Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Manipulating WvW by Spamming and Abusing Siege Should Get People Banned


Recommended Posts

@Karnasis.6892 said:I LOVE how everything has to do with the Warclaw. People are trolling, it's the warclaws fault. I can't kill people, it's the warclaws fault. I don't know how to do anything but kill, it's the warclaws fault. Scourges are op, it's the warclaws fault. Class balance is awful, it's the warclaws fault. I need to rethink my strategies to combat mounts AND players and I refuse to, it's the warclaws fault.I do recall reading a chat where multiple people did say they would troll exactly like this in protest of the warclaw though, so it really isn't out of the reasoning of trolling for that reason. It's not the only reason for the trolls though, there are many reasons they do it, but it's untrue to also say some aren't rebelling because of the warclaw.and for funsies just to troll the people that hate the thing it should also remain able to contest points.I don't mind them contesting points, just cut their dodge, make them cc'able with lower health pool and it should be fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@DemonSeed.3528 said:

I don't mind them contesting points, just cut their dodge, make them cc'able with lower health pool and it should be fine.

But why? It's not like 11k hp is even that much, especially 11k that's has no way to be healed. Also why CC at all, again with a dismount skill coming you don't need this (also that would just encourage all the pew pew immob rangers more than there already are >.>) And the dodge has been cut, it had a longer range before. They halved it essentially. 3 dodges aren't THAT big of a deal. I mean we have to put up with thieves right?

I do recall reading a chat where multiple people did say they would troll exactly like this in protest of the warclaw though, so it really isn't out of the reasoning of trolling for that reason. It's not the only reason for the trolls though, there are many reasons they do it, but it's untrue to also say some aren't rebelling because of the warclaw.

Like 2 and a half months late right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Karnasis.6892 said:

I don't mind them contesting points, just cut their dodge, make them cc'able with lower health pool and it should be fine.

But why? It's not like 11k hp is even that much, especially 11k that's has no way to be healed. Also why CC at all, again with a dismount skill coming you don't need this (also that would just encourage all the pew pew immob rangers more than there already are >.>) And the dodge has been cut, it had a longer range before. They halved it essentially. 3 dodges aren't THAT big of a deal. I mean we have to put up with thieves right?

I do recall reading a chat where multiple people did say they would troll exactly like this in protest of the warclaw though, so it really isn't out of the reasoning of trolling for that reason. It's not the only reason for the trolls though, there are many reasons they do it, but it's untrue to also say some aren't rebelling because of the warclaw.

Like 2 and a half months late right?

Okay but any class or spec that relies on melee is screwed basically. You could've just ignored the warclaw and kept the thread on track but here we are. I'll be happy to disagree that the warclaw is a bigger issue than you suggest lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"bigo.9037" said:

Okay but any class or spec that relies on melee is screwed basically. You could've just ignored the warclaw and kept the thread on track but here we are. I'll be happy to disagree that the warclaw is a bigger issue than you suggest lol

Except that melee classes should have 0 problems with people when they are OFF mounts. They aren't going to be on them 24/7. If they want to take anything, or are already in a form of combat with ANYTHING they are probably off their mount. If they aren't, why bother chasing them. Move on to the next target. That's why the warclaw really isn't a big issue at all. People have a weird expectation that if you see it, you should be able to fight it every time. It's not how WvW worked previously, and that hasn't changed at all.

Also, the thread was already focusing on the warclaw due to people protesting about the warclaw anyway. Which doesn't surprise me given how much "forum" hate there is for the mount. In reality the mount isn't a big deal to most players, the forums are just the most vocal about it.

