG not mentioning that.

If the LFG post or squad message already explains the commander's demands, then whatever he asks for is fine. If the LFG post or squad message says something different than what the commander actually asks for, then the commander is not experienced, is not a team player, or is manipulative.

But there are some things that are okay to ask, even if it's not mentioned in the LFG post or squad message. Providing food and asking people to eat it is fine. Asking people to get a buff that's provided in a strike instance (i.e. IBS pillars) is fine. Even asking first-timers to leave a exp-only, fast-run group is fine. I mentor people often, and even I do not want first-timers to join a group that will not teach them or carry them. They slow down the people who joined for the advertised fastness of the run, and worse, they learn much less than what they would from joining a teaching/training group.

If the LFG post has only a general description, like "Cold War", then it's up in the air. I often post "Cold War" in LFG, with the intention of slowly finishing the achievement Morale Breaker. With only the name of the strike and nothing else, people join at their own risk. It's up to the commander to decide the feel of the group. In my case, I expect people to be experienced because I post in the Experienced LFG section without mentioning teaching/training. As a mentor at heart, I also ask squad members if they're new, and will explain the strike to them if they are. This bores experienced players sometimes, but again, I posted only the name of the strike. However, despite how I handle my own LFG groups, a general LFG post does not mean "will take newbs/will carry you/will teach you". Don't expect anything if there's no LFG description or squad message to shape your expectations.

To cycle back to the original question, no, I'm not seeing more toxicity in-game. I am seeing more inexperienced players, but that's inevitable for a rapidly growing game and is wholly welcomed by a mentor like me. If I ever do run into a toxic commander, I either silently take what I want from the group and leave, or I leave before I can experience more of the toxicity. You can't stop toxic players from being toxic. You can only control how you respond to them.

[Sobx.1758]

17 hours ago, Woof.8246 said:

People are allowed to put requirements in the groups for NORMAL MODES  (but they not contribute to the increase of the Instance community)

That great, how is this relevant to anything or to my post? You're just randomly repeating this nonsense to my posts all the time for some reason. Consider finally addressing what you're quoting fro a change 🤦‍♂️

[Deepcuts.9740]

No.

People get offended way to easy lately. And it is going to only get worse.
You can't say anything to anyone these days without being called toxic.
 

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

I've noticed an increase in toxicity.  I'm not sure if it is just the withdrawl from a recent medication or if it is actually happening in the game, but I've seen three things happen.  First, an increase in fighting and general disagreement overall.  Second, a lot of players who are just outright lazy and non-cooperative (toxic casuals).  Third, extremely over-the-top requirements and demands from other group leaders.  It's creating a nasty spiral where I have to make my own groups, but I also end up having to deal with utterly incompetent players, thus making me the "toxic" one.  

[BumboJumbo.1308]

What is meant by the word "toxic"?

I feel like the word is thrown everywhere but I don't know what people are defining it as.

[Linken.6345]

2 hours ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

I've noticed an increase in toxicity.  I'm not sure if it is just the withdrawl from a recent medication or if it is actually happening in the game, but I've seen three things happen.  First, an increase in fighting and general disagreement overall.  Second, a lot of players who are just outright lazy and non-cooperative (toxic casuals).  Third, extremely over-the-top requirements and demands from other group leaders.  It's creating a nasty spiral where I have to make my own groups, but I also end up having to deal with utterly incompetent players, thus making me the "toxic" one.  

 Yes and that is why the group leaders up the requirement mate.

My training commander had ping something as a requirement and still had to kick around 10 people that just silently loaded into KO cm two days ago.

[Sylvia.4870]

     ... Correct me if I am wrong...

Being toxic = (as I noticed) it is kind of  doing something unwelcome to someone and one thinks  it as  a helper  to make oneself look cool, superior to that person; for instance,

        a guardian player, playing as a willbender defeats a thief player, playing core specializations only, laughs and calls that player  as  an incompetent one when the guardian player has no idea why the player does such a thing  and what the player is thinking. Then, he just goes away as if he did nothing.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Sylvia.4870

[BumboJumbo.1308]

42 minutes ago, Sylvia.4870 said:

     ... Correct me if I am wrong...

Being toxic = (as I noticed) it is kind of  doing something unwelcome to someone and one thinks  it as  a helper  to make oneself look cool, superior to that person; for instance,

        a guardian player, playing as a willbender defeats a thief player, playing core specializations only, laughs and calls that player  as  an incompetent one when the guardian player has no idea why the player does such a thing  and what the player is thinking. Then, he just goes away as if he did nothing.

