WTH is wrong with this lfg

[Astyrah.4015]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Astyrah.4015 said:i don't mind the system as it is now, im fine with it actually. but i always wonder: why other games with much higher populations seem to be doing ok with having party leaders when gw2 doesnt?Because they often have heavy penalties/restrictions/consequences for messing with LFG party composition, that discourage players from abusing those. This however requires a LFG system that is far better at creating a sensible group (which usually requires hardcoded role assignment), so, if some problems arise, you're still encouraged to bear with it unless the situation is truly critical.

Notice, btw, that in Raids we are using a squad setup, where the party leader

is

the king. That's because squads were not designed as a LFG pug construct.

in other games as well, you can vote kick the party leader (if they're afk, bad, toxic) and a random person will be chosen to replace the leader from the ones left in the party -or- vote abandon and the whole party and dungeon gets cancelled. anyway im just curious to why gw2 did what it did instead of following other games where they have a leader but there's a lot of safeties and penalties in place vs. abuse of either leader or members. nothing more to it. =)

[Veprovina.4876]

@Astyrah.4015 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Astyrah.4015 said:i don't mind the system as it is now, im fine with it actually. but i always wonder: why other games with much higher populations seem to be doing ok with having party leaders when gw2 doesnt?Because they often have heavy penalties/restrictions/consequences for messing with LFG party composition, that discourage players from abusing those. This however requires a LFG system that is far better at creating a sensible group (which usually requires hardcoded role assignment), so, if some problems arise, you're still encouraged to bear with it unless the situation is truly critical.

Notice, btw, that in Raids we are using a squad setup, where the party leader

is

the king. That's because squads were not designed as a LFG pug construct.

in other games as well, you can vote kick the party leader (if they're afk, bad, toxic) and a random person will be chosen to replace the leader from the ones left in the party -or- vote abandon and the whole party and dungeon gets cancelled. anyway im just curious to why gw2 did what it did instead of following other games where they have a leader but there's a lot of safeties and penalties in place vs. abuse of either leader or members. nothing more to it. =)

Well i guess it could be due to "the community" and how the game is made. GW2 is made with every freedom in mind within reason, and like a playground. This attracts bullies and trolls for some reason. And i'm not usually pointing fingers, but i'm going to point one now at the NA server. :tongue: Whenever i read something like this, it's the NA that's doing it. WvW too. It's so different that i'm starting to wonder what kind of environment that is for people to behave like that. It's so rare that i see this in EU (like, i've never experienced ANY toxicity at all - and i'm serious, not once), that this seems to be practically non existent. It happens, but i've only read about it like, a few times, never saw it myself, always had a blast in parties and helpful people, and yeah... There's definitely a difference between servers and the "ettiquette" of them where NA seems to exploit the openness of systems, when EU embraces it.

This is of course, anecdotal and no evidence, just what i've observed from reading the forum. So it's highly unscientific at best. :tongue: It just seems that way from what people are saying. Also in WvW, what NA servers do, i have never seen on EU. But people do it...

[Fuchslein.8639]

@Veprovina.4876 said:

@Astyrah.4015 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Astyrah.4015 said:i don't mind the system as it is now, im fine with it actually. but i always wonder: why other games with much higher populations seem to be doing ok with having party leaders when gw2 doesnt?Because they often have heavy penalties/restrictions/consequences for messing with LFG party composition, that discourage players from abusing those. This however requires a LFG system that is far better at creating a sensible group (which usually requires hardcoded role assignment), so, if some problems arise, you're still encouraged to bear with it unless the situation is truly critical.