Sucks about the griefers but unfortunately that's been that way for a long time. I wish there was something that could be done, but I think that would need an overhaul to how tactics/seige placement works in general. That's time I think the wvw doesn't have given how many plates are being spun right now between working on the warclaw, the eventual release of alliances (maybe?) and whatever else they have in the pipeline.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see anything wrong with doing this I mean its just some RP player roleplaying Dredge. Everyone has their fun in their own way and not know it is bothering you or a bad thing it just makes you look like the bad guy when its dredge because ceaseless flame must not go out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Karnasis.6892 said:

@"bigo.9037" said:

Okay but any class or spec that relies on melee is screwed basically. You could've just ignored the warclaw and kept the thread on track but here we are. I'll be happy to disagree that the warclaw is a bigger issue than you suggest lol

Except that melee classes should have 0 problems with people when they are OFF mounts. They aren't going to be on them 24/7. If they want to take anything, or are already in a form of combat with ANYTHING they are probably off their mount. If they aren't, why bother chasing them. Move on to the next target. That's why the warclaw really isn't a big issue at all. People have a weird expectation that if you see it, you should be able to fight it every time. It's not how WvW worked previously, and that hasn't changed at all.

Also, the thread was already focusing on the warclaw due to people protesting about the warclaw anyway. Which doesn't surprise me given how much "forum" hate there is for the mount. In reality the mount isn't a big deal to most players, the forums are just the most vocal about it.

Sucks about the griefers but unfortunately that's been that way for a long time. I wish there was something that could be done, but I think that would need an overhaul to how tactics/seige placement works in general. That's time I think the wvw doesn't have given how many plates are being spun right now between working on the warclaw, the eventual release of alliances (maybe?) and whatever else they have in the pipeline.

From a game design standpoint, where themap(s) are an open battlefield, it is bad that it's SO easy to avoid certain people. Necros who have low mobility just flying right past you, without him being in any sort of danger unless there are multiple players that can try to dismount him or a slb.

You're supposed to sort of ""be in danger"" as soon as you leave your spawn area. There used to be a reason to take high mobility utility skills or weapons. Now it doesn't matter nearly as much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"bigo.9037" said:

From a game design standpoint, where themap(s) are an open battlefield, it is bad that it's SO easy to avoid certain people. Necros who have low mobility just flying right past you, without him being in any sort of danger unless there are multiple players that can try to dismount him or a slb.

You're supposed to sort of ""be in danger"" as soon as you leave your spawn area. There used to be a reason to take high mobility utility skills or weapons. Now it doesn't matter nearly as much.

See I don't know why people care that much about it. It's not like your losing out on anything by having "some" people walk by freely than others. I haven't had an issue getting fights since the warclaw has come out, and most of the roamers I know are in the same boat. Some even say their fights have increased since then since people run back to them faster.

Warclaws are part of the mobility toolkit, you still would want some of those utility skills since some can be beneficial in combat (and some aren't). It's not like everyone is on their mount 24/7. There are times people can't or won't be on them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@melandru.3876 said:a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building itsupply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints

which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

go figure

nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...

Link to post
Share on other sites

@HazyDaisy.4107 said:Why not just join an enemy party and target the spy so they can hunt him and kill him? I mean it'd make you sort of a spy as well and at the very least a traitor, but it's not like others haven't done the exact same thing with far less cause before.

Even if you're in the same party or squad as the enemy you can't see where they are. If you're on the other side you don't see the party/squad dots like you do when you're grouped with your own team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

@melandru.3876 said:a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building itsupply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints

which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

go figure

nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...

did you even read the full sentence? because i can tell you didn't

wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader.where is the error in that?

that would only be a issue for pugmanders, and those can't be taken serious anyway lol

isn't it GUILD wars for a reason? as allready said in my first post, which you read 7%

Link to post
Share on other sites

@melandru.3876 said:

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

@melandru.3876 said:a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building itsupply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints

which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

go figure

nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...

did you even read the full sentence? because i can tell you didn't

wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader.where is the error in that?

that would only be a issue for pugmanders, and those can't be taken serious anyway lol

isn't it GUILD wars for a reason? as all ready said in my first post, which you read 7%

"distributed by the guild leader..." yes I missed that.... No reason to get cranky about it. The bottom line is that when I'm commanding I don't want people throwing siege down when most people don't know where and how to place it, and that's important. When I'm dropping siege I drop it quickly and where I want it. If I have to tell people where to drop each one that would defeat the whole purpose of having the siege placement function staying on me so I can drop multiple items.