So hypothetically, if I were to kick someone from a normal mode strike group because they weren't "role X" would that be toxic under your definition?

 

[Sylvia.4870]

20 minutes ago, BumboJumbo.1308 said:

So hypothetically, if I were to kick someone from a normal mode strike group because they weren't "role X" would that be toxic under your definition?

 

       In the case you spoke of, if  you removed one of the strike group's  members  who didn't do what you wished for  after you had stated some details, telling them to do something specifically, you wouldn't be considered  as a toxic player. On the other hand, if you kicked the person out from the group with no reasonable information and did something impolite toward  him after he had been cast out, you would be thought as the toxic one.

     

Edited October 17, 2022 by Sylvia.4870

[BumboJumbo.1308]

1 hour ago, Sylvia.4870 said:

       In the case you spoke of, if  you removed one of the strike group's  members  who didn't do what you wished for  after you had stated some details, telling them to do something specifically, you wouldn't be considered  as a toxic player. On the other hand, if you kicked the person out from the group with no reasonable information and did something impolite toward  him after he had been cast out, you would be thought as the toxic one.

     

Would it be fair to say that...

being unfair = toxic behaviour?

[Bakeneko.5826]

1 hour ago, BumboJumbo.1308 said:

Would it be fair to say that...

being unfair = toxic behaviour?

Not quite. Toxic is being unfair and male sausage at the same time. Unfair is just tw*t.

[soulknight.9620]

17 hours ago, Valaraukar.7652 said:

I will not repeat myself for what i have say already about the first part of your comment. Tk's to read the whole subject.

Sorry but for li and kp it's the same. Some people get their kp or li with being carry. I see some eletist witk kp and li playing worse than some without or having toxic behavior. (as exemple saying in this topic, someone harrassing one member of our squad because some mistake in cm raid. Requesting to kick her. Speaking about ap, he got 1k AP. Here, he was probably thinking that he was a god to have such behavior (since you say that some play as a god....).

So yes true, ap it's not a proof. But got admet that i was findind strange to ask me since that time since all people joined in same time and no question like that for other (without proof or other).

And i repeat, the lfg wasn't the main subject that i wanted to talk about in this topic but the toxic behavior in general (even if i make mistake to talk almost only about that in first post)(copy pasta above).

I have read all of ur posts. And the only specific thing u are claiming to be toxic is lfg issues, be it "lfg is being unfair" or "comm doesnt like someones build and asks to change it before fight". He has full right to ask for a build change. It is his squad. If you dont want to - u can alway leave and join different squad. Thats what i do when i dont like a group by any of my standarts. Game provides u with all the tools u need to choose a group that u like to be in or start ur own group. Many people who didnt organise a single run as a commander doesnt understand that sometimes u have to make a difficult decision and kick someone (for example for not having a build we need) if u want to make a run smooth and enjoyable for the rest of the group. 

You cant just state a few examples of what u think is toxic behavior (which are clearly not, like everyone is mentioning here), and then just add something abstract like "and other toxic things/behavior" without saying something specific. Insulting is quite subjective, ive seen people being offended by a banana link. 

I havent seen anything in any of ur posts that would actually be considered as "toxic". 

 

People really need to stop putting a "toxic" tag on anything they dont like. Its not how it works. If a comm has a bad day and is being a bit harsh on the requirements/comments he is not toxic. Toxic means someone is deliberatly ruining everyones experience with the sole goal of ruining the experience. Having a bad day, or being tilted is not toxic by any standart. Thats the problem of modern day "special snowflake" mentality. They think that everyone should be 100% nice to each other, and thats not the case in normal human society.

"Oh no i got kicked from raids for not using food, they are elitists and toxic!".

"Oh no, a comm wants me to play a specific build, he is toxic!"

"Oh no, i joined a tryhard group with a bad build and got kicked out, they are toxic!"

No they are not. From my experience a lot of players that push the mighty old "they are toxic" button usually provoke people to be rude. Im not saying thats ur case whatsoever. 

