Increasing toxicity in EU WvW.

[Israel.7056]

I think it needs to be pointed out as well that that which constitutes toxicity is subjective. I personally look forward to contentious interactions because I usually enjoy them but some people seem very averse to any sort of disagreement whatsoever.

[Etheri.5406]

@"Lemoncurry.2345" said:// Warning may contain traces of sarcasm

You can't teach an old dog new tricks. A lot of hardcore PPK-sytle-players have left the game. How many mainly fight-oriented servers do we have left in the EU right now? Maybe four? On the rest of the servers a huge part of the population is happy to "win" a matchup by simply having better coverage. You can keep playing what you want and how you want this way. You don't have to change the style you are used to six years into the game. Just log on during offtime and lead your server to victory. Let the elitist GvG-guys do their thing during primetime, those four hours of mayhem don't do much to the total skirmish point count.

We have 4, but they aren't struggling for players. Each of these 4 servers have no shortage of players willing to join and more keep coming. I am certain there are plenty of players who want fights, especially if they can win. Keep in mind I am the GvG elitist saying it's no longer possible for GvG elitists to "do their thing" without blatant toxicity.

A lot of PPK-style players have left the game; but the amount of casual pugs who want to "kill players" and follow these PPK style players hasn't diminished. It has made it much less enjoyable for PPK style players to lead and play with these casuals, which has increased radicalization and toxicity. Since this issue won't be fixed and most casuals don't have any interest in fixing it; I promote toxicity instead.

// Some German-servers-specific thoughts - please skip if not interested

@"Etheri.5406" said:I'll start by stating I think german servers, part due to culture (server culture, german culture or both?) are a LOT better than most. They are very organised and community driven. At least that's my opinion from kodash and riverside; which had plenty of players willing to swap and organise. Playing on international (and many national) servers is very different. There are servers on which you can reliably get a queue, a 50 man zerg yet you'll get under 30 in squad, and virtually none of them playing any classes you need. 50 man zergs with 1 firebrand don't work; but they do exist.I think your impression is influenced by the experiences you made on Riverside. That server is an exception regarding zerg-culture. Yes, on Kodash you can have that ideal zerg.setup sometimes. Unfortunately the server is plagued by a constant clash between the as you call it "hardcore casuals" and the PPK-players which pretty much broke it's back. This led so far that a second community-TS was created by a more casual-style guild some time ago (not much in use though). Elona is comparable to Kodash with more PPT nowadays (and less clash and a stricter TS regime), while Abaddon, Dzagonur, Miller and Drakkar mostly cater to the PPT-oriented player and aren't particulary famous for their zerg-fighting.

RS and kodash are good examples because being closed so long, they didn't die due to continuous bandwagon cycles. Their comumnity is, to some extent, still there. Altho being closed this long has probably killed RS by this point. If I look at the RS morning ktrain, I don't see a GvG blob. I see a community. When I fought both with and against the SIDE blob, I don't see crazy hardcore GvG players. Sure there were some; but not even close to a majority. I see 60 players almost all on TS, running proper builds, listening to their comms working together to improve.

I don't think you grasp how dire the situation is on other servers. Kodash this weekend had high TS presence, good squad structure, more than 80% playing useful, plenty of vocal players, people were listening to the comms and playing together.

Because the truth is, kodash has these PPTers but they don't chase the zerg all day. And if they do, they tend to come on TS and try. You don't have half the zerg sitting around on ranger, thief and engi ganking on the sides. You don't have 3 firebrands for a 50 man zerg.

I'm not saying every server has to be a fight server. I'm saying it's healthier if players play together and are respectful of what the group wishes to do. As with elona, which has more PPT than kodash and RS but a stricter TS regime. I've been on international servers with less than 20% of their playerbase willing to join TS / discord / voice. I've lead 50 man groups with less than 3 firebrands for all those players; and more rangers AND thieves. There is no leading that, no surprise virtually every commander made a B-line exodus from these servers.

[Israel.7056]

@Etheri.5406 said:I'm not saying every server has to be a fight server.

But they kinda do at some point even if their chief concern is PPT. This is because the higher one climbs in tiers the more PPT involves fighting other players over structures instead of just fighting gates and doors. If a server cannot win those fights consistently they cannot PPT consistently except for the times when there's no serious opposition. There is a server in t1 NA currently that has had this problem for quite some time. They can't consistently win fights so they just get farmed by the other server in t1 who has similar coverage. I won't post the stats and turn this into a matchup thread but anyone can go look them up, it's a completely lopsided matchup even though the skirmish points are relatively close.

