Join squads, please.

[Zikory.6871]

The main reason I require people to join comms to join squad is to see if they can follow directions or if they are just going to be difficult to deal with. First interaction is complaining, no thank you.

[SFShinigami.1572]

12 hours ago, neven.3785 said:

1. I currently am not running meta and don't want people assuming i am a role i am not based on my elite specialization.

 

As a roamy FB I am feelin this so hard.

 

The flipside, though, is  when people try to jump you and realize you are definitely not the typical FB.  That is delicious.

[Custodio.6134]

8 hours ago, SoftFootpaws.9134 said:

If I join an open-tag, they better know how to type on a keyboard if they want me to do something

have you ever even tried to type something in the middle of a fight? of course not. you gotta press your buttons. 

And if you were to do it anyway, you will be standing still. which is a death-sentence. 
 

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

1 hour ago, Custodio.6134 said:

have you ever even tried to type something in the middle of a fight? of course not. you gotta press your buttons. 

And if you were to do it anyway, you will be standing still. which is a death-sentence. 
 

The problem isn't voicechat, its the reliance on Discord. Mumble, TeamSpeak, and Vent were far better platforms . Discord is a bloated social media platform coded on a web browser, disguised as an app.

 

To answer your question , though, yes I have. People have been playing games since long before voice chat existed, and yes even realtime games over 56k which was plenty for the game to run but not enough for VoIP. This was happening for years before the first wide-spread use of voicechat even existed, and we did just fine. You can type and play perfectly by knowing how to use your autorun key to type while moving, binding chat macros and so on.

 

Players don't think they can do it because they've lost the skill required for it. I mean sure this is a very fast paced game, but it still doesn't hold a candle to older games like Quake.

Edited April 23, 2023 by SoftFootpaws.9134

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, SoftFootpaws.9134 said:

The problem isn't voicechat, its the reliance on Discord. Mumble, TeamSpeak, and Vent were far better platforms . Discord is a bloated social media platform coded on a web browser, disguised as an app.

 

To answer your question , though, yes I have. People have been playing games since long before voice chat existed, and yes even realtime games over 56k which was plenty for the game to run but not enough for VoIP. This was happening for years before the first wide-spread use of voicechat even existed, and we did just fine. You can type and play perfectly by knowing how to use your autorun key to type while moving, binding chat macros and so on.

 

Players don't think they can do it because they've lost the skill required for it. I mean sure this is a very fast paced game, but it still doesn't hold a candle to older games like Quake.

This reads like a grandpa poking a teenager with a cane.

[Kirevey.5079]

Stop telling people to join your squads. Most of the public squads suffer from, among others:

 

* Ppl trying to pad the arcdps meters thinking that the bigger the number, the better you are doing

* Ppl who do nothing but to stack on tag even if they are going to die for it, like eating an entire well bomb just to get to the tag

* Ppl and tags that assume that just by being all together is going to compensate for ppl being bad at the game

* Groups that run all together in party 1 without setting up proper groups

* Ppl and tag demanding players to play something they don't want to play (aka comped groups)

* Ppl getting kitten on for not playing perfectly

* Tags that have no clue what they are doing and constantly run their groups into baits and kill the entire group

* (A lot of) Tags that believe they are hot kitten and are just annoying to deal with

* The most important one for me: Tags that have no clue on how to play with what they have (Like having low support in the group and playing like a melee boon ball and wondering why they keep dying)

 

All of those are not even close to all the kitten that people have to deal with and I understand why nobody wants to join random tags anymore. Let people play how they wanna play, and if they join your squad, good for you. Otherwise leave them alone.

 

[HnRkLnXqZ.1870]

I am not playing WvW on a professional level. There are plenty of people who consider WvW and war-score as the most important thing in their lives. Yesterday we had a heated 'discussion' in EBG where a few of those specialists started insulting the rest of us for having fun. The k/d ratio changed not in our favor? It was a massive onslaught, enemy raided our base. They suggested to just let them capture everything and return later, to save the score. I'm not getting a pay-check for playing WvW on a professional level. This is a game after all, not a job. I do not feel like I fit into this group and I do not think I would contribute anything they consider useful. So I leave them in their elite-squads and roam the area in safe distance, not to mess with their top-tier strategies. 