Notice, btw, that in Raids we are using a squad setup, where the party leader

is

the king. That's because squads were not designed as a LFG pug construct.

in other games as well, you can vote kick the party leader (if they're afk, bad, toxic) and a random person will be chosen to replace the leader from the ones left in the party -or- vote abandon and the whole party and dungeon gets cancelled. anyway im just curious to why gw2 did what it did instead of following other games where they have a leader but there's a lot of safeties and penalties in place vs. abuse of either leader or members. nothing more to it. =)

Well i guess it could be due to "the community" and how the game is made. GW2 is made with every freedom in mind within reason, and like a playground. This attracts bullies and trolls for some reason. And i'm not usually pointing fingers, but i'm going to point one now at the NA server. :tongue: Whenever i read something like this, it's the NA that's doing it. WvW too. It's so different that i'm starting to wonder what kind of environment that is for people to behave like that. It's so rare that i see this in EU (like, i've never experienced ANY toxicity at all - and i'm serious, not once), that this seems to be practically non existent. It happens, but i've only read about it like, a few times, never saw it myself, always had a blast in parties and helpful people, and yeah... There's definitely a difference between servers and the "ettiquette" of them where NA seems to exploit the openness of systems, when EU embraces it.

This is of course, anecdotal and no evidence, just what i've observed from reading the forum. So it's highly unscientific at best. :tongue: It just seems that way from what people are saying. Also in WvW, what NA servers do, i have never seen on EU. But people do it...

I think that also depends on your own mindset. I am also from EU and have already experienced some toxic things(which i report, of course), but mostly I just ignore it or laugh about it with friends. Because in the end, as was mentioned here, Anet does things but ... nothing that involves really strong consequences and often also very randomly selected.Either you live with it, or ...wastes time with unnecessary anger (which I do not want to say that criticism is not appropriate, quite the opposite).

Whereby I'm interested now, whether there are really more NA players complain and whether this may be due to the fact that we are here in the English forum and many people from the EU are in the German, Spanish or French forum, or are not even interested in forums because it is not in their language.

[Veprovina.4876]

@Fuchslein.8639 said:

@Veprovina.4876 said:

@Astyrah.4015 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Astyrah.4015 said:i don't mind the system as it is now, im fine with it actually. but i always wonder: why other games with much higher populations seem to be doing ok with having party leaders when gw2 doesnt?Because they often have heavy penalties/restrictions/consequences for messing with LFG party composition, that discourage players from abusing those. This however requires a LFG system that is far better at creating a sensible group (which usually requires hardcoded role assignment), so, if some problems arise, you're still encouraged to bear with it unless the situation is truly critical.

Notice, btw, that in Raids we are using a squad setup, where the party leader

is

the king. That's because squads were not designed as a LFG pug construct.

in other games as well, you can vote kick the party leader (if they're afk, bad, toxic) and a random person will be chosen to replace the leader from the ones left in the party -or- vote abandon and the whole party and dungeon gets cancelled. anyway im just curious to why gw2 did what it did instead of following other games where they have a leader but there's a lot of safeties and penalties in place vs. abuse of either leader or members. nothing more to it. =)

Well i guess it could be due to "the community" and how the game is made. GW2 is made with every freedom in mind within reason, and like a playground. This attracts bullies and trolls for some reason. And i'm not usually pointing fingers, but i'm going to point one now at the NA server. :tongue: Whenever i read something like this, it's the NA that's doing it. WvW too. It's so different that i'm starting to wonder what kind of environment that is for people to behave like that. It's so rare that i see this in EU (like, i've never experienced ANY toxicity at all - and i'm serious, not once), that this seems to be practically non existent. It happens, but i've only read about it like, a few times, never saw it myself, always had a blast in parties and helpful people, and yeah... There's definitely a difference between servers and the "ettiquette" of them where NA seems to exploit the openness of systems, when EU embraces it.

This is of course, anecdotal and no evidence, just what i've observed from reading the forum. So it's highly unscientific at best. :tongue: It just seems that way from what people are saying. Also in WvW, what NA servers do, i have never seen on EU. But people do it...

I think that also depends on your own mindset. I am also from EU and have already experienced some toxic things(which i report, of course), but mostly I just ignore it or laugh about it with friends. Because in the end, as was mentioned here, Anet does things but ... nothing that involves really strong consequences and often also very randomly selected.Either you live with it, or ...wastes time with unnecessary anger (which I do not want to say that criticism is not appropriate, quite the opposite).

