Because I'll attack one person once, a group of 20 people could all target one person. That's the difference.
And you've done it again - dismiss a counter view point by saying I'd attack a person for no reason. Nothing wrong with differing viewpoints of course, but I don't target people who are in a group, yet I could be targeted because I'm not in one. It's just not fair that. I don't know how else I can say I attack because it's what you're meant to do in the arena! I'd do it even if there were zero rewards - it's just the part of the game I enjoy the most.
We're not dismissing counter views. We're explaining that your views are odd. You are running into traction because your views run counter to the way most people see it.
If you don't want to be cooperative, and that leaves you in the minority, that's your choice.
Not wanting to cooperate is pretty much the very definition of being a villain. You are vilifying yourself with your stance, it's not us doing that.
Mind you, I don't care about shard chat, in fact I am happy with MY game the way it is, but I can use my eyes to see the problems, and ONLY because they can do nothing to prevent shard chat (using 3rd party chat tools), the devs chose to declare them legit.
I have always prefered PvE over PvP because PvE promotes cooperation (which does not stop the devs to try nerf it in Raids as we have seen recently) to success, PvP's goal being to walk on top of other human beings to achieve better ranking and rewards. (has always been like that and will always be, fine.)
I am in the top 200 and things will stay like that because I don't plan to heavily invest real money (And I have spent) in game and thus will never have the meta to get in top 20, and that is perfectly fine to me.
I just understand people who feel like they are harassed by a team of players part of the shard chat when they refuse to join and then get banged by all the team.
The PvP part of this game was designed to be 1 Vs 1, not 20 Vs 1. Now if you guys and the devs are happy with that situation, who am I to say anything against that?
this is exactly why you wont be in any shard chat. you just not competitive enough in the arena. the chats came to help the hardcore arena guys and make them do less fights. you cant see the benefit because you are so far from being anywhere near "hardcore arena".
no offense, but reading this all i can think is "this guy isnt good enough". this isnt walking on other human beings, its just competition. instead of the chaos without arena chats, where everybody tried to be #1 all day long for NO REASON AT ALL, the chats bring balance, and whoever that can climb, will climb in his hours. those who aren't worthy, like you unfortunately, will get fought against so you wont disturb the order.
Lol..... You speak of being "good enough" and "hardcore" yet you need a shard chat full of chronies to keep you near the top on a daily basis.....
"Competition"..... That word doesn't mean what you think it means.....
Mind you, I don't care about shard chat, in fact I am happy with MY game the way it is, but I can use my eyes to see the problems, and ONLY because they can do nothing to prevent shard chat (using 3rd party chat tools), the devs chose to declare them legit.
I have always prefered PvE over PvP because PvE promotes cooperation (which does not stop the devs to try nerf it in Raids as we have seen recently) to success, PvP's goal being to walk on top of other human beings to achieve better ranking and rewards. (has always been like that and will always be, fine.)
I am in the top 200 and things will stay like that because I don't plan to heavily invest real money (And I have spent) in game and thus will never have the meta to get in top 20, and that is perfectly fine to me.
I just understand people who feel like they are harassed by a team of players part of the shard chat when they refuse to join and then get banged by all the team.
The PvP part of this game was designed to be 1 Vs 1, not 20 Vs 1. Now if you guys and the devs are happy with that situation, who am I to say anything against that?
this is exactly why you wont be in any shard chat. you just not competitive enough in the arena. the chats came to help the hardcore arena guys and make them do less fights. you cant see the benefit because you are so far from being anywhere near "hardcore arena".
no offense, but reading this all i can think is "this guy isnt good enough". this isnt walking on other human beings, its just competition. instead of the chaos without arena chats, where everybody tried to be #1 all day long for NO REASON AT ALL, the chats bring balance, and whoever that can climb, will climb in his hours. those who aren't worthy, like you unfortunately, will get fought against so you wont disturb the order.
Lol..... You speak of being "good enough" and "hardcore" yet you need a shard chat full of chronies to keep you near the top on a daily basis.....
"Competition"..... That word doesn't mean what you think it means.....
Whatever. People need to make their own ranks in shard chats. People join chats to make things predictable, not to get people to do their work for them.
In other words, your description doesn't actually fit what's happening.
People want friendly competition instead of cutthroat. That doesn't make it not a competition, just less competitive.
Because I'll attack one person once, a group of 20 people could all target one person. That's the difference.
And you've done it again - dismiss a counter view point by saying I'd attack a person for no reason. Nothing wrong with differing viewpoints of course, but I don't target people who are in a group, yet I could be targeted because I'm not in one. It's just not fair that. I don't know how else I can say I attack because it's what you're meant to do in the arena! I'd do it even if there were zero rewards - it's just the part of the game I enjoy the most.
We're not dismissing counter views. We're explaining that your views are odd. You are running into traction because your views run counter to the way most people see it.
If you don't want to be cooperative, and that leaves you in the minority, that's your choice.
Not wanting to cooperate is pretty much the very definition of being a villain. You are vilifying yourself with your stance, it's not us doing that.
That is one hell of a strange argument. Actually admire it.
Put simply: it's not cooperation if I have to do it or face victimisation. If someone can tell me these groups exist but under no circumstances will drive down the ranking of a non member I'm all for them. If they do, then I'm definitely not the bad guy. People in the groups may not like that but hey ho.
Because I'll attack one person once, a group of 20 people could all target one person. That's the difference.