Why I join squads rarely:
- Squads often mean extra stress. (rules to obey, orders to follow)
- Half of them demand voice-communication. Opinions may differ. But for most activities, it is imo not necessary.
A few months ago, I joined a squad with barely 5 people. We took some objects on the map. And then the commander announced "we now go to X BL and then you all join voice." And then the squad disbanded. 
- Commanders often pull a Sir-Robin. Being in the squad does not necessarily mean they will inform you about it. (personal experience)
- Squads tend to switch maps more frequently. 

Reasons why I decline an invite:
- Squad leader insults players on /map or /team or both. (bad manners)
- Squad leader bashes other squad leader for being incompetent. (bad manners)
- Squad leader is active on /map, but pulls a Sir Robin without telling anyone. 

That does not mean I avoid squads at all costs. Some leaders are nice and put a lot of effort into their squads. I just do not actively try to get into them. When there is an opportunity and I get an invite, I usually join. 7/10 squad experiences are great.

[Gehenna.3625]

On 4/21/2023 at 12:17 PM, Riba.3271 said:

Big issue caused by playerbase is that ton of people aren't willing to ever join squad. Especially on EB. 

It seems to me that most people who don't join squads don't see this as a big issue.

On 4/21/2023 at 12:17 PM, Riba.3271 said:

Squadless people complaining about commanders and bad gameplay on mapchat? 

From my experience, it's just a handful of people who complain about this. They complain a lot at times but it's still just a handful of people.

On 4/21/2023 at 12:17 PM, Riba.3271 said:

We will all have better time and fights with bigger squads.

Not everybody likes that sort of gameplay. Just saying.

On 4/21/2023 at 12:17 PM, Riba.3271 said:

Nobody likes when there is a queue on map but 40 people afk or playing boonless.

It makes you wonder why this happens so much. It's almost like they're there for different reasons than you. Personally, I feel like there's plenty of reasons why people don't join groups and I think it can involve things like pip hunting and not liking to join groups in general.

I'm sure the people who are afk don't care about this and are just fine. However, I do feel that boons are way too powerful and create a huge difference between random players (grouped or not) and boon balls, but that's another topic.

[CafPow.1542]

11 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

This reads like a grandpa poking a teenager with a cane.

my server is still using Teamspeak like a bunch of old geeser xD

 

@topic

you're not my mom op. if i feel like roaming around and listening to some music i do that.

if i want to join a Tag, i do that.

i really really really reeeeeaaaalllyyyyyy don't give a flying fu** about my server winning / losing some "rating" in wvw. i'm here for the fun. Gladly, both (zerging and roaming) are fun for me and i adapt my build in an instant, but sometimes, i just wanna be left alone and do my weekly ruins or something (and i'm not doing THAT one with a whole zerg my god)

so you let me play the game how i want kk?

Edited April 23, 2023 by CafPow.1542

[Xenesis.6389]

16 hours ago, Kirevey.5079 said:

Stop telling people to join your squads. Most of the public squads suffer from, among others:

* Ppl trying to pad the arcdps meters thinking that the bigger the number, the better you are doing

* Ppl who do nothing but to stack on tag even if they are going to die for it, like eating an entire well bomb just to get to the tag

* Ppl and tags that assume that just by being all together is going to compensate for ppl being bad at the game

* Groups that run all together in party 1 without setting up proper groups

* Ppl and tag demanding players to play something they don't want to play (aka comped groups)

* Ppl getting kitten on for not playing perfectly

* Tags that have no clue what they are doing and constantly run their groups into baits and kill the entire group

* (A lot of) Tags that believe they are hot kitten and are just annoying to deal with

* The most important one for me: Tags that have no clue on how to play with what they have (Like having low support in the group and playing like a melee boon ball and wondering why they keep dying)

All of those are not even close to all the kitten that people have to deal with and I understand why nobody wants to join random tags anymore. Let people play how they wanna play, and if they join your squad, good for you. Otherwise leave them alone.