[Sylvia.4870]

       

 

42 minutes ago, soulknight.9620 said:

I have read all of ur posts. And the only specific thing u are claiming to be toxic is lfg issues, be it "lfg is being unfair" or "comm doesnt like someones build and asks to change it before fight". He has full right to ask for a build change. It is his squad. If you dont want to - u can alway leave and join different squad. Thats what i do when i dont like a group by any of my standarts. Game provides u with all the tools u need to choose a group that u like to be in or start ur own group. Many people who didnt organise a single run as a commander doesnt understand that sometimes u have to make a difficult decision and kick someone (for example for not having a build we need) if u want to make a run smooth and enjoyable for the rest of the group. 

You cant just state a few examples of what u think is toxic behavior (which are clearly not, like everyone is mentioning here), and then just add something abstract like "and other toxic things/behavior" without saying something specific. Insulting is quite subjective, ive seen people being offended by a banana link. 

I havent seen anything in any of ur posts that would actually be considered as "toxic". 

 

People really need to stop putting a "toxic" tag on anything they dont like. Its not how it works. If a comm has a bad day and is being a bit harsh on the requirements/comments he is not toxic. Toxic means someone is deliberatly ruining everyones experience with the sole goal of ruining the experience. Having a bad day, or being tilted is not toxic by any standart. Thats the problem of modern day "special snowflake" mentality. They think that everyone should be 100% nice to each other, and thats not the case in normal human society.

"Oh no i got kicked from raids for not using food, they are elitists and toxic!".

"Oh no, a comm wants me to play a specific build, he is toxic!"

"Oh no, i joined a tryhard group with a bad build and got kicked out, they are toxic!"

No they are not. From my experience a lot of players that push the mighty old "they are toxic" button usually provoke people to be rude. Im not saying thats ur case whatsoever. 

     So, being toxic = desire to destroy someone's joyfulness for doing something, basically?

Edited October 17, 2022 by Sylvia.4870

[soulknight.9620]

2 hours ago, Sylvia.4870 said:

 So, being toxic = desire to destroy someone's joyfulness for doing something, basically?

Kinda-ish. 

Since it is kinda a new term it doesnt have a longterm standing definition. The closest thing to a definition is Oxford Languages one, which states that toxicity is: "the quality of being very harmful or unpleasant in a pervasive or insidious way."

But we should keep in mind that by defining "toxicity" we should not interpret this term too broadly otherwise we would end up in a situation that i described earlier, which is taging everyone/everything that a person disagrees with/which makes him feel offended as toxic. Like ive said ive seen people getting upset by a banana ping. There must always be a rational approach - having a bad day, being tilted or if a person just snapped a bit should not be considered being toxic, because it isnt consistant and deliberate. But if you see a guy thats doing spvp day after day and always misbehave and insult people, yeah, that should be considered toxic. 

[Sylvia.4870]

1 hour ago, soulknight.9620 said:

Kinda-ish. 

Since it is kinda a new term it doesnt have a longterm standing definition. The closest thing to a definition is Oxford Languages one, which states that toxicity is: "the quality of being very harmful or unpleasant in a pervasive or insidious way."

But we should keep in mind that by defining "toxicity" we should not interpret this term too broadly otherwise we would end up in a situation that i described earlier, which is taging everyone/everything that a person disagrees with/which makes him feel offended as toxic. Like ive said ive seen people getting upset by a banana ping. There must always be a rational approach - having a bad day, being tilted or if a person just snapped a bit should not be considered being toxic, because it isnt consistant and deliberate. But if you see a guy thats doing spvp day after day and always misbehave and insult people, yeah, that should be considered toxic. 

    Ah! Thank you for the explanation! Truly. : )

[Parpage.9867]

On 10/15/2022 at 9:20 PM, Valaraukar.7652 said:

toxic player/eletist ?

Ah yes, the toxic eletist. That's why elementalist keeps getting nerfed, it's toxic i knew it!

[Linken.6345]

2 hours ago, Bakeneko.5826 said:

Yeah.... No... If players are easily offended, it means, there was intent to offend in the first place.

Not really its the one being offended that chose to take offense.

[Valaraukar.7652]

Quote

People really need to stop putting a "toxic" tag on anything they dont like. Its not how it works. If a comm has a bad day and is being a bit harsh on the requirements/comments he is not toxic. Toxic means someone is deliberatly ruining everyones experience with the sole goal of ruining the experience. Having a bad day, or being tilted is not toxic by any standart. Thats the problem of modern day "special snowflake" mentality. They think that everyone should be 100% nice to each other, and thats not the case in normal human society.