And you've done it again - dismiss a counter view point by saying I'd attack a person for no reason. Nothing wrong with differing viewpoints of course, but I don't target people who are in a group, yet I could be targeted because I'm not in one. It's just not fair that. I don't know how else I can say I attack because it's what you're meant to do in the arena! I'd do it even if there were zero rewards - it's just the part of the game I enjoy the most.
We're not dismissing counter views. We're explaining that your views are odd. You are running into traction because your views run counter to the way most people see it.
If you don't want to be cooperative, and that leaves you in the minority, that's your choice.
Not wanting to cooperate is pretty much the very definition of being a villain. You are vilifying yourself with your stance, it's not us doing that.
That is one hell of a strange argument. Actually admire it.
Put simply: it's not cooperation if I have to do it or face victimisation. If someone can tell me these groups exist but under no circumstances will drive down the ranking of a non member I'm all for them. If they do, then I'm definitely not the bad guy. People in the groups may not like that but hey ho.
If there's a free for all going on and someone proposes a treaty to regulate warfare between everyone involved and one person/group says "screw that, I'm just going to fight how I like to". they ARE the bad guy.
If something is the right thing to do, not doing it makes you the bad guy whether you were going to be forced into doing it or not.
Hypothetical scenario: You are about to shoot an innocent bystander, a group comes along and says "we don't shoot innocent bystanders" and you say, "well that's you!" and shoot. They will gang up on you, and you will be the bad guy. They tried to get you to do the nice/polite/correct thing, and you chose not to.
Not being willing to communicate and cooperate does indeed make you the bad guy. The fact that you don't cooperate on your own choice means there is no way their cooperation is nefarious. You could have joined it too...
Because I'll attack one person once, a group of 20 people could all target one person. That's the difference.
And you've done it again - dismiss a counter view point by saying I'd attack a person for no reason. Nothing wrong with differing viewpoints of course, but I don't target people who are in a group, yet I could be targeted because I'm not in one. It's just not fair that. I don't know how else I can say I attack because it's what you're meant to do in the arena! I'd do it even if there were zero rewards - it's just the part of the game I enjoy the most.
We're not dismissing counter views. We're explaining that your views are odd. You are running into traction because your views run counter to the way most people see it.
If you don't want to be cooperative, and that leaves you in the minority, that's your choice.
Not wanting to cooperate is pretty much the very definition of being a villain. You are vilifying yourself with your stance, it's not us doing that.
That is one hell of a strange argument. Actually admire it.
Put simply: it's not cooperation if I have to do it or face victimisation. If someone can tell me these groups exist but under no circumstances will drive down the ranking of a non member I'm all for them. If they do, then I'm definitely not the bad guy. People in the groups may not like that but hey ho.
They may drive your rank down, but not in a malicious way. They do not know your PO, and may choose to hit you rather than hit someone they know has a PO coming up or someone in the group just because they know them.
Because I'll attack one person once, a group of 20 people could all target one person. That's the difference.
And you've done it again - dismiss a counter view point by saying I'd attack a person for no reason. Nothing wrong with differing viewpoints of course, but I don't target people who are in a group, yet I could be targeted because I'm not in one. It's just not fair that. I don't know how else I can say I attack because it's what you're meant to do in the arena! I'd do it even if there were zero rewards - it's just the part of the game I enjoy the most.
We're not dismissing counter views. We're explaining that your views are odd. You are running into traction because your views run counter to the way most people see it.
If you don't want to be cooperative, and that leaves you in the minority, that's your choice.
Not wanting to cooperate is pretty much the very definition of being a villain. You are vilifying yourself with your stance, it's not us doing that.
That is one hell of a strange argument. Actually admire it.
Put simply: it's not cooperation if I have to do it or face victimisation. If someone can tell me these groups exist but under no circumstances will drive down the ranking of a non member I'm all for them. If they do, then I'm definitely not the bad guy. People in the groups may not like that but hey ho.
They may drive your rank down, but not in a malicious way. They do not know your PO, and may choose to hit you rather than hit someone they know has a PO coming up or someone in the group just because they know them.
So they err on the side of caution and drive me down to benefit one of their own? I genuinely do think the groups are well intentioned but can't help but feel they are side affects of their manipulation which are unfair.
As for the previous post which says I " could have joined in too" - thanks for giving the best argument yet as to why these groups are wrong. I shouldn't have to join a group that exists outside the game to benefit within the game. My own situation back:
I like football. The proper type, with a round ball not an egg. I like the unpredictability of it most of all. But in the Premier League the rewards between league positions are ridiculous, and each team could benefit most by finishing in the top 4 as often as possible. So, instead of positions being determined by who has the best team they "cooperate" so they take turns to finish within the top 4. But one day a new team comes along. Just promoted, and with a minted chairman who spends loads of money to break the top 4. And he's egotistical this chap and a traditionalist - thinks finishing top of the league each year is not an unreasonable thing. But... something weird happens. Whenever the previous top 4 play one another they put out weakened teams and score own goals to ensure they spread the points. But, when any of them play this newcomer they put out a full strength team and do everything they can to minimise the other teams chance of winning. But they're fine with this because they think they're cooperating with one another, and not just making the league predictable and maintaining a monopoly.
Because I'll attack one person once, a group of 20 people could all target one person. That's the difference.
And you've done it again - dismiss a counter view point by saying I'd attack a person for no reason. Nothing wrong with differing viewpoints of course, but I don't target people who are in a group, yet I could be targeted because I'm not in one. It's just not fair that. I don't know how else I can say I attack because it's what you're meant to do in the arena! I'd do it even if there were zero rewards - it's just the part of the game I enjoy the most.