[Etheri.5406]

@MUDse.7623 said:

@Lemoncurry.2345 said:

// Some German-servers-specific thoughts - please skip if not interested

@"Etheri.5406" said:I'll start by stating I think german servers, part due to culture (server culture, german culture or both?) are a LOT better than most. They are very organised and community driven. At least that's my opinion from kodash and riverside; which had plenty of players willing to swap and organise. Playing on international (and many national) servers is very different. There are servers on which you can reliably get a queue, a 50 man zerg yet you'll get under 30 in squad, and virtually none of them playing any classes you need. 50 man zergs with 1 firebrand don't work; but they do exist.I think your impression is influenced by the experiences you made on Riverside. That server is an exception regarding zerg-culture. Yes, on Kodash you can have that ideal zerg.setup sometimes. Unfortunately the server is plagued by a constant clash between the as you call it "hardcore casuals" and the PPK-players which pretty much broke it's back. This led so far that a second community-TS was created by a more casual-style guild some time ago (not much in use though). Elona is comparable to Kodash with more PPT nowadays (and less clash and a stricter TS regime), while Abaddon, Dzagonur, Miller and Drakkar mostly cater to the PPT-oriented player and aren't particulary famous for their zerg-fighting.

but those issues between hardcore casuals and PPK peeps just started because other servers got better so the ones better at fighting got toxic towards the more casual ones, blaming them for losing instead of trying to keep it civil and teach them more.

Nope. It started years ago because hardcore casuals continue to move to PPK servers in order to be able to casual around easily. And that was mostly fine; except they won't listen or adapt to the players they keep migrating towards. They learned how to get carried - not how to play the game - yet still fool themselves into thinking they're good. That's why it's time to kick them and teach them, through toxicity, that their behavior isn't acceptable.

Nowadays there's so many people trying to get carried that frankly; it's unplayable. And the general toxicity of the casual community towards comms who wanted to lead more seriously was pretty damn high. I don't go follow PPT comms and tell them not to build ACs. I don't go follow PPT comms and tell them what builds to run and classes to accept. Yet when I run MY blobs, unless I'm on a server that embraces the toxicity I'll have other players tell ME i'm not allowed to kick their longbow rangers. That if we lose fights, I should wait in a tower or perhaps even build some acs. That we shouldn't try and fight again because we've died two times over (??????). Telling other players in my zerg to "ignore toxic commander and follow anything, class doesn't matter in zergs". Or just players deciding to follow me yet, before every fight they'll start building ACs somewhere nearby. Yeahhhhh alt F4.

and as you know some of those you call 'hardcore casual' actually think themselves good, because they no longer listen (for example that soldier staff ele commander , you know who i mean :) ).

The issue is not new players. The issue is these players. Hardcore casuals who just teach new players complete disregard for other opinions. Just have respect for the group that you join / follow / play with or leave them if you don't like it. In my opinion that's pretty common decency, but in GW2 it's not so it's time for TOXICITY.

I was told how to "lead" by at least two inactive former commanders who were both playing DH on different servers. They didn't enjoy me kicking them for being DH. One of them has 10k rank. EOTM was a beautiful thing. Certain servers are very adamant about the server being "free to everyone". No problem. But if you will harass every player who attempts a more hardcore raid by joining on classes they dont want and / or telling pugs to do the same, what do you expect will happen? Them to suddenly go "oh yes, ranger is clearly amazing in zergs. Please come pewpew". Ofcourse not. They nope out of that server with good reason.

Yet I don't mind feedback on how I lead. I literally learned to lead by asking "I think we should go there / do this / try this, is that ok" and mostly being told "yes" or "that sounds dumb but lets try it anyways". Or players offering their own suggestions. And me and many other comms will "think out loud" stating where they want to go and often why. But refusing to do anything your commander asks, then saying "you should go backcap the other side of the map" ? I find that pretty offensive.

I do not expect players to play like GvG gods. I expect them to respect the group they run with and listen to their demands (or join some other group / do something else). And I expect them to try and improve; especially if they expect to win, get bags or anything of the sort. Most (hardcore) casuals cannot do these things. They have no regard for the group they join, or their desires. They have no interest in improving and yet they will be the first to leave when fights are looking grim. Nothing more but entitled players expecting rewards they haven't earned. All hail toxicity!