Amen.

--------------------------------------------

Personally I don't join squads because I tend to squirrel off to scout or defend in fights that the tag wouldn't always go to, they don't always respond to smaller defense stuff unless they're in the area. Most times I'm trying to mess with enemies with pulls in weird spots, so I'm not always going to be on the tag, I'll be there for big fights and drop my cc boonrips, but I'm also not going to be a meat shield for someone who's going to stand in red rings all day. If I wanted to be a zergling meta zombie absolutely following a tag for 2 hours a day I'd join a dedicated zerg guild. 🤷‍♂️🍿

Edited April 23, 2023 by Xenesis.6389

[babana.7521]

I've tried joining random squad smany times, most time didn't end well, makes me feels like the tags were taking us on a death traps. 

Edited April 24, 2023 by babana.7521

[Eudaimonia.8695]

A huge problem in my opinion is that the new reward system encourages people to play dps instead of support in order to reliably get credit for tickets/shards. I see considerably fewer supports than before, firebrands especially.

So even if you get a squad going, Riba, it's most of the time not going to be a good composition, which means you have to cloud, and at that point you might as well disband the squad.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2023 by Eudaimonia.8695

[Kirevey.5079]

49 minutes ago, Eudaimonia.8695 said:

A huge problem in my opinion is that the new reward system encourages people to play dps instead of support in order to reliably get credit for tickets/shards. I see considerably fewer supports than before, firebrands especially.

How do people play supports? I keep seeing this complaint everywhere and for the life of me, I see no difference in loot between playing dps or support. I play fb support and tempest/cata support all the time and I see about the same amount of loot than when I'm playing dps (weaver, scourge, berserker).

Are people just not tagging  enough enemies ?

[Arianth Moonlight.6453]

I usually avoid joining tags because they often play boonball and expect me to stick closely to the tag, which is a death sentence for me as a Reaper.

I only join if I receive a direct invitation, but even then, I don't use Discord because I often get killed while trying to follow the instructions.

[Some Call Me Tim.2319]

What “should “ or “shouldn’t “ be is irrelevant.  People play the way they want, when they want.  It isn't a school team or even a public team sport.  Yes it’s a game that many people play and often share a common goal, but some are here just to roam.  Some are here to havoc.  Some are here to run in a squad.  There is NO SHOULD other than you should do what makes you happy.  End of story.  

[Dawdler.8521]

4 hours ago, Eudaimonia.8695 said:

which means you have to cloud, and at that point you might as well disband the squad.

A cloud can still be a squad, but I blaim Anet for not continuing to update and improve the system giving clear visual difference for squads and squads.

We have colors and we have shapes, but the link system destroyed any local "agreement" of what is actually what and how players view the tag. As I've suggsted in the past:

- Text indicator/hover over description of the tag (ie if you want to write "cloud havoc" everyone can see it when they look at the map before they even try to join)

- Active tags listed in WvW menu border selection buttons, complete with the above hover over description.

- A new chevron system under the tag indicating squad size, 1 is 1-15, 2 is 16-30, 3 is 31-50.

This would make it far easier for different types of tags to co-exist instead the THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE attitude.

[Custodio.6134]

15 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Personally I don't join squads because I tend to squirrel off to scout or defend in fights that the tag wouldn't always go to, they don't always respond to smaller defense stuff unless they're in the area. Most times I'm trying to mess with enemies with pulls in weird spots, so I'm not always going to be on the tag, I'll be there for big fights and drop my cc boonrips, but I'm also not going to be a meat shield for someone who's going to stand in red rings all day. If I wanted to be a zergling meta zombie absolutely following a tag for 2 hours a day I'd join a dedicated zerg guild. 🤷‍♂️🍿

And this is totally fine. You are fulfilling a position, that doesn't rely on the tag. You're basically something in between of a roamer and a havoc group (at least I think that description would fit the best). If your intention is always wandering off, disrupting, responding, then being off-squad is totally legitimate. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

6 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

A cloud can still be a squad, but I blaim Anet for not continuing to update and improve the system giving clear visual difference for squads and squads.