We're not dismissing counter views. We're explaining that your views are odd. You are running into traction because your views run counter to the way most people see it.
If you don't want to be cooperative, and that leaves you in the minority, that's your choice.
Not wanting to cooperate is pretty much the very definition of being a villain. You are vilifying yourself with your stance, it's not us doing that.
That is one hell of a strange argument. Actually admire it.
Put simply: it's not cooperation if I have to do it or face victimisation. If someone can tell me these groups exist but under no circumstances will drive down the ranking of a non member I'm all for them. If they do, then I'm definitely not the bad guy. People in the groups may not like that but hey ho.
They may drive your rank down, but not in a malicious way. They do not know your PO, and may choose to hit you rather than hit someone they know has a PO coming up or someone in the group just because they know them.
So they err on the side of caution and drive me down to benefit one of their own? I genuinely do think the groups are well intentioned but can't help but feel they are side affects of their manipulation which are unfair.
As for the previous post which says I " could have joined in too" - thanks for giving the best argument yet as to why these groups are wrong. I shouldn't have to join a group that exists outside the game to benefit within the game. My own situation back:
I like football. The proper type, with a round ball not an egg. I like the unpredictability of it most of all. But in the Premier League the rewards between league positions are ridiculous, and each team could benefit most by finishing in the top 4 as often as possible. So, instead of positions being determined by who has the best team they "cooperate" so they take turns to finish within the top 4. But one day a new team comes along. Just promoted, and with a minted chairman who spends loads of money to break the top 4. And he's egotistical this chap and a traditionalist - thinks finishing top of the league each year is not an unreasonable thing. But... something weird happens. Whenever the previous top 4 play one another they put out weakened teams and score own goals to ensure they spread the points. But, when any of them play this newcomer they put out a full strength team and do everything they can to minimise the other teams chance of winning. But they're fine with this because they think they're cooperating with one another, and not just making the league predictable and maintaining a monopoly.
Please look at any competitive racing strategy, they will "work together" drafting off each other or swapping places to take turns leading even when not on the same team. It is a symbiotic relationship that benefits both parties and gives them the best odds to place better when it matters.
Also this is a choice of the person and not the group, this would happen with a group or not. In our group we "do our best" to avoid people but we all have our goal to be 1 at PO, and there is only so much you can do on the climb, it's no hard feelings or anything else, just trying to do our best to maximize the PO of crystals. This includes not hitting people in the group who move up at odd hours. We track then too as best we can.
You would get hit regardless so it is not fair or unfair, it is part if the game. Someone making a personal choice or hitting you because you are an easier team to beat, is no more/less fair.
As for the previous post which says I " could have joined in too" - thanks for giving the best argument yet as to why these groups are wrong. I shouldn't have to join a group that exists outside the game to benefit within the game. My own situation back:
Oh whatever, you're saying you should be able to attack whoever you want whenever you want without having backlash from people.
That's ridiculous. You SHOULD have to communicate with the people you are competing against if you want to get ahead, plain and simple. I am not helping your argument even slightly. I am showing you how you have no argument. You really think you should be able to just meander up to 1st without paying attention to who you're walking through?
That defies all logic.
"Oh I should be able to do that" yeah right. I SHOULD be able to fly right now, because I want to, but I can't.
This is a social game. If you don't want to be social, expect to get ganged up on. There's nothing nefarious about that, it's a basic rule of interaction that you somehow don't get.
You think you should be able to fly? Or are you trying to use the ad absurdum argument style but poorly? I'm confused. It doesn't help that you think a PVP arena implicitly involves collusion. I fear we will never agree.
As for the previous post which says I " could have joined in too" - thanks for giving the best argument yet as to why these groups are wrong. I shouldn't have to join a group that exists outside the game to benefit within the game. My own situation back:
Oh whatever, you're saying you should be able to attack whoever you want whenever you want without having backlash from people.
That's ridiculous. You SHOULD have to communicate with the people you are competing against if you want to get ahead, plain and simple. I am not helping your argument even slightly. I am showing you how you have no argument. You really think you should be able to just meander up to 1st without paying attention to who you're walking through?
That defies all logic.
"Oh I should be able to do that" yeah right. I SHOULD be able to fly right now, because I want to, but I can't.
This is a social game. If you don't want to be social, expect to get ganged up on. There's nothing nefarious about that, it's a basic rule of interaction that you somehow don't get.
This isn't a social game.... I am not sure where you get that from..... If it was a social game, you wouldn't have to go to third party software to chat with your shard mates....
As for the previous post which says I " could have joined in too" - thanks for giving the best argument yet as to why these groups are wrong. I shouldn't have to join a group that exists outside the game to benefit within the game. My own situation back:
Oh whatever, you're saying you should be able to attack whoever you want whenever you want without having backlash from people.
That's ridiculous. You SHOULD have to communicate with the people you are competing against if you want to get ahead, plain and simple. I am not helping your argument even slightly. I am showing you how you have no argument. You really think you should be able to just meander up to 1st without paying attention to who you're walking through?
That defies all logic.
"Oh I should be able to do that" yeah right. I SHOULD be able to fly right now, because I want to, but I can't.
This is a social game. If you don't want to be social, expect to get ganged up on. There's nothing nefarious about that, it's a basic rule of interaction that you somehow don't get.
This isn't a social game.... I am not sure where you get that from..... If it was a social game, you wouldn't have to go to third party software to chat with your shard mates....