[metalTiffy.7106]

Actually aba has i think 2 fight guilds and dzago has a few more. Since both servers are really low populated the intern Raids are smaller like 8-20 people mostly. Only Dirt has 20-30 everytime afaikNot all are ppt interested on both servers. I never been on others so couldnt say anything about them

[bq pd.2148]

@Etheri.5406 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@Lemoncurry.2345 said:

// Some German-servers-specific thoughts - please skip if not interested

@Etheri.5406 said:I'll start by stating I think german servers, part due to culture (server culture, german culture or both?) are a LOT better than most. They are very organised and community driven. At least that's my opinion from kodash and riverside; which had plenty of players willing to swap and organise. Playing on international (and many national) servers is very different. There are servers on which you can reliably get a queue, a 50 man zerg yet you'll get under 30 in squad, and virtually none of them playing any classes you need. 50 man zergs with 1 firebrand don't work; but they do exist.I think your impression is influenced by the experiences you made on Riverside. That server is an exception regarding zerg-culture. Yes, on Kodash you can have that ideal zerg.setup sometimes. Unfortunately the server is plagued by a constant clash between the as you call it "hardcore casuals" and the PPK-players which pretty much broke it's back. This led so far that a second community-TS was created by a more casual-style guild some time ago (not much in use though). Elona is comparable to Kodash with more PPT nowadays (and less clash and a stricter TS regime), while Abaddon, Dzagonur, Miller and Drakkar mostly cater to the PPT-oriented player and aren't particulary famous for their zerg-fighting.

but those issues between hardcore casuals and PPK peeps just started because other servers got better so the ones better at fighting got toxic towards the more casual ones, blaming them for losing instead of trying to keep it civil and teach them more.

Nope. It started years ago because hardcore casuals continue to move to PPK servers in order to be able to casual around easily. And that was mostly fine; except they won't listen or adapt to the players they keep migrating towards. They learned how to get carried - not how to play the game - yet still fool themselves into thinking they're good. That's why it's time to kick them and teach them, through toxicity, that their behavior isn't acceptable.thats were i hasitate to agree with you. i am not sure if you actually can reach them with toxicity or if you trying to teach them with toxicity scare of real new players that otherwise might have found an interest in the game. when you show toxicity like kicking peeps from your squad, do you check before if they are new or a hardcore casual? or do you kick them nicely , like reminding them that what you need instead of what they provide etc before you kick them? and i am not talking about generally spamming what you need, but connecting those two actions so they know they got kicked because they do not adapt. else it will be like you want X, they got kicked ...well because. i think they have a hard time connecting this.

[LetoII.3782]

@cobbah.3102 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@cobbah.3102 said:I run full minstel guard not being overly skilled as I am a point and click (old hands)

Old hands are all the more improved by a good 20button mouse.I switched at 40, took a few weeks to adjust, never looked back since.

Oh to be around the 40 mark and 20 buttons lol not that dexterous even

It's way easier to use a thumbpad than you think. I ran air tools for a decade, I actually switched over wrist pain and I've felt like a fool for not switching sooner ever since.

[Etheri.5406]

@Israel.7056 said:

@"Etheri.5406" said:I'm not saying every server has to be a fight server.

But they kinda do at some point even if their chief concern is PPT. This is because the higher one climbs in tiers the more PPT involves fighting other players over structures instead of just fighting gates and doors. If a server cannot win those fights consistently they cannot PPT consistently except for the times when there's no serious opposition. There is a server in t1 NA currently that has had this problem for quite some time. They can't consistently win fights so they just get farmed by the other server in t1 who has similar coverage. I won't post the stats and turn this into a matchup thread but anyone can go look them up, it's a completely lopsided matchup even though the skirmish points are relatively close.

I know, but being BAD is their right. Everyone is allowed to be bad. But if you want others to treat you respectfully, you need to treat them with respect too. And I don't think the casual ppters treat their commanders and fighters with respect. I think they abuse them for bags as they see fit because "I play how I want". Considering this toxicity, I think being toxic back is warranted. All hail toxicity!

EU is no different. The strongest servers are not T1 and can often not even reach T1 due to lack of coverage. This is perfectly acceptable, being in T1 for a prolonged time only speeds up the death of your server. After all, the longer you stay in T1 the more fairweather players arrive. After time, your coverage is also so high you can never leave T1 and cannot control PPT. Your queues become too high for "fight" players to be able to play together, community declines and most of the server core leaves. The cycle a LOT of eu servers went through, and has been going for years.

Here's the fun : servers without fight groups need absolutely massive coverage OR at least one group that can kinda put up fights at least from defensive positions. EU really has servers with NO fight groups left, and despite their high coverage these servers can't PPT well against fight servers. These servers can't take anything from you, and they can't really stop you from taking their stuff except with siege. If they have a massive population that upgrades and caps stuff constantly; there is no issue. As soon as they can't fill 3-4 maps, you can completely bully them out of the game. After all, they hate nothing more than wiping repeatedly. And if you flip something T3 once; it won't be upgraded until the next day.

You NEED fighters, PPTers, defenders, roamers, casuals and clowns to PPT optimally. Yet PPTers bully the fighters off their server; then quickly drop from T1 to T3-T4 and act suprised blaming the "bandwagon to X new server". It's also funny to see how a server with absolutely massive coverage against other bad servers they can win from completely stops playing after 3-4 days of getting smashed. After 2-3 days commanders stop tagging because they know they cannot win. At that point flipping structures becomes much easier; and 2 days later the more hardcore PPTers give up because they know they'll lose it all anyways.

