Another tactivators request...

[Tomahawk.7361]

Could we have it announce the player name globally in wvw who pulls tacts (at least for keeps, SMC, and garrison)? It is a really simple solution to rooting out people who sabotage.

[Sovereign.1093]

makes sense =). cd is long anyway so it cant be spammed

[Dawdler.8521]

Its not in the guild log either yet? I honestly havent tried checking lately. Otherwise this has been suggested for as long as tactivators have existed, I have no idea why Anet does nothing.

[Loosmaster.8263]

@Dawdler.8521 said:Its not in the guild log either yet? I honestly havent tried checking lately. Otherwise this has been suggested for as long as tactivators have existed, I have no idea why Anet does nothing.

Naming and shaming is not allowed by Anet. You should know that by now...

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Tomahawk.7361 said:Could we have it announce the player name globally in wvw who pulls tacts (at least for keeps, SMC, and garrison)? It is a really simple solution to rooting out people who sabotage.

And what would you do with the information?

Public shaming? Which is a reportable offense as it could easily be interpreted as griefing

Report them? Which hopefully it's not a new player hitting it notnhnderstanding the mechanism.

If it is that troubling, have someone camp the tactivatots you are most worried about and video it, send the chat links and video in to report them for griefing.

Even that likely won't work.

But I thought only BG cared about winning?

[Napo.1230]

I second strider. What will you do with the information?If it's a new player and they don't understand the mechanics they'll just get alot of hate and probably not want to play.If it's genuine griefing anet doesn't care and making videos will just make some troll a celebrity and probably spur them on to do more.

Either way it's not really a solution.

[starlinvf.1358]

So the only way forward is a policy change, so the behavior can have action taken against it. If Anet isn't wanting to get involved, then players need a channel that allows them to police themselves. The permission system is too binary... in fact, the whole claim system has a lot of problems when its designed for zero oversight, and little to no practical incentive to man them.

[keyokku.5412]

Pulling tactivators and it's level of effectiveness could be an ability track, or be available for players of a certain wvw rank who are relatively responsibly in charge, and there are always good or frequent veteran players around

[DemonSeed.3528]

Do we need an honor system? XD just kidding. I remember we have made many discussions in the old forums with quite a few suggestions, maybe someone can copy paste them here? or a link to those threads.

[Loosmaster.8263]

@takatsu.9416 said:Pulling tactivators and it's level of effectiveness could be an ability track, or be available for players of a certain wvw rank who are relatively responsibly in charge, and there are always good or frequent veteran players around

Yes but there are some that have gone sour and become full fledged trolls...

[Sovereign.1093]

you can lock it so only your guild can use it. but its open to all once your no longer in the bl.

[Kovu.7560]

Introduce a third option in addition to public and non public tactivators.Set it so that when a non guild player pulls the tactivator anyone in the structure's claimed guild on map has the option to confirm or deny the activation of that tactic.Boom. Solved.

~ Kovu

[X T D.6458]

@Kovu.7560 said:Introduce a third option in addition to public and non public tactivators.Set it so that when a non guild player pulls the tactivator anyone in the structure's claimed guild on map has the option to confirm or deny the activation of that tactic.Boom. Solved.

~ Kovu

And what if they are afk?

[Strider Pj.2193]

@X T D.6458 said:

@Kovu.7560 said:Introduce a third option in addition to public and non public tactivators.Set it so that when a non guild player pulls the tactivator anyone in the structure's claimed guild on map has the option to confirm or deny the activation of that tactic.Boom. Solved.

~ Kovu

And what if they are afk?

I guess than the structure is lost and the guild that was AFK gets flamed in Map chat?

[X T D.6458]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Kovu.7560 said:Introduce a third option in addition to public and non public tactivators.Set it so that when a non guild player pulls the tactivator anyone in the structure's claimed guild on map has the option to confirm or deny the activation of that tactic.Boom. Solved.

~ Kovu

And what if they are afk?

I guess than the structure is lost and the guild that was AFK gets flamed in Map chat?

To paraphrase an old meme...No EWP for you!

[Strider Pj.2193]

@X T D.6458 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Kovu.7560 said:Introduce a third option in addition to public and non public tactivators.Set it so that when a non guild player pulls the tactivator anyone in the structure's claimed guild on map has the option to confirm or deny the activation of that tactic.Boom. Solved.

~ Kovu

And what if they are afk?

I guess than the structure is lost and the guild that was AFK gets flamed in Map chat?

To paraphrase an old meme...No EWP for you!

Defend timer hits zero, get ten seconds of an open WP. 'We don't need no stinkin EWP'!!

Wish that would get reverted. It's funny, it was there for around three years, then they call it a bug....

[X T D.6458]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Kovu.7560 said:Introduce a third option in addition to public and non public tactivators.Set it so that when a non guild player pulls the tactivator anyone in the structure's claimed guild on map has the option to confirm or deny the activation of that tactic.Boom. Solved.

~ Kovu

And what if they are afk?

I guess than the structure is lost and the guild that was AFK gets flamed in Map chat?

To paraphrase an old meme...No EWP for you!

Defend timer hits zero, get ten seconds of an open WP. 'We don't need no stinkin EWP'!!