Wait for it... I can sense "but that's bad game design" responses being typed.
As for the previous post which says I " could have joined in too" - thanks for giving the best argument yet as to why these groups are wrong. I shouldn't have to join a group that exists outside the game to benefit within the game. My own situation back:
Oh whatever, you're saying you should be able to attack whoever you want whenever you want without having backlash from people.
That's ridiculous. You SHOULD have to communicate with the people you are competing against if you want to get ahead, plain and simple. I am not helping your argument even slightly. I am showing you how you have no argument. You really think you should be able to just meander up to 1st without paying attention to who you're walking through?
That defies all logic.
"Oh I should be able to do that" yeah right. I SHOULD be able to fly right now, because I want to, but I can't.
This is a social game. If you don't want to be social, expect to get ganged up on. There's nothing nefarious about that, it's a basic rule of interaction that you somehow don't get.
This isn't a social game.... I am not sure where you get that from..... If it was a social game, you wouldn't have to go to third party software to chat with your shard mates....
How is this not a social game? Even before the update chat was supportive of interguild communications. After the chat update, rooms can now support up to 500 people and they don't have to be in your guild. Aside from external communications (the forum, discord, line, etc.), the only way to contact someone is if 1.) They are in your arena shard 2.) you enter in random ally codes until someone accepts an invite. Seems like the devs have encouraged shard chatting.
As for the previous post which says I " could have joined in too" - thanks for giving the best argument yet as to why these groups are wrong. I shouldn't have to join a group that exists outside the game to benefit within the game. My own situation back:
Oh whatever, you're saying you should be able to attack whoever you want whenever you want without having backlash from people.
That's ridiculous. You SHOULD have to communicate with the people you are competing against if you want to get ahead, plain and simple. I am not helping your argument even slightly. I am showing you how you have no argument. You really think you should be able to just meander up to 1st without paying attention to who you're walking through?
That defies all logic.
"Oh I should be able to do that" yeah right. I SHOULD be able to fly right now, because I want to, but I can't.
This is a social game. If you don't want to be social, expect to get ganged up on. There's nothing nefarious about that, it's a basic rule of interaction that you somehow don't get.
This isn't a social game.... I am not sure where you get that from..... If it was a social game, you wouldn't have to go to third party software to chat with your shard mates....
How is this not a social game? Even before the update chat was supportive of interguild communications. After the chat update, rooms can now support up to 500 people and they don't have to be in your guild. Aside from external communications (the forum, discord, line, etc.), the only way to contact someone is if 1.) They are in your arena shard 2.) you enter in random ally codes until someone accepts an invite. Seems like the devs have encouraged shard chatting.
I highly doubt that was to encourage shard chatting, more like they can't prevent it...... Since when have you seen CG trynto help you get as many crystals as possible so you don't have to buy them?....
Because I'll attack one person once, a group of 20 people could all target one person. That's the difference.
And you've done it again - dismiss a counter view point by saying I'd attack a person for no reason. Nothing wrong with differing viewpoints of course, but I don't target people who are in a group, yet I could be targeted because I'm not in one. It's just not fair that. I don't know how else I can say I attack because it's what you're meant to do in the arena! I'd do it even if there were zero rewards - it's just the part of the game I enjoy the most.
We're not dismissing counter views. We're explaining that your views are odd. You are running into traction because your views run counter to the way most people see it.
If you don't want to be cooperative, and that leaves you in the minority, that's your choice.
Not wanting to cooperate is pretty much the very definition of being a villain. You are vilifying yourself with your stance, it's not us doing that.
That is one hell of a strange argument. Actually admire it.
Put simply: it's not cooperation if I have to do it or face victimisation. If someone can tell me these groups exist but under no circumstances will drive down the ranking of a non member I'm all for them. If they do, then I'm definitely not the bad guy. People in the groups may not like that but hey ho.
They may drive your rank down, but not in a malicious way. They do not know your PO, and may choose to hit you rather than hit someone they know has a PO coming up or someone in the group just because they know them.
Not in a malicious way? I’m amazed so many people here don’t understand how viscious some of these shard chats are. I really want to go through and post screenshots from both of my chats to prove otherwise, but I’m not going to risk alienating people and finding myself as one of the outsiders.
Because I'll attack one person once, a group of 20 people could all target one person. That's the difference.
And you've done it again - dismiss a counter view point by saying I'd attack a person for no reason. Nothing wrong with differing viewpoints of course, but I don't target people who are in a group, yet I could be targeted because I'm not in one. It's just not fair that. I don't know how else I can say I attack because it's what you're meant to do in the arena! I'd do it even if there were zero rewards - it's just the part of the game I enjoy the most.
We're not dismissing counter views. We're explaining that your views are odd. You are running into traction because your views run counter to the way most people see it.
If you don't want to be cooperative, and that leaves you in the minority, that's your choice.
Not wanting to cooperate is pretty much the very definition of being a villain. You are vilifying yourself with your stance, it's not us doing that.
That is one hell of a strange argument. Actually admire it.
Put simply: it's not cooperation if I have to do it or face victimisation. If someone can tell me these groups exist but under no circumstances will drive down the ranking of a non member I'm all for them. If they do, then I'm definitely not the bad guy. People in the groups may not like that but hey ho.
They may drive your rank down, but not in a malicious way. They do not know your PO, and may choose to hit you rather than hit someone they know has a PO coming up or someone in the group just because they know them.