[Etheri.5406]

@MUDse.7623 said:

@Etheri.5406 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@Lemoncurry.2345 said:

// Some German-servers-specific thoughts - please skip if not interested

@Etheri.5406 said:I'll start by stating I think german servers, part due to culture (server culture, german culture or both?) are a LOT better than most. They are very organised and community driven. At least that's my opinion from kodash and riverside; which had plenty of players willing to swap and organise. Playing on international (and many national) servers is very different. There are servers on which you can reliably get a queue, a 50 man zerg yet you'll get under 30 in squad, and virtually none of them playing any classes you need. 50 man zergs with 1 firebrand don't work; but they do exist.I think your impression is influenced by the experiences you made on Riverside. That server is an exception regarding zerg-culture. Yes, on Kodash you can have that ideal zerg.setup sometimes. Unfortunately the server is plagued by a constant clash between the as you call it "hardcore casuals" and the PPK-players which pretty much broke it's back. This led so far that a second community-TS was created by a more casual-style guild some time ago (not much in use though). Elona is comparable to Kodash with more PPT nowadays (and less clash and a stricter TS regime), while Abaddon, Dzagonur, Miller and Drakkar mostly cater to the PPT-oriented player and aren't particulary famous for their zerg-fighting.

but those issues between hardcore casuals and PPK peeps just started because other servers got better so the ones better at fighting got toxic towards the more casual ones, blaming them for losing instead of trying to keep it civil and teach them more.

Nope. It started years ago because hardcore casuals continue to move to PPK servers in order to be able to casual around easily. And that was mostly fine; except they won't listen or adapt to the players they keep migrating towards. They learned how to get carried - not how to play the game - yet still fool themselves into thinking they're good. That's why it's time to kick them and teach them, through toxicity, that their behavior isn't acceptable.thats were i hasitate to agree with you. i am not sure if you actually can reach them with toxicity or if you trying to teach them with toxicity scare of real new players that otherwise might have found an interest in the game. when you show toxicity like kicking peeps from your squad, do you check before if they are new or a hardcore casual? or do you kick them nicely , like reminding them that what you need instead of what they provide etc before you kick them? and i am not talking about generally spamming what you need, but connecting those two actions so they know they got kicked because they do not adapt. else it will be like you want X, they got kicked ...well because. i think they have a hard time connecting this.

A 16k AP ranger is getting insta kicked. The 5x signet minion master scourge too. Core warrior with sub 1k AP is assumed to be new, and is treated considerably nicer. At the end of the day we expect players to work towards our demands; we do try to be reasonable.

No matter what, my squad message virtually ALWAYS says that off-meta builds are illegal + a build site showing which ones are accepted + a link to discord and before kicking them we tend to tell them, or pm them too. I admit i don't always state it / pm it because leading can be quite busy. I agree kicking players without them knowing why they're kicked is pointless.

That said I'm not responsible if players aren't capable of reading. Yes, some players cannot read. I'm sorry, if you can't read I'm afraid my playstyle is too hardcore for you.

A lot of players seem concerned with "but what about the new players, they won't like this toxicity!". New players also don't like not having commanders, communities or groups to follow. Yet these groups are getting bullied by the hardcore casuals in the game. I try to be reasonable. I don't mind new players, and new players don't come and say "I must play DH because my DH is awesome." They might say, I want to play ranger. I will tell them they're not allowed to play it in my zergs, or most of the zergs on my server for that matter, but they're welcome to roam and provide them with base builds or redirect them to players who know better. I'll still invite them to discord.

I think most veterans don't mind new players. We mind the stubborn old players who don't like the style you play, but do like the service you provide. That said the rules do apply for everyone. I'll make exceptions for new players, give them advise and point them in the right directions. What they do is their call. Some join and stay, others move.

From my perspective, the same goes for raids. Plenty of veterans are willing to do training raids for players of any skill. Very few veterans are willing to do training raids for players who "must play their own heal-condi tempest hybrid staff build". You can't look for a training raid with nice trainers that will kill bosses AND not be willing to adapt to what the group needs. At some point you need to be reasonable with your expectations, and then both raids and WvW are just fine and players are quite friendly.

[Deniara Devious.3948]

Some reasons for this toxicity are the elite attitudes and reward mechanisms.

Majority of the commanders only accept certain professions/elites to their squad. Mainly Firebrands, Scourges, Spellbreakers and Hammer herald revenants. Of course few staff weavers and mesmers are needed as well. The rest are optional. You basically never see a commander request to get any thieves, engineers or rangers to his squad. Daredevil/deadeye and beastmaster/druid however their place in roaming meta and are the other top choices besides mirage (which is utterly broken spec, especially condi mirage). The problem is that small scale or solo roaming gives far less loot than big zerg clashes. Before somebody jumps in that nobody plays WvWvW for the rewards, but you must admit the amount of loot still plays a small role.