As for consuming supply to drop siege? no thanks... I'd rather be able to drop a few catas for example and build two if that's all we can build for some reason without having to waste a handful of supplies on the third one just for dropping it.

From ideas come answers, so your ideas are good to see. For me they simply don't work.... and I'm not trolling you or being nasty... just the way I see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

@melandru.3876 said:a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building itsupply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints

which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

go figure

nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...

did you even read the full sentence? because i can tell you didn't

wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader.where is the error in that?

that would only be a issue for pugmanders, and those can't be taken serious anyway lol

isn't it GUILD wars for a reason? as all ready said in my first post, which you read 7%

"distributed by the guild leader..." yes I missed that.... No reason to get cranky about it. The bottom line is that when I'm commanding I don't want people throwing siege down when most people don't know where and how to place it, and that's important. When I'm dropping siege I drop it quickly and where I want it. If I have to tell people where to drop each one that would defeat the whole purpose of having the siege placement function staying on me so I can drop multiple items.

As for consuming supply to drop siege? no thanks... I'd rather be able to drop a few catas for example and build two if that's all we can build for some reason without having to waste a handful of supplies on the third one just for dropping it.

From ideas come answers, so your ideas are good to see. For me they simply don't work.... and I'm not trolling you or being nasty... just the way I see it.

... and I 'missed' that because you never said it... "wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader." The only place this line is found is in your reply to me giving me hell for not seeing it in the first message... that it doesn't appear in.

What you said was: "this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints" -- which might imply "wvw-focused guilds".. or just guilds in wvw... and "shared guild-blueprints", which implies distribution by the commander or someone else... but doesn't define what you mean.

If you're going to come after me for something I didn't read, please make sure it was actually said in the first place. I stand by all my comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

@melandru.3876 said:a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building itsupply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints

which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

go figure

nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...

did you even read the full sentence? because i can tell you didn't

wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader.where is the error in that?

that would only be a issue for pugmanders, and those can't be taken serious anyway lol

isn't it GUILD wars for a reason? as all ready said in my first post, which you read 7%

"distributed by the guild leader..." yes I missed that.... No reason to get cranky about it. The bottom line is that when I'm commanding I don't want people throwing siege down when most people don't know where and how to place it, and that's important. When I'm dropping siege I drop it quickly and where I want it. If I have to tell people where to drop each one that would defeat the whole purpose of having the siege placement function staying on me so I can drop multiple items.

As for consuming supply to drop siege? no thanks... I'd rather be able to drop a few catas for example and build two if that's all we can build for some reason without having to waste a handful of supplies on the third one just for dropping it.

From ideas come answers, so your ideas are good to see. For me they simply don't work.... and I'm not trolling you or being nasty... just the way I see it.

... and I 'missed' that because you never said it... "wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader." The only place this line is found is in your reply to me giving me hell for not seeing it in the first message... that it doesn't appear in.

What you said was: "this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints" -- which might imply "wvw-focused guilds".. or just guilds in wvw... and "shared guild-blueprints", which implies distribution by the commander or someone else... but doesn't define what you mean.

If you're going to come after me for something I didn't read, please make sure it was actually said in the first place. I stand by all my comments.