Not in a malicious way? I’m amazed so many people here don’t understand how viscious some of these shard chats are. I really want to go through and post screenshots from both of my chats to prove otherwise, but I’m not going to risk alienating people and finding myself as one of the outsiders.
Because I'll attack one person once, a group of 20 people could all target one person. That's the difference.
And you've done it again - dismiss a counter view point by saying I'd attack a person for no reason. Nothing wrong with differing viewpoints of course, but I don't target people who are in a group, yet I could be targeted because I'm not in one. It's just not fair that. I don't know how else I can say I attack because it's what you're meant to do in the arena! I'd do it even if there were zero rewards - it's just the part of the game I enjoy the most.
We're not dismissing counter views. We're explaining that your views are odd. You are running into traction because your views run counter to the way most people see it.
If you don't want to be cooperative, and that leaves you in the minority, that's your choice.
Not wanting to cooperate is pretty much the very definition of being a villain. You are vilifying yourself with your stance, it's not us doing that.
That is one hell of a strange argument. Actually admire it.
Put simply: it's not cooperation if I have to do it or face victimisation. If someone can tell me these groups exist but under no circumstances will drive down the ranking of a non member I'm all for them. If they do, then I'm definitely not the bad guy. People in the groups may not like that but hey ho.
They may drive your rank down, but not in a malicious way. They do not know your PO, and may choose to hit you rather than hit someone they know has a PO coming up or someone in the group just because they know them.
Not in a malicious way? I’m amazed so many people here don’t understand how viscious some of these shard chats are. I really want to go through and post screenshots from both of my chats to prove otherwise, but I’m not going to risk alienating people and finding myself as one of the outsiders.
Some? Sure. I would guess many of us posting about the cooperative nature of shard chats are from older shards that aren't coordinated by or dominated by those types of players. As with any area of life, there are nice people and jerks. Luckily, it seems, that most of us are on shards with nice people. For many of us, the negative aspects of a "mafia" like shard chat isn't our game reality.
In a game mode where virtually anything wins on offense due to RNG and bad AI, I simply don't understand the point of messing with other people's payouts - intentionally or not.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Because I'll attack one person once, a group of 20 people could all target one person. That's the difference.
And you've done it again - dismiss a counter view point by saying I'd attack a person for no reason. Nothing wrong with differing viewpoints of course, but I don't target people who are in a group, yet I could be targeted because I'm not in one. It's just not fair that. I don't know how else I can say I attack because it's what you're meant to do in the arena! I'd do it even if there were zero rewards - it's just the part of the game I enjoy the most.
We're not dismissing counter views. We're explaining that your views are odd. You are running into traction because your views run counter to the way most people see it.
If you don't want to be cooperative, and that leaves you in the minority, that's your choice.
Not wanting to cooperate is pretty much the very definition of being a villain. You are vilifying yourself with your stance, it's not us doing that.
That is one hell of a strange argument. Actually admire it.
Put simply: it's not cooperation if I have to do it or face victimisation. If someone can tell me these groups exist but under no circumstances will drive down the ranking of a non member I'm all for them. If they do, then I'm definitely not the bad guy. People in the groups may not like that but hey ho.
They may drive your rank down, but not in a malicious way. They do not know your PO, and may choose to hit you rather than hit someone they know has a PO coming up or someone in the group just because they know them.
Not in a malicious way? I’m amazed so many people here don’t understand how viscious some of these shard chats are. I really want to go through and post screenshots from both of my chats to prove otherwise, but I’m not going to risk alienating people and finding myself as one of the outsiders.
Some? Sure. I would guess many of us posting about the cooperative nature of shard chats are from older shards that aren't coordinated by or dominated by those types of players. As with any area of life, there are nice people and jerks. Luckily, it seems, that most of us are on shards with nice people. For many of us, the negative aspects of a "mafia" like shard chat isn't our game reality.
In a game mode where virtually anything wins on offense due to RNG and bad AI, I simply don't understand the point of messing with other people's payouts - intentionally or not.
So if I, as someone not part of your group, take the number 1 spot just as it's about to be Geoff's turn to be number 1 at his pay out time, that's fine then and a message won't be spread by other people to attack me who otherwise may target each other, or just not take a turn yet?
Because I'll attack one person once, a group of 20 people could all target one person. That's the difference.
And you've done it again - dismiss a counter view point by saying I'd attack a person for no reason. Nothing wrong with differing viewpoints of course, but I don't target people who are in a group, yet I could be targeted because I'm not in one. It's just not fair that. I don't know how else I can say I attack because it's what you're meant to do in the arena! I'd do it even if there were zero rewards - it's just the part of the game I enjoy the most.
We're not dismissing counter views. We're explaining that your views are odd. You are running into traction because your views run counter to the way most people see it.
If you don't want to be cooperative, and that leaves you in the minority, that's your choice.
Not wanting to cooperate is pretty much the very definition of being a villain. You are vilifying yourself with your stance, it's not us doing that.
That is one hell of a strange argument. Actually admire it.
Put simply: it's not cooperation if I have to do it or face victimisation. If someone can tell me these groups exist but under no circumstances will drive down the ranking of a non member I'm all for them. If they do, then I'm definitely not the bad guy. People in the groups may not like that but hey ho.
They may drive your rank down, but not in a malicious way. They do not know your PO, and may choose to hit you rather than hit someone they know has a PO coming up or someone in the group just because they know them.
Not in a malicious way? I’m amazed so many people here don’t understand how viscious some of these shard chats are. I really want to go through and post screenshots from both of my chats to prove otherwise, but I’m not going to risk alienating people and finding myself as one of the outsiders.