You cannot force players to play something they want. Some players like to play something they are used to play or something they find fun / challenging, despite it might not be performing as well as the meta builds. A lot of players use the so called meta builds and often most commanders request their players to use good build e.g. players with so called bad or not optimal or non-meta players are kicked out.

Arenanet could do a LOT to solve this problem. Basically they should tone down the most used builds, which slightly buffing the underused skills and traits and professions. Better balance between the meta specs and non-meta specs and better balance between the professions would level the playing ground and make feel more players included, instead of being excluded like they are now.

Eventually better balance would benefit everybody, including those meta players, which would understandably first rush to forums to cry some of the goodies toned down.

[bq pd.2148]

@Deniara Devious.3948 said:Arenanet could do a LOT to solve this problem. Basically they should tone down the most used builds, which slightly buffing the underused skills and traits and professions. Better balance between the meta specs and non-meta specs and better balance between the professions would level the playing ground and make feel more players included, instead of being excluded like they are now.not every build can be good/best at everything, else the choices in your build wouldnt matter at all. hope your not asking anet to make any choice redundant. every class has some use in a zerg. even thief and ranger if they are good and in low amount to handle opposing gankers, but they dont really need to be in squad to do that job and you certainly do not want half your zerg in medium armor. not every spec is as stackable as scourge, firebrand, rev etc of wich you need many, they dont have such diminishing return in efficiency when stacked like a thief or a ranger.if you want only 1-2 thief/ranger you will prefer one who you know as a commander, while if your one of 20 scourges it is not that important. so you will have a higher chance to get kicked if your playing a class that is not demanded in high numbers

[Dawdler.8521]

@Etheri.5406 said:You NEED fighters, PPTers, defenders, roamers, casuals and clowns to PPT optimally. Yet PPTers bully the fighters off their server;

I am pretty sure you dont need clowns.

Also the very point is that the conflict between the two goes both ways, this thread is the very proof of that. Not much to do about that, its just our nature.

[Etheri.5406]

@MUDse.7623 said:

@"Deniara Devious.3948" said:

not every build can be good/best at everything, else the choices in your build wouldnt matter at all. hope your not asking anet to make any choice redundant. every class has some use in a zerg. even thief and ranger if they are good and in low amount to handle opposing gankers, but they dont really need to be in squad to do that job and you certainly do not want half your zerg in medium armor.

In some scenarios, yes. In the general sense, no.

There are MANY off-meta specs which perform very well in certain tailored-situation fights. Pirateship heavy open-field where neither side pushes and eles dominate? Sure I can see some rangers do great. But the moment you walk into ANY objective, "gank" classes become next to useless unless you can provide them with free space. Which in most objectives isn't exactly possible. The moment they need to tank any type of constant damage. The moment they need to deal with constant pressure, say a single AC, they usually struggle to stay alive much less provide pressure.

The same is true for ele-heavy groups or any non-organised comps. If you want to push objectives you don't have time for gank stuff. If you play outnumbered, you don't have the numbers to support gank stuff. And in most situations, revs and eles can pressure enemy revs and eles better than gank players can.

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"Etheri.5406" said:You NEED fighters, PPTers, defenders, roamers, casuals and clowns to PPT optimally. Yet PPTers bully the fighters off their server;

Also the very point is that the conflict between the two goes both ways, this thread is the very proof of that. Not much to do about that, its just our nature.

Obviously the conflict goes both way. That's the entire goal of this, to have players realise how they play impacts others regardless of what they do. Since there is no other way for organised players to play the way they enjoy, toxicity is the only solution. And the best way to have players realise their actions, no matter how friendly and benign to them, do negatively impact others is by separating them.

We no longer have the server structure for both types of players to happily live together. More and more separation continues to happen; and if that makes casual players realise that their playstyle is not very effective and also not very appealing for commanders; then good. But they'll probably just complain about "inbalance" and how hardcore players rather roll over them than play with them. I really wonder why that is.

In other news; famous ranger commander moved to my server and couldn't get more than 5 players. Yet every "toxic" meta commander that tags can't get the rangers away from them. It's funny how off-meta players will flame our meta commanders for not allowing them to join; yet refuse to join off-meta commanders with less strong zergs. Probably the lack of bags and karma.

Toxic meta-commanders should be more toxic to off-meta specs to give new commanders and off-meta commanders a better chance at gathering players. This way toxic players will get more bags, off-meta specs can do anything they please and off-meta commanders actually get players. Everyone's happy... Right? Horraaay for elitism.