"this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints"

fourth sentence

@melandru.3876 said:a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building itsupply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

=>>>>>> this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints <<<<<<=

which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

go figure

did i make i clear enough now

if the commander is not in the guild/guiuld leader how would he even have access to the guild-blueprints, to distribute

YOU ARE TRYING TOO HARD TO BAIL OUT NOW

Link to post
Share on other sites

@melandru.3876 said:

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

@melandru.3876 said:a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building itsupply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints

which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

go figure

nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...

did you even read the full sentence? because i can tell you didn't

wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader.where is the error in that?

that would only be a issue for pugmanders, and those can't be taken serious anyway lol

isn't it GUILD wars for a reason? as all ready said in my first post, which you read 7%

"distributed by the guild leader..." yes I missed that.... No reason to get cranky about it. The bottom line is that when I'm commanding I don't want people throwing siege down when most people don't know where and how to place it, and that's important. When I'm dropping siege I drop it quickly and where I want it. If I have to tell people where to drop each one that would defeat the whole purpose of having the siege placement function staying on me so I can drop multiple items.

As for consuming supply to drop siege? no thanks... I'd rather be able to drop a few catas for example and build two if that's all we can build for some reason without having to waste a handful of supplies on the third one just for dropping it.

From ideas come answers, so your ideas are good to see. For me they simply don't work.... and I'm not trolling you or being nasty... just the way I see it.

... and I 'missed' that because you never said it... "wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader." The only place this line is found is in your reply to me giving me hell for not seeing it in the first message... that it doesn't appear in.

What you said was: "this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints" -- which might imply "wvw-focused guilds".. or just guilds in wvw... and "shared guild-blueprints", which implies distribution by the commander or someone else... but doesn't define what you mean.

If you're going to come after me for something I didn't read, please make sure it was actually said in the first place. I stand by all my comments.

"this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints"

fourth sentence

oh dear... and you didn't read my whole message either... see? It happens... lol. That's exactly what I said and explained why it wasn't what you said you wrote... let's just drop it and let the thread carry on.. we could go back and forth not reading each other's msgs all day and make people, other than us.. insane. :P

... and the reason it's Guild Wars has nothing to do with us having guilds. If you read the Lore for the original GW you will see what I mean. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

@melandru.3876 said:

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

@melandru.3876 said:a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building itsupply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints

which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

go figure

nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...

did you even read the full sentence? because i can tell you didn't

wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader.where is the error in that?

that would only be a issue for pugmanders, and those can't be taken serious anyway lol

isn't it GUILD wars for a reason? as all ready said in my first post, which you read 7%

"distributed by the guild leader..." yes I missed that.... No reason to get cranky about it. The bottom line is that when I'm commanding I don't want people throwing siege down when most people don't know where and how to place it, and that's important. When I'm dropping siege I drop it quickly and where I want it. If I have to tell people where to drop each one that would defeat the whole purpose of having the siege placement function staying on me so I can drop multiple items.

As for consuming supply to drop siege? no thanks... I'd rather be able to drop a few catas for example and build two if that's all we can build for some reason without having to waste a handful of supplies on the third one just for dropping it.

From ideas come answers, so your ideas are good to see. For me they simply don't work.... and I'm not trolling you or being nasty... just the way I see it.

... and I 'missed' that because you never said it... "wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader." The only place this line is found is in your reply to me giving me hell for not seeing it in the first message... that it doesn't appear in.

What you said was: "this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints" -- which might imply "wvw-focused guilds".. or just guilds in wvw... and "shared guild-blueprints", which implies distribution by the commander or someone else... but doesn't define what you mean.

If you're going to come after me for something I didn't read, please make sure it was actually said in the first place. I stand by all my comments.

"this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints"

fourth sentence

@melandru.3876 said:a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps

the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building itsupply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10

=>>>>>> this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints <<<<<<=

which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2

go figure

did i make i clear enough now

if the commander is not in the guild/guiuld leader how would he even have access to the guild-blueprints, to distribute

YOU ARE TRYING TOO HARD TO BAIL OUT NOW

I'm bailing out of nothing... although you continue to be condescending.... I stand by everything I said.. period. I don't support your suggestion in any way shape or form... respectfully.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

@Karnasis.6892 said:

@"bigo.9037" said:

From a game design standpoint, where themap(s) are an open battlefield, it is bad that it's SO easy to avoid certain people. Necros who have low mobility just flying right past you, without him being in any sort of danger unless there are multiple players that can try to dismount him or a slb.