We have colors and we have shapes, but the link system destroyed any local "agreement" of what is actually what and how players view the tag. As I've suggsted in the past:

- Text indicator/hover over description of the tag (ie if you want to write "cloud havoc" everyone can see it when they look at the map before they even try to join)

- Active tags listed in WvW menu border selection buttons, complete with the above hover over description.

- A new chevron system under the tag indicating squad size, 1 is 1-15, 2 is 16-30, 3 is 31-50.

This would make it far easier for different types of tags to co-exist instead the THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE attitude.

Agree here on a number of points. The strength of having multiple tag colors and shapes allowed for servers to determine uses and not have it be fixed. Where that flexibility became cumbersome is when you introduce server transfers and then world linking. People would have their own systems and colors and then confusion sets in. Hence the reason in the past for the invisible tag options to help counter that. I agree with you that continuing to expand on the tagging system would help with that especially if get the WR system since there will be more mixing. Like the ideas above since it would allow more people to see what they are moving to and if its something they are looking for if they are looking for group. Course also don't see a lot of people use the LFG system either so might be hard to tell. But could see how your idea would work in the different scales of play. Example might tag with a scout tag when main tags are asking if there are eyes at a location so that they could more quickly see a breach point. Can we do that today by invis/visible flag yes. But you can't just run your havoc or scouts up all the time else you may pull people from the real tag while you are just trying to share location information on the map.

As far as peopling joining squads, again this is one of those things that the WR and Alliance logic in particular will do is divide out people that are more likely or not to join a squad and I think we will see people sort out as we go. Now where that will lead...

[Riba.3271]

6 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

A cloud can still be a squad, but I blaim Anet for not continuing to update and improve the system giving clear visual difference for squads and squads.

We have colors and we have shapes, but the link system destroyed any local "agreement" of what is actually what and how players view the tag. As I've suggsted in the past:

- Text indicator/hover over description of the tag (ie if you want to write "cloud havoc" everyone can see it when they look at the map before they even try to join)

- Active tags listed in WvW menu border selection buttons, complete with the above hover over description.

- A new chevron system under the tag indicating squad size, 1 is 1-15, 2 is 16-30, 3 is 31-50.

This would make it far easier for different types of tags to co-exist instead the THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE attitude.

I have better solution:

• Remove linkings and half the servers. Give people on deleted servers 1000 gems.

Otherwise it just doesn't work: Even if "havoc" tags were added, they'd be outcasts hated on and theyd never have chance to change opinions permanently due to relinkings.

What I am interested in is would you remove invisible tags in WvW as well? As doing that might force groups to use your suggested system. Otherwise the larger group will just force the smaller ones to go invisible.

Edited April 24, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Some Call Me Tim.2319]

7 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

A cloud can still be a squad, but I blaim Anet for not continuing to update and improve the system giving clear visual difference for squads and squads.

We have colors and we have shapes, but the link system destroyed any local "agreement" of what is actually what and how players view the tag. As I've suggsted in the past:

- Text indicator/hover over description of the tag (ie if you want to write "cloud havoc" everyone can see it when they look at the map before they even try to join)

- Active tags listed in WvW menu border selection buttons, complete with the above hover over description.

- A new chevron system under the tag indicating squad size, 1 is 1-15, 2 is 16-30, 3 is 31-50.

This would make it far easier for different types of tags to co-exist instead the THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE attitude.

Totally agree with this.  My thoughts are that the tag would change automatically depending on squad size. 🙂

 

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

I have better solution:

• Remove linkings and half the servers. Give people on deleted servers 1000 gems.