[Lonecap.4105]

All I can say is thank fuck for ARC, when it comes to proving you're not a complete clown in WvW. When I first started out, I didn't have PoF, and I could only use Core Warrior. I would've been ridiculed a lot worse if people didn't see me doing more damage than even the Scourges in squad.

[aspirine.6852]

I play whatever the fuck I like. But I also never try to join a squad when I am doing that. People can complain about my build or prof. until they see blue in the face. Wont change it for anyone.

[Etheri.5406]

@aspirine.6852 said:I play whatever the kitten I like. But I also never try to join a squad when I am doing that. People can complain about my build or prof. until they see blue in the face. Wont change it for anyone.

When you say you do not join a squad; does that mean you follow zergs without joining squad or you don't follow zergs and simply roam / go solo / ...

[bq pd.2148]

@Etheri.5406 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@"Deniara Devious.3948" said:

not every build can be good/best at everything, else the choices in your build wouldnt matter at all. hope your not asking anet to make any choice redundant. every class has some use in a zerg. even thief and ranger if they are good and in low amount to handle opposing gankers, but they dont really need to be in squad to do that job and you certainly do not want half your zerg in medium armor.

In some scenarios, yes. In the general sense, no.

There are MANY off-meta specs which perform very well in certain tailored-situation fights. Pirateship heavy open-field where neither side pushes and eles dominate? Sure I can see some rangers do great. But the moment you walk into ANY objective, "gank" classes become next to useless unless you can provide them with free space. Which in most objectives isn't exactly possible. The moment they need to tank any type of constant damage. The moment they need to deal with constant pressure, say a single AC, they usually struggle to stay alive much less provide pressure.

The same is true for ele-heavy groups or any non-organised comps. If you want to push objectives you don't have time for gank stuff. If you play outnumbered, you don't have the numbers to support gank stuff. And in most situations, revs and eles can pressure enemy revs and eles better than gank players can.

well playin on fightwise rather weak server a thief is not that bad when goin in an objective if you know your commander will wipe. because in most cases you can rez a mesmer even if the opponents try to prevent it or just flip it solo... you know for infiltration. if my goal is just to survive because i know my commander will wipe i will be harder to kill then our guardians, no AC can change that :)but if everything goes smooth in small structures ele/rev is often better, in keeps you often have enough space as a ganker and many opponents trying to freecast..not sure if its more efficient then a rev then but not that bad either so the ones with AoE capabilities can use them more efficient.

[Israel.7056]

The takeaway I hope is that no matter what choice someone makes there's an opportunity cost for playing something "off-meta" particularly if that person is going to follow a squad. Some of this cost is just the cost of lowered morale. So of course everyone is totally free to play whatever they want however they want but the server pays a slight opportunity cost for every player who decides to play this way. One player doing this makes little difference but if it becomes a prevalent aspect of server culture and lots of people do this on a regular basis the cumulative effect can be quite noticeable particularly for pugmanders who always have to take whatever they can get to some degree. The frustration this causes over time leads to resentment and eventually increased open hostility, "elitism" and "toxicity" towards those who refuse to cooperate.

[Bigpapasmurf.5623]

As mentioned on FB/reddit and now here, imo Meta creates a toxicity on its own. People who enforce it in a group (outside raids) are called "elitists". Personally I very rarely follow meta and my builds are typically good for both roaming or zerging. I do well enough both ways. Meta doesnt mean squat if you are not having fun.

Anywho, thats just my 2cp

[Etheri.5406]

@MUDse.7623 said:

@Etheri.5406 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@"Deniara Devious.3948" said:

not every build can be good/best at everything, else the choices in your build wouldnt matter at all. hope your not asking anet to make any choice redundant. every class has some use in a zerg. even thief and ranger if they are good and in low amount to handle opposing gankers, but they dont really need to be in squad to do that job and you certainly do not want half your zerg in medium armor.

In some scenarios, yes. In the general sense, no.

There are MANY off-meta specs which perform very well in certain tailored-situation fights. Pirateship heavy open-field where neither side pushes and eles dominate? Sure I can see some rangers do great. But the moment you walk into ANY objective, "gank" classes become next to useless unless you can provide them with free space. Which in most objectives isn't exactly possible. The moment they need to tank any type of constant damage. The moment they need to deal with constant pressure, say a single AC, they usually struggle to stay alive much less provide pressure.

The same is true for ele-heavy groups or any non-organised comps. If you want to push objectives you don't have time for gank stuff. If you play outnumbered, you don't have the numbers to support gank stuff. And in most situations, revs and eles can pressure enemy revs and eles better than gank players can.

well playin on fightwise rather weak server a thief is not that bad when goin in an objective if you know your commander will wipe. because in most cases you can rez a mesmer even if the opponents try to prevent it or just flip it solo... you know for infiltration. if my goal is just to survive because i know my commander will wipe i will be harder to kill then our guardians, no AC can change that :)but if everything goes smooth in small structures ele/rev is often better, in keeps you often have enough space as a ganker and many opponents trying to freecast..not sure if its more efficient then a rev then but not that bad either so the ones with AoE capabilities can use them more efficient.