Whereby I'm interested now, whether there are really more NA players complain and whether this may be due to the fact that we are here in the English forum and many people from the EU are in the German, Spanish or French forum, or are not even interested in forums because it is not in their language.

True, this as well. Maybe EU people don't really percieve a lot of things as toxic so they don't complain compared to NA people.I guess i can recall one thing that happened that someone would consider toxic is when in WvW some soulbeast was repeatedly killing us, we were rushing to one tower for fun and trying to take it while the ranger was there and the lord. We were 3 i think, but not organised or anything. Then i got a message something along the lines of "that ranger is killing you learn WvW" or something like taht to which i replied "yeah, he's a really good player, props to him"! And he was, you could tell he knew what he was doing. Then the messages just stopped lol. If you don't let it get to you, there's no toxicity. No one can hurt me with words unless i allow them lol.So maybe it's that as well. But whenever someone was complaining about toxicity, it was usually NA server, but again, from what i read. Now whether that person was too sensitive, or the NA server really is more toxic, who knows...

[mercury ranique.2170]

Grieving (intentionally or not) is not ok. I would always report such a situation. If they do this more often they will likely face some actions.

[SexyMofo.8923]

Working as intended.

[Dayra.7405]

@mercury ranique.2170 said:Grieving (intentionally or not) is not ok. I would always report such a situation. If they do this more often they will likely face some actions.

It always was ANets strategy to change the game to avoid griefing and not to rely (and react) to reports.

[Susy.7529]

@Hugedeal.5426 said:for a company that loves to fight against grieving

Where did you get this impression?

[Vancho.8750]

I find the party system weird since there is a commander system in place that works. Also writing here cause Salty for being kicked out of my own LFG for doing a daily in SAB for get this , not going to the next gate while the LFG stated Environmental science. I get that there are allot of brain dead people on the internet , but come on.Also why can a person that I have blocked can join my LFG party?

[Schimmi.6872]

@Vancho.8750 said:I find the party system weird since there is a commander system in place that works. Also writing here cause Salty for being kicked out of my own LFG for doing a daily in SAB for get this , not going to the next gate while the LFG stated Environmental science. I get that there are allot of brain dead people on the internet , but come on.Also why can a person that I have blocked can join my LFG party?

The commander-system won't prevent grieving, in content where you need to be in a squad, it actually had the same problems as the old group-leader system. That's why a kick-protection during boss-fights was added to raids later and also the whole raid-loot-system was reworked (the same systems was used for strikes too). In some places like the forging steel vision the old problems still appear, so this system won't help in group-content outside of raids and strikes.

I agree with the problem with blocked people joining, but whose blocklist will be used for groups/squads without a commander?

[Vancho.8750]

@Schimmi.6872 said:

@Vancho.8750 said:I find the party system weird since there is a commander system in place that works. Also writing here cause Salty for being kicked out of my own LFG for doing a daily in SAB for get this , not going to the next gate while the LFG stated Environmental science. I get that there are allot of brain dead people on the internet , but come on.Also why can a person that I have blocked can join my LFG party?

The commander-system won't prevent grieving, in content where you need to be in a squad, it actually had the same problems as the old group-leader system. That's why a kick-protection during boss-fights was added to raids later and also the whole raid-loot-system was reworked (the same systems was used for strikes too). In some places like the forging steel vision the old problems still appear, so this system won't help in group-content outside of raids and strikes.

I agree with the problem with blocked people joining, but whose blocklist will be used for groups/squads without a commander?You know they can make a vote kick with a party leader in charge, anyone having the ability to hijack the group from the LFG doesn't seem right to me, as in my case getting kicked in my instance. There should be at least a choice for a Party leader or free for all group types.As you mentioned I've had squad grieving happen when I forgot to tag up and someone hijacked my instance and started kicking people so these 300g were worth it to not have people entitled to my Instance and LFG. All I know is democracy is not working on the Internet when you can get away with doing stupid shit.For the blocked people who ever creates the group and if someone tags up his block list, just added perk for having a Tag.There is also merge thing like @Touchme.1097 mentioned. There is too many cracks in the system.