Some? Sure. I would guess many of us posting about the cooperative nature of shard chats are from older shards that aren't coordinated by or dominated by those types of players. As with any area of life, there are nice people and jerks. Luckily, it seems, that most of us are on shards with nice people. For many of us, the negative aspects of a "mafia" like shard chat isn't our game reality.
In a game mode where virtually anything wins on offense due to RNG and bad AI, I simply don't understand the point of messing with other people's payouts - intentionally or not.
So if I, as someone not part of your group, take the number 1 spot just as it's about to be Geoff's turn to be number 1 at his pay out time, that's fine then and a message won't be spread by other people to attack me who otherwise may target each other, or just not take a turn yet?
Nicely constructed. Let me answer it by reframing the question, as your question presumes an awful lot.
First off, if by "I", you mean someone who's payout is not at the current time and someone who has either not reached out to the shard chat or rebuffed attempts to be contacted - in other words a player who has knocked people out of payout spots for no reason other than to do so, then you would likely not be in a position to attack someone at 1.
This has to do with what Kylo has already clearly explained, which is, people tend to avoid people whose payouts they are aware of and who respect theirs and instead attack people who who are not in the shard chat on their climb up.
Second, of course a message would be spread - that's kind of the "chat" portion of shard chat. Especially if it wasn't your payout (which, honestly, is fairly easy to ascertain based on swgoh.gg). Simply put, if everyone is generally respectful of everyone else's payouts and there is one person pointlessly sniping people when it is of no benefit to them, then of course they will be treated the same way.
It's really a simple concept - treat others the way you want to be treated.. It's a concept from a fairly well known book.
If you don't want to be knocked back for no reason, then don't knock others back for no reason. If you want people to respect your payout, respect theirs.
I'm not sure why you are trying to complicate something that is so simple.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
As for the previous post which says I " could have joined in too" - thanks for giving the best argument yet as to why these groups are wrong. I shouldn't have to join a group that exists outside the game to benefit within the game. My own situation back:
Oh whatever, you're saying you should be able to attack whoever you want whenever you want without having backlash from people.
That's ridiculous. You SHOULD have to communicate with the people you are competing against if you want to get ahead, plain and simple. I am not helping your argument even slightly. I am showing you how you have no argument. You really think you should be able to just meander up to 1st without paying attention to who you're walking through?
That defies all logic.
"Oh I should be able to do that" yeah right. I SHOULD be able to fly right now, because I want to, but I can't.
This is a social game. If you don't want to be social, expect to get ganged up on. There's nothing nefarious about that, it's a basic rule of interaction that you somehow don't get.
This isn't a social game.... I am not sure where you get that from..... If it was a social game, you wouldn't have to go to third party software to chat with your shard mates....
Oh, so you think other players have nothing to do with your game?
No other players impact every single competitive part of this game. The definition of social is interaction between people. Not providing an in game way to communicate is irrelevant to whether or not this is a social game.
First presumption is wrong. My payout time is the same as Geoff's in my example. Whether or not I have been contacted, and my response to that, is irrelevant. I've earnt my way to the number 1 spot, but just am not in the group. Will people who's payout time it isn't rally together to protect Geoff by attacking me? If the answer is no, the group is pointless and if the answer is yes then the group is guilty of your accusation of attacking someone just to mess with someone's payout.
I'm not complicating anything - it's just only one person has admitted these groups can be nasty!
First presumption is wrong. My payout time is the same as Geoff's in my example. Whether or not I have been contacted, and my response to that, is irrelevant. I've earnt my way to the number 1 spot, but just am not in the group. Will people who's payout time it isn't rally together to protect Geoff by attacking me? If the answer is no, the group is pointless and if the answer is yes then the group is guilty of your accusation of attacking someone just to mess with someone's payout.
I'm not complicating anything - it's just only one person has admitted these groups can be nasty!
You didn't "earn" anything. Everything wins on offense. And your response to a cooperative group trying to help as many people as possible is extremely relevant. Most shard/fleet chat groups are more than willing to allow new players into them - and even allow them to take top slots more often early on. At some point, after you snipe Geoff out of #1, you will likely have someone from the shard chat reach out to you to invite you to join the rotation. If you refuse to participate in the fair taking of turns, either by demanding your turn to finish first whenever you decide to snipe, or by simply refusing to join the chat then you will likely be "locked" during Geoff's payout in the future - thus making it impossible for you to snipe someone who respects other's payouts.
In other words, you will be shown the same treatment as you have shown Geoff. Again, a simple concept. Not sure why are trying to complicate the issue.
If you don't care about respecting others payouts, why do you expect them to respect yours? If you do care about people respecting your payout, then join the chat and respect theirs.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
As for the previous post which says I " could have joined in too" - thanks for giving the best argument yet as to why these groups are wrong. I shouldn't have to join a group that exists outside the game to benefit within the game. My own situation back:
Oh whatever, you're saying you should be able to attack whoever you want whenever you want without having backlash from people.
That's ridiculous. You SHOULD have to communicate with the people you are competing against if you want to get ahead, plain and simple. I am not helping your argument even slightly. I am showing you how you have no argument. You really think you should be able to just meander up to 1st without paying attention to who you're walking through?
That defies all logic.
"Oh I should be able to do that" yeah right. I SHOULD be able to fly right now, because I want to, but I can't.
This is a social game. If you don't want to be social, expect to get ganged up on. There's nothing nefarious about that, it's a basic rule of interaction that you somehow don't get.