I like how you spec assuming your group will die, you'll let them die and then flip the objectives without them. That said PPK from a group dying is usually higher than flipping it, so not sure if worth. I'd try and carry the group; but that's just me. Keep in mind that your server's group wiping usually has a worse effect on short and long term PPT than flipping an objective.

On inner of keeps you have plenty of space as gankers as long as there's not too much siege. If you fight in the lordsrooms, I don't see how you'd have enough space in any keep. In my experience they're dead in under 5 minutes; even if the zerg fights there for 30 minutes +. ACs being built outside; gankers and freecasters on every corner yet nothing to prevent the ones you jump on from jumping out. And even if they die, they're's 50 more and now you're out of cooldowns, and they'll be back in 2 minutes. By all means we've supported good players on things like staff thief to spike exactly those backliners; but those are playing engage / frontline with heavy support and not gank style on their own.

I've had quite a few theives and rangers claim they can go anywhere the blob goes without squad. I've not seen many of them actually do it once I enter a keep.

[Israel.7056]

@"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:As mentioned on FB/reddit and now here, imo Meta creates a toxicity on its own. People who enforce it in a group (outside raids) are called "elitists". Personally I very rarely follow meta and my builds are typically good for both roaming or zerging. I do well enough both ways. Meta doesnt mean squat if you are not having fun.

Anywho, thats just my 2cp

Well there's always the possibility that "the meta" is incomplete. I myself wonder all the time whether or not there are some really good builds out there that get marginalized or stay undiscovered due to static thinking. It's always interesting to me to see a "meta shift" which is basically when one player or a group of players show something new or brings back some thing old that works well and then all of a sudden it's everywhere.

[Etheri.5406]

@Israel.7056 I agree but players continue to promote playing anything you like following any group you like. Attempts to resolve this in friendly ways have been met with nothing but hostility or fallen on deaf ears. In order to provide some counterweight, understanding and respect, it turns out this is the only way. So yay, toxicity!

@"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:As mentioned on FB/reddit and now here, imo Meta creates a toxicity on its own. People who enforce it in a group (outside raids) are called "elitists". Personally I very rarely follow meta and my builds are typically good for both roaming or zerging. I do well enough both ways. Meta doesnt mean squat if you are not having fun.

Anywho, thats just my 2cp

This is not true. You don't need a meta for toxicity.

Toxicity and elitism isn't the result of having a meta. It's the result of players insisting their own personal desires are more important than playing as a group. This makes any organised gameplay impossible regardless of if you play meta or not.

The current meta is NOT meleeball. Imagine I want to try to play meleeball. Some of my players do enjoy an aggressive melee style. If I allow players to play whatever they like, I cannot ever play this aggresive melee style. Half my zerg will die as soon as i make an even half-aggresive push because their specs are simply not made for it. Let's give players the benefit of the doubt and assume their builds are great for the style these players enjoy playing. Some like to gank, some like high DPS builds, some like strong melee pushes or full support builds. Without some organisation, you can't really play many of the styles that require organisation; and your commander can't really lead.

The meta doesn't matter, what matters is that players rather play what THEY want than listen to the other players they play with, or the person that they CHOOSE to follow that leads them. They have no regard for ANYTHING anyone else says if they disagree with it. And that is exactly why, over time, players who enjoy organised gameplay become elitist and toxic. It's the only way for them to ever be able to play how they enjoy.

Full minion master raid isn't meta. But it can be fun. And you can only do it if you have players willing to put their own interests aside for a little while to do something fun as a group. What's the point of following a leader or commander if you won't listen to what they have to say anyways?

Builds are almost never good at roaming and zerging. I highly doubt you have "good" off-meta builds for roaming and zerging both.

All hail toxicity. Toxicity does not exist because of the "meta", it exists because communities enjoy playing and organising together. Achieving goals together. Getting things done together. Trying out random stuff. And players who categorically oppose this, while insisting to be part of the community and its events should be met with hostility. After all, they are hostile towards all and any ideas that the community puts forward unless they randomly align with their own.

[bq pd.2148]

@Etheri.5406 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@Etheri.5406 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@"Deniara Devious.3948" said:

not every build can be good/best at everything, else the choices in your build wouldnt matter at all. hope your not asking anet to make any choice redundant. every class has some use in a zerg. even thief and ranger if they are good and in low amount to handle opposing gankers, but they dont really need to be in squad to do that job and you certainly do not want half your zerg in medium armor.