[Illumine Sparkler.6019]

OP, did you ever get the achievement? Not sure what server your on but if eu I’m more than happy to help you get the achievement, done it a few times helping people and don’t get bored of sab.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Vancho.8750 said:All I know is democracy is not working on the Internet when you can get away with doing stupid kitten.Sure. Problem is, tyranny/authoritarianism has exactly the same problem if it's someone else that is in charge.

[mercury ranique.2170]

@Dayra.7405 said:

@mercury ranique.2170 said:Grieving (intentionally or not) is not ok. I would always report such a situation. If they do this more often they will likely face some actions.

It always was ANets strategy to change the game to avoid griefing and not to rely (and react) to reports.

if the way the griefing was done, was in a huge way: Yes!If it is occassional: nope.

I personally never encountered this type of grieving and I use the LFG a lot. Perhaps this is something that happens in NA and not sas much in EU?

This is not like the risen gorilla's in lyssa's temple

[Vancho.8750]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Vancho.8750 said:All I know is democracy is not working on the Internet when you can get away with doing stupid kitten.Sure. Problem is, tyranny/authoritarianism has exactly the same problem if it's someone

else

that is in charge.

But it is easier to control one twat over multiple. Its quite easier to pinpoint malicious behavior when there is one person to blame. When all eyes are on you its harder to misbehave. The internet is Free for all and the anonymity pulls the worst out of people, cause there is no repercussion.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Vancho.8750 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Vancho.8750 said:All I know is democracy is not working on the Internet when you can get away with doing stupid kitten.Sure. Problem is, tyranny/authoritarianism has exactly the same problem if it's someone

else

that is in charge.

But it is easier to control one kitten over multiple. Its quite easier to pinpoint malicious behavior when there is one person to blame.Notice, that the situation brought up kind of assumes that you are

not

in majority - if you were, then vote system would work in your favour as well. In that case, the leader system works in your favour

only

if you are the leader or the leader happens to agree with you and not with the rest of the group.

When all eyes are on you its harder to misbehave. The internet is Free for all and the anonymity pulls the worst out of people, cause there is no repercussion.

That does not change whether it's a leader system or a majority vote one.

Basically, the vote system works in your favour if you're in the majority. The leader system works in your favour if you're the leader. In any other case you are practically out of luck regardless.

[Vancho.8750]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Vancho.8750 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Vancho.8750 said:All I know is democracy is not working on the Internet when you can get away with doing stupid kitten.Sure. Problem is, tyranny/authoritarianism has exactly the same problem if it's someone

else

that is in charge.

But it is easier to control one kitten over multiple. Its quite easier to pinpoint malicious behavior when there is one person to blame.Notice, that the situation brought up kind of assumes that you are

not

in majority - if you were, then vote system would work in your favour as well. In that case, the leader system works in your favour

only

if you are the leader or the leader happens to agree with you and not with the rest of the group.

When all eyes are on you its harder to misbehave. The internet is Free for all and the anonymity pulls the worst out of people, cause there is no repercussion.

That does not change whether it's a leader system or a majority vote one.

Basically, the vote system works in your favour if you're in the majority. The leader system works in your favour if you're the leader. In any other case you are practically out of luck regardless.

You are always out of luck since you are using random people that you don't know. In one you have the option of control by making your own group with your own requirements and goal while the other option the goal can be changed by the group and waste your time even though you took initiative. Also if you don't enjoy someone's leadership you can leave and not join his groups ever, free for all groups are chaotic when multiple people pull the cart.That is why having the option for leader or no leader would be good since you can chose how you want to complete your goal.