This isn't a social game.... I am not sure where you get that from..... If it was a social game, you wouldn't have to go to third party software to chat with your shard mates....
Oh, so you think other players have nothing to do with your game?
No other players impact every single competitive part of this game. The definition of social is interaction between people. Not providing an in game way to communicate is irrelevant to whether or not this is a social game.
You need to go to Google and research the definition of social..... Murder is an interaction between two people, but it's hardly social....The game was meant to be PvP in arena..... The fact that folks banded together to maximize payouts is human nature .... We have a shard chat member in here blatantly telling us how his chat beats and picks on outsiders, yet you skip right past his posts and target mine with a blatantly incorrect definition..... You shard chat types are like Scientologists sometimes......
First presumption is wrong. My payout time is the same as Geoff's in my example. Whether or not I have been contacted, and my response to that, is irrelevant. I've earnt my way to the number 1 spot, but just am not in the group. Will people who's payout time it isn't rally together to protect Geoff by attacking me? If the answer is no, the group is pointless and if the answer is yes then the group is guilty of your accusation of attacking someone just to mess with someone's payout.
I'm not complicating anything - it's just only one person has admitted these groups can be nasty!
Your concept of fairness is so warped that it is really difficult to comprehend where you are coming from. You have the same opportunity as anyone else to contact shardmates and be part of a chat. If you choose not to do so, that is your choice. No one is being unfair. You make choices, you live with the consequences. Lots of other people play this game. If most people at the top of arena prefer to cooperate to maximize payouts and you choose not to do so, you are the one not following the social norm. They are not deviants for preferring to play the way the majority of others do. You are the one deviating from the norm. And no one is even begrudging you for doing so, as long as you recognize that you are explicitly rejecting the benefits that go along with being part of the group. You do not get to simulaneously reject the responsibility that comes with cooperating with others while also expecting to reap the benefits of doing so (i.e. not being specially targeted).
First presumption is wrong. My payout time is the same as Geoff's in my example. Whether or not I have been contacted, and my response to that, is irrelevant. I've earnt my way to the number 1 spot, but just am not in the group. Will people who's payout time it isn't rally together to protect Geoff by attacking me? If the answer is no, the group is pointless and if the answer is yes then the group is guilty of your accusation of attacking someone just to mess with someone's payout.
I'm not complicating anything - it's just only one person has admitted these groups can be nasty!
You didn't "earn" anything. Everything wins on offense. And your response to a cooperative group trying to help as many people as possible is extremely relevant. Most shard/fleet chat groups are more than willing to allow new players into them - and even allow them to take top slots more often early on. At some point, after you snipe Geoff out of #1, you will likely have someone from the shard chat reach out to you to invite you to join the rotation. If you refuse to participate in the fair taking of turns, either by demanding your turn to finish first whenever you decide to snipe, or by simply refusing to join the chat then you will likely be "locked" during Geoff's payout in the future - thus making it impossible for you to snipe someone who respects other's payouts.
In other words, you will be shown the same treatment as you have shown Geoff. Again, a simple concept. Not sure why are trying to complicate the issue.
If you don't care about respecting others payouts, why do you expect them to respect yours? If you do care about people respecting your payout, then join the chat and respect theirs.
I give up. I genuinely thought this was a single player game designed, in the arena, to reward those who won more fights than anyone else. My intentions are determined solely by that, not that's it somehow better to manipulate it. It's just a form of organised mining, that makes the top of shards completely predictable, and introduces a monopoly which if you don't acceed to you get punished.
Replies
We're not dismissing counter views. We're explaining that your views are odd. You are running into traction because your views run counter to the way most people see it.
If you don't want to be cooperative, and that leaves you in the minority, that's your choice.
Not wanting to cooperate is pretty much the very definition of being a villain. You are vilifying yourself with your stance, it's not us doing that.
This is inherent to ANY game with IAP's. At the end of the day, all you have is a stack of receipts and the memories of the game.
Lol..... You speak of being "good enough" and "hardcore" yet you need a shard chat full of chronies to keep you near the top on a daily basis.....
"Competition"..... That word doesn't mean what you think it means.....
Whatever. People need to make their own ranks in shard chats. People join chats to make things predictable, not to get people to do their work for them.
In other words, your description doesn't actually fit what's happening.
People want friendly competition instead of cutthroat. That doesn't make it not a competition, just less competitive.
That is one hell of a strange argument. Actually admire it.
Put simply: it's not cooperation if I have to do it or face victimisation. If someone can tell me these groups exist but under no circumstances will drive down the ranking of a non member I'm all for them. If they do, then I'm definitely not the bad guy. People in the groups may not like that but hey ho.
If there's a free for all going on and someone proposes a treaty to regulate warfare between everyone involved and one person/group says "screw that, I'm just going to fight how I like to". they ARE the bad guy.
If something is the right thing to do, not doing it makes you the bad guy whether you were going to be forced into doing it or not.
Hypothetical scenario: You are about to shoot an innocent bystander, a group comes along and says "we don't shoot innocent bystanders" and you say, "well that's you!" and shoot. They will gang up on you, and you will be the bad guy. They tried to get you to do the nice/polite/correct thing, and you chose not to.
Not being willing to communicate and cooperate does indeed make you the bad guy. The fact that you don't cooperate on your own choice means there is no way their cooperation is nefarious. You could have joined it too...
They may drive your rank down, but not in a malicious way. They do not know your PO, and may choose to hit you rather than hit someone they know has a PO coming up or someone in the group just because they know them.