Wish that would get reverted. It's funny, it was there for around three years, then the callnit a bug....

Yea they are pretty broken. Any time I take it nowadays I get kicked to spawn.

[Kovu.7560]

@X T D.6458 said:

@Kovu.7560 said:Introduce a third option in addition to public and non public tactivators.Set it so that when a non guild player pulls the tactivator anyone in the structure's claimed guild on map has the option to confirm or deny the activation of that tactic.Boom. Solved.

~ Kovu

And what if they are afk?If the

entire

guild is AFK, that's on the guild, not the system. Perhaps if that were going to happen the tactivator should then be set to public. Creative ways to troll your own server aren't legitimate counterarguments for improving the existing system.

~ Kovu

Buuut I suppose if you need a way to get around that, put a small window on the tactic once someone not from the guild pulls it -- If the guild doesn't 'refuse' the activation within, say, 10 seconds have the tactic go off. If 10 seconds is too long for people pulling an ewp they've waited too long to pull it in the first place. Between ewp'ing into instadeath and being thrown to spawn 'cause the loading screen takes too long -- ewp's have been more of a waste of my time than anything.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

@Loosmaster.8263 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:Its not in the guild log either yet? I honestly havent tried checking lately. Otherwise this has been suggested for as long as tactivators have existed, I have no idea why Anet does nothing.

Naming and shaming is not allowed by Anet. You should know that by now...

Ironically naming and shaming is the only way to fix the problem. No better way to adjust someone's attitude by singling them out and making them an outcast lol.

[DemonSeed.3528]

I'd like a, "nickname has pulled ewp @location:MAP: _emergency_waypoint_link". There are serious problems with ewp's itself [sending you to spawn if you come from another map, etc] but the thing they can easily implement is that it auto sends the emergency waypoint link into /t chat so that the person who clicked on it doesn't waste it by sending it to /t in the last 5s.

[X T D.6458]

@Kovu.7560 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Kovu.7560 said:Introduce a third option in addition to public and non public tactivators.Set it so that when a non guild player pulls the tactivator anyone in the structure's claimed guild on map has the option to confirm or deny the activation of that tactic.Boom. Solved.

~ Kovu

And what if they are afk?If the

entire

guild is AFK, that's on the guild, not the system. Perhaps if that were going to happen the tactivator should then be set to public. Creative ways to troll your own server aren't legitimate counterarguments for improving the existing system.

~ Kovu

Buuut I suppose if you need a way to get around that, put a small window on the tactic once someone not from the guild pulls it -- If the guild doesn't 'refuse' the activation within, say, 10 seconds have the tactic go off. If 10 seconds is too long for people pulling an ewp they've waited too long to pull it in the first place. Between ewp'ing into instadeath and being thrown to spawn 'cause the loading screen takes too long -- ewp's have been more of a waste of my time than anything.

And why do you assume it would be an entire guild afk each time? Have you never ported to a map to see why a keep is contested and there was only a handful of people on the map?

[Kovu.7560]

I play on FA, that shit happens more than it doesn't.That said, that doesn't make it the system's fault. The issue is with scouts and a guild's choice of when to have tactics set to public or otherwise.The points you make, while true, are no less relevant with the current system's 'private' tactics, I don't see how adding a third option to help with managing griefers would hurt.

~ Kovu

[X T D.6458]

@Kovu.7560 said:I play on FA, that kitten happens more than it doesn't.That said, that doesn't make it the system's fault. The issue is with scouts and a guild's choice of when to have tactics set to public or otherwise.The points you make, while true, are no less relevant with the current system's 'private' tactics, I don't see how adding a third option to help with managing griefers would hurt.

~ Kovu

If its the same as the current private setting, then what would be the point in adding a timer?

[Some Call Me Tim.2319]

@Loosmaster.8263 said:

@takatsu.9416 said:Pulling tactivators and it's level of effectiveness could be an ability track, or be available for players of a certain wvw rank who are relatively responsibly in charge, and there are always good or frequent veteran players around

Yes but there are some that have gone sour and become full fledged trolls...

ha that may be true but most of the trolls I see pulling tactics have very low achievement points which means they're very new on their accounts, which also means they are low level WvW players.

I think this is a great idea.. make it so that you have to have a mastery level of some sort to pull the tactivators. You want to be a troll? Well then you would have to actually work WITH the team you're trying to troll for some time before you could screw them over.

[X T D.6458]

@Balthazzarr.1349 said:

@Loosmaster.8263 said:

@takatsu.9416 said:Pulling tactivators and it's level of effectiveness could be an ability track, or be available for players of a certain wvw rank who are relatively responsibly in charge, and there are always good or frequent veteran players around

Yes but there are some that have gone sour and become full fledged trolls...

ha that may be true but most of the trolls I see pulling tactics have very low achievement points which means they're very new on their accounts, which also means they are low level WvW players.

I think this is a great idea.. make it so that you have to have a mastery level of some sort to pull the tactivators. You want to be a troll? Well then you would have to actually work WITH the team you're trying to troll for some time before you could screw them over.

That would hurt new players who might need to use them for an actual legitimate reason. I doubt the devs would ever do that because it would be seen as an exclusionary barrier.