 

Hello, it's a good view and a good point. Of course, we can have all a bad day. I absolutly understand this point. I can agree that maybe, bad experience in the past in some party, some commander are more directive.

 

About lfg description, i'm totally agree that when you join a squad/party like that with instructions, you must respect that. If you don't want, you don't join. I say it in my previous post. I find just stupid some lfg unreasonnable request. (as 500 li for ds, or strike normal). it's feel more as the commander was wanting to be carry with these unreassonable request.

But i don't agree that a commander have all right on his/her squad. I mean, it's a mmo, a game online. A game where you play with other player. When a healer, a dps, a quick, an alac join as requested by exemple, why should he/se change his build without reason, without asking the build of the player, without even a first fight ? For what ? The strike last 2 min longer ? Kicking maybe someone because he hasn't eat food ? I never see this and hope to never see someone kicked because he/she didn't use food. It would be crazy. I'm using food always before a raid/strike/fractal but if someone not, well i will not give him order to do it. If the group/squad need food to succes, there is a problem.

You can't play a mmo without concession. Sometimes it's fractal it's go fast, sometimes not. It's happen. If someone want to have a specially build, special class, special food or other, just make 9/4 other character and play alone in raid/strike/fractal. Like that, these kind of person will be happy.

 

Btw, the topic deviated from the main subject. Initially, i haven't in mind to focus on lfg. It was more about toxicity in general, not lfg even if i must admet, that i got it wrong with my first post, that i should say more exemple of toxicity in general and not mainly speaking about the lfg experience of last day. So since the subject was placed in one other category and that the main subject (not my will) changed, it will be my last post. Just for next time, i should remember to be more clear from the beginning, like that the subject will be clear for everyone.

 

And remember just to have fun ingame. We will always find player who match us. Peace 😃

[MonsterTruck.9816]

I think a lot of people have a hard time seeing the game as, "am I wasting my own time or everyone else's time?"

 

Showing up with meta gear and build tells the other people you are playing with that you respect their time.  You put in SOME effort to know how your class works and what is best.  It also makes others think that you also know how the encounter is going to go if you put in that effort.  Joining a pug is about selling yourself to everyone else, not the other way around.

If you want to play something off what is the current meta, that's ok too.  If what you are doing comes at the expense of everyone else, that's a problem.  I'm not saying you can't perform using something that isn't meta, I've seen people do it plenty of times.  However, it's almost always been someone that I've played with before and asked if they could try something. 
 

[AliamRationem.5172]

On 10/17/2022 at 7:45 AM, Bakeneko.5826 said:

Yeah.... No... If players are easily offended, it means, there was intent to offend in the first place.

So if someone looks at LFG and gets triggered because a group lists requirements those requirements were intended to offend?  That's...dumb.

[Bakeneko.5826]

52 minutes ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

So if someone looks at LFG and gets triggered because a group lists requirements those requirements were intended to offend?  That's...dumb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Sobx.1758]

1 minute ago, Bakeneko.5826 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

That's not a strawman, that's a description of what some people think in direct relation to the clearly false statement you've made in your previous post. Really nothing to do with a strawman, it's a striaght up showcase of how what you said isn't correct because some people do get offended by things that were never meant to offend.

[AliamRationem.5172]

4 minutes ago, Bakeneko.5826 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Sorry, was that not one of the arguments specifically being made in this thread?  I think it was.

[Bakeneko.5826]

1 hour ago, Sobx.1758 said:

That's not a strawman, that's a description of what some people think in direct relation to the clearly false statement you've made in your previous post. Really nothing to do with a strawman, it's a striaght up showcase of how what you said isn't correct because some people do get offended by things that were never meant to offend.

It is strawman 😄 thats the whole point, i said that if people are offended, there was intent to offend. You take easily defendable statement, that wasn't even part of the original idea and state it as what i said. Smells a lot like reddit user.

[Sobx.1758]

6 minutes ago, Bakeneko.5826 said:

It is strawman 😄 thats the whole point, i said that if people are offended, there was intent to offend. You take easily defendable statement, that wasn't even part of the original idea and state it as what i said. Smells a lot like reddit user.

Deliverig directly related example which we can observe even in this very same thread that proves your weird broad statement wrong is not a strawman. It clearly shows people can be offended without an intent to offend being there in the first place, doesn't it? Nobody substituted what you've said with something else.

Claiming that "there is intent to offend" simply "because someone is easly offended" is just ridiculous and obviously false.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Sobx.1758