Otherwise it just doesn't work: Even if "havoc" tags were added, they'd be outcasts hated on and theyd never have chance to change opinions permanently due to relinkings.

What I am interested in is would you remove invisible tags in WvW as well? As doing that might force groups to use your suggested system. Otherwise the larger group will just force the smaller ones to go invisible.

Not sure what you mean by force, course I see the havocs more use invis to be polite versus they are responding to calls to tag down. I don't blame them but its also fair for a main tag to go invis if they want to enforce a voice option criteria. May not agree with them but its valid if that is how they see that is what they need to be effective. But no I wouldn't remove the invis options for the guild groups alone that may also want to have some way to direct their people. I think tag changes might help in your idea more as people would have more visibility in group size and choose the right tag versus being squirreled down to another just to be told they should head to the main tag.

As far as relinking, they probably should have done that in the beginning. That said and I didn't ask for relinking but it has been a good way to meet the people from the other side of the fence and made some fun times. I think it is a good stage to let people mix and consider things for potential Alliance if the WR system releases. But that OT and will leave it at that.

[Dawdler.8521]

6 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

I have better solution:

• Remove linkings and half the servers. Give people on deleted servers 1000 gems.

Otherwise it just doesn't work: Even if "havoc" tags were added, they'd be outcasts hated on and theyd never have chance to change opinions permanently due to relinkings.

What I am interested in is would you remove invisible tags in WvW as well? As doing that might force groups to use your suggested system. Otherwise the larger group will just force the smaller ones to go invisible.

No because that would be stupid.

Good gameplay is encouraged, not forced.

[Nate Anabe.6091]

Pay Me  🤑

[Jitters.9401]

I have a few reasons I do not like to join tags.

 

(1) I do not want boons from other people as I prefer to depend on my skills alone. If running solo potentially limits boons I will receive from others, then that is what I want.

 

(2) I do not like the expectation that I have to do what the tag wants when he wants. In discord you can hear them on telling you not to do things like "squirrel" or wait in reserve. But I have fun squirreling and I prefer action over inaction. 

 

(3) Too many tags are blind to reality.  Just because they can design their party to be full of stability does not mean everyone is as lucky. Far too often they ignore those who get pulled away from group to be slaughtered. 

 

This is actually my biggest pet peave.

 

Commander's that are too quick to leave people behind and not protect those who joined to work as a team. Loyalty is a two way street. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

3 hours ago, Jitters.9401 said:

(2) I do not like the expectation that I have to do what the tag wants when he wants. In discord you can hear them on telling you not to do things like "squirrel" or wait in reserve. But I have fun squirreling and I prefer action over inaction. 

This is one of those that people say you can't bait people off tag. I will disagree with that because it depends on the comms and the players and how on point and focused they are being and whether or not you have annoyed their driver. Even when havocing I will tell people stay on target and when they ask why can't I chase I remind them how many times we bait people away from a larger group. Zergs do get distracted. I agree though if I join a tag it means I will try and stay with tag. If I am around a group and not joining a tag it means I plan to break in and out so I can get other supporting actions done. And no I never use the participation spot of a squad because I not joining a tag for that aspect, not joining to just get participation. I can scout and support fine without being linked. I think the other reason why is you don't see a lot of tags that actually deploy groups these days as you used. Groups 1-3 SET tower, group 4 SC, group 5 SEC, regroup ruins on take. Instead its more all 50 to SC. Did you need 50 there if you already had supplies?

All this said I think we should create a why don't you open tag to see the other side of the conversation. Riba is trying to make the point of organize and group up which has fair points as well. Organized comped groups on voice will have more of an advantage in various size fights. That said the servers vary on how many large groups are present versus pub tags that require voice if you want to join, to pug tags that are open but don't fill, to the groups that are more flash mobs centering on a tag as a focus but may scatter in a few mins, to the extremes where servers are just clouds of people doing whatever they feel makes sense. So mileage will vary especially when you add in server links. Now when we add in the chaos of the WR project...wild wild west.