You're supposed to sort of ""be in danger"" as soon as you leave your spawn area. There used to be a reason to take high mobility utility skills or weapons. Now it doesn't matter nearly as much.

See I don't know why people care that much about it. It's not like your losing out on anything by having "some" people walk by freely than others. I haven't had an issue getting fights since the warclaw has come out, and most of the roamers I know are in the same boat. Some even say their fights have increased since then since people run back to them faster.

Warclaws are part of the mobility toolkit, you still would want some of those utility skills since some can be beneficial in combat (and some aren't). It's not like everyone is on their mount 24/7. There are times people can't or won't be on them.

Still didn't answer why from a game-design standpoint you shouldnt be able to fight it every time. One has the chance of 100% non-interaction meaning it is flawed in a mode where no one has to care about objectives if they don't want tro, while the other is fair game. See; literally every other game with open PvP.

This works in instanced PvP games like MOBA's or Spvp because you are forced to care about the objective, in WvW 90% don't care and it doesn't make a difference/matter besides ppt(which just needs you killing a sentry every now and then) for 100%.

There are no stakes, i am not upset if poeple get away in other games like my MOBA or BR. When my enemy mid ragequit i didn't think "darn i can't kill them now" i thought "free lane win game".

WvW is either about PPT(pugs, GOB farmers) or the PvP(Roamers, fight guilds) for most poeple, nobody cares about jack for the most part otherwise.

Also the whole dangerous warzone thing they mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anput.4620 said:

Still didn't answer why from a game-design standpoint you shouldnt be able to fight it every time. One has the chance of 100% non-interaction meaning it is flawed in a mode where no one has to care about objectives if they don't want tro, while the other is fair game. See; literally every other game with open PvP.

Because the mode isn't JUST pvp. And according to you it's a sandbox, where you get to choose what you want to do. By your own logic if I don't want to pvp I shouldn't have to, just like you shouldn't have to take objectives because you are only looking for fights.

Also, there are already builds that really don't encourage fights either. Nike warriors for example can run and run and run, that basically is like 99% non interaction with other players. Or if a Mesmer uses Mimic/Blink or a thief uses shortbow/shadowstep. All of these things cause non-interaction if someone wanted to. It gives the other classes that don't have those options ways to also have the same level of non-interaction. Not saying I particularly use those skills, as I like fighting, but if someone runs away I'm not really upset at it. I move on..... like you should.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"ArchonWing.9480" said:Real life arguments don't make sense in a game.... I should be able to kill my own teammates then.

I think there should be a facility that, if enough established people (guild leaders, etc. Anet knows who plays on a server and how often) mark a player, that player then is killable by players on their own server, cannot drop siege anywhere, cannot pull tacts, and has a mark above their head indicating a "spy" which also applies a massive debuff (no stealth, for instance).

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Etterwyn.5263 said:

@DAN.7314 said:Except in real life when a spy is caught they kill them. End of story.

@Etterwyn.5263 said:I kind of have mixed feelings, because in war, double agents and spies are part of the ordeal. But I understand how annoying it is.

Game needs a vote to tag as spy, which puts them as an enemy status. Takes like 10 votes and lasts for an hour. They get auto targeted at spawn by defenders. So they need to hide on map for an hour or get out of WvW.

Of course the obvious problem with this is the inevitable "my 9 friends and I don't like you, so we're going to prevent you from playing." I don't have an answer to the griefing problem, but I can tell you any system that allows players to control whether other players can participate will become a griefing method in itself.

Yep. Remember "other players are a good thing" is one of gw2's core principles. Introducing another way for players to troll each other isn't a very good solution to players trolling each other . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...