In some scenarios, yes. In the general sense, no.

There are MANY off-meta specs which perform very well in certain tailored-situation fights. Pirateship heavy open-field where neither side pushes and eles dominate? Sure I can see some rangers do great. But the moment you walk into ANY objective, "gank" classes become next to useless unless you can provide them with free space. Which in most objectives isn't exactly possible. The moment they need to tank any type of constant damage. The moment they need to deal with constant pressure, say a single AC, they usually struggle to stay alive much less provide pressure.

The same is true for ele-heavy groups or any non-organised comps. If you want to push objectives you don't have time for gank stuff. If you play outnumbered, you don't have the numbers to support gank stuff. And in most situations, revs and eles can pressure enemy revs and eles better than gank players can.

well playin on fightwise rather weak server a thief is not that bad when goin in an objective if you know your commander will wipe. because in most cases you can rez a mesmer even if the opponents try to prevent it or just flip it solo... you know for infiltration. if my goal is just to survive because i know my commander will wipe i will be harder to kill then our guardians, no AC can change that :)but if everything goes smooth in small structures ele/rev is often better, in keeps you often have enough space as a ganker and many opponents trying to freecast..not sure if its more efficient then a rev then but not that bad either so the ones with AoE capabilities can use them more efficient.

I like how you spec assuming your group will die, you'll let them die and then flip the objectives without them. That said PPK from a group dying is usually higher than flipping it, so not sure if worth. I'd try and carry the group; but that's just me. Keep in mind that your server's group wiping usually has a worse effect on short and long term PPT than flipping an objective.

no i dont spec assuming, i roam on thief and if i see my commander attacking something that i think he wont manage ill join to maybe flip it if he fails. ofc its often not even worth for warscore if my server wipes, yet i am not allways able to carry them anyway wich would require me to swap class and join em. but i also do that with enemy zergs, you know going with them in and flip it after either they wipe or they take it, so i can do that with mine too.On inner of keeps you have plenty of space as gankers as long as there's not too much siege. If you fight in the lordsrooms, I don't see how you'd have enough space in any keep. In my experience they're dead in under 5 minutes; even if the zerg fights there for 30 minutes +. ACs being built outside; gankers and freecasters on every corner yet nothing to prevent the ones you jump on from jumping out. And even if they die, they're's 50 more and now you're out of cooldowns, and they'll be back in 2 minutes. By all means we've supported good players on things like staff thief to spike exactly those backliners; but those are playing engage / frontline with heavy support and not gank style on their own.well i have been in keeps ganking people for hours while my zerg wiped in there multiple times (better then roaming as you dont have to look for people, they keep coming). yet even for a thief i do not play meta ganker, cause you are correct with a meta thief build you would both die in there too quick and kill too slow.

[Etheri.5406]

@Israel.7056 said:

@"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:As mentioned on FB/reddit and now here, imo Meta creates a toxicity on its own. People who enforce it in a group (outside raids) are called "elitists". Personally I very rarely follow meta and my builds are typically good for both roaming or zerging. I do well enough both ways. Meta doesnt mean squat if you are not having fun.

Anywho, thats just my 2cp

Well there's always the possibility that "the meta" is incomplete. I myself wonder all the time whether or not there are some really good builds out there that get marginalized or stay undiscovered due to static thinking. It's always interesting to me to see a "meta shift" which is basically when one player or a group of players show something new or brings back some thing old that works well and then all of a sudden it's everywhere.

This is true but still requires organised play.

Perhaps, just maybe, with all the condi damage being out the window it's time to stack full dmg reduction of dwarf, food, frost armor, ... again. After all the majority of the damage I take is power. But goodluck testing that if half your players categorically refuse, and making any push with half the players not even trying will mean you lose half your zerg on first push.

Off-meta players are the ones who prevent the meta from progressing. In WvW, playing organised / coordinated has always been (and will always be) more effective than not doing so. You can try off-meta comps, but that still requires your players to run a composition. Everyone playing a random class because they feel like it, without considering what the rest of the group wants to do prevents the group from playing either meta or off-meta. They force the group to play around them, rather than them playing around the group. And that's pretty selfish, and should be met with toxicity.All hail toxicity - meta? No meta? It doesn't matter. If you disagree with how the group you follow plays, just don't follow them. And if you disagree with how your pugs follow, let them know and be toxic!

[aspirine.6852]

@Etheri.5406 said:

@aspirine.6852 said:I play whatever the kitten I like. But I also never try to join a squad when I am doing that. People can complain about my build or prof. until they see blue in the face. Wont change it for anyone.

When you say you do not join a squad; does that mean you follow zergs without joining squad or you don't follow zergs and simply roam / go solo / ... if

Only follow them for defend not for offense. Usually solo or scouting. But I always come to defend when callEd.