So they err on the side of caution and drive me down to benefit one of their own? I genuinely do think the groups are well intentioned but can't help but feel they are side affects of their manipulation which are unfair.
As for the previous post which says I " could have joined in too" - thanks for giving the best argument yet as to why these groups are wrong. I shouldn't have to join a group that exists outside the game to benefit within the game. My own situation back:
I like football. The proper type, with a round ball not an egg. I like the unpredictability of it most of all. But in the Premier League the rewards between league positions are ridiculous, and each team could benefit most by finishing in the top 4 as often as possible. So, instead of positions being determined by who has the best team they "cooperate" so they take turns to finish within the top 4. But one day a new team comes along. Just promoted, and with a minted chairman who spends loads of money to break the top 4. And he's egotistical this chap and a traditionalist - thinks finishing top of the league each year is not an unreasonable thing. But... something weird happens. Whenever the previous top 4 play one another they put out weakened teams and score own goals to ensure they spread the points. But, when any of them play this newcomer they put out a full strength team and do everything they can to minimise the other teams chance of winning. But they're fine with this because they think they're cooperating with one another, and not just making the league predictable and maintaining a monopoly.
Please look at any competitive racing strategy, they will "work together" drafting off each other or swapping places to take turns leading even when not on the same team. It is a symbiotic relationship that benefits both parties and gives them the best odds to place better when it matters.
Also this is a choice of the person and not the group, this would happen with a group or not. In our group we "do our best" to avoid people but we all have our goal to be 1 at PO, and there is only so much you can do on the climb, it's no hard feelings or anything else, just trying to do our best to maximize the PO of crystals. This includes not hitting people in the group who move up at odd hours. We track then too as best we can.
You would get hit regardless so it is not fair or unfair, it is part if the game. Someone making a personal choice or hitting you because you are an easier team to beat, is no more/less fair.
That's ridiculous. You SHOULD have to communicate with the people you are competing against if you want to get ahead, plain and simple. I am not helping your argument even slightly. I am showing you how you have no argument. You really think you should be able to just meander up to 1st without paying attention to who you're walking through?
That defies all logic.
"Oh I should be able to do that" yeah right. I SHOULD be able to fly right now, because I want to, but I can't.
This is a social game. If you don't want to be social, expect to get ganged up on. There's nothing nefarious about that, it's a basic rule of interaction that you somehow don't get.
This isn't a social game.... I am not sure where you get that from..... If it was a social game, you wouldn't have to go to third party software to chat with your shard mates....
Wait for it... I can sense "but that's bad game design" responses being typed.
How is this not a social game? Even before the update chat was supportive of interguild communications. After the chat update, rooms can now support up to 500 people and they don't have to be in your guild. Aside from external communications (the forum, discord, line, etc.), the only way to contact someone is if 1.) They are in your arena shard 2.) you enter in random ally codes until someone accepts an invite. Seems like the devs have encouraged shard chatting.
I highly doubt that was to encourage shard chatting, more like they can't prevent it...... Since when have you seen CG trynto help you get as many crystals as possible so you don't have to buy them?....
Not in a malicious way? I’m amazed so many people here don’t understand how viscious some of these shard chats are. I really want to go through and post screenshots from both of my chats to prove otherwise, but I’m not going to risk alienating people and finding myself as one of the outsiders.
Mwah ha ha.
Thanks for this.
Some? Sure. I would guess many of us posting about the cooperative nature of shard chats are from older shards that aren't coordinated by or dominated by those types of players. As with any area of life, there are nice people and jerks. Luckily, it seems, that most of us are on shards with nice people. For many of us, the negative aspects of a "mafia" like shard chat isn't our game reality.
In a game mode where virtually anything wins on offense due to RNG and bad AI, I simply don't understand the point of messing with other people's payouts - intentionally or not.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
So if I, as someone not part of your group, take the number 1 spot just as it's about to be Geoff's turn to be number 1 at his pay out time, that's fine then and a message won't be spread by other people to attack me who otherwise may target each other, or just not take a turn yet?
Nicely constructed. Let me answer it by reframing the question, as your question presumes an awful lot.
First off, if by "I", you mean someone who's payout is not at the current time and someone who has either not reached out to the shard chat or rebuffed attempts to be contacted - in other words a player who has knocked people out of payout spots for no reason other than to do so, then you would likely not be in a position to attack someone at 1.
This has to do with what Kylo has already clearly explained, which is, people tend to avoid people whose payouts they are aware of and who respect theirs and instead attack people who who are not in the shard chat on their climb up.
Second, of course a message would be spread - that's kind of the "chat" portion of shard chat. Especially if it wasn't your payout (which, honestly, is fairly easy to ascertain based on swgoh.gg). Simply put, if everyone is generally respectful of everyone else's payouts and there is one person pointlessly sniping people when it is of no benefit to them, then of course they will be treated the same way.
It's really a simple concept - treat others the way you want to be treated.. It's a concept from a fairly well known book.
If you don't want to be knocked back for no reason, then don't knock others back for no reason. If you want people to respect your payout, respect theirs.
I'm not sure why you are trying to complicate something that is so simple.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Oh, so you think other players have nothing to do with your game?
No other players impact every single competitive part of this game. The definition of social is interaction between people. Not providing an in game way to communicate is irrelevant to whether or not this is a social game.
I'm not complicating anything - it's just only one person has admitted these groups can be nasty!
You didn't "earn" anything. Everything wins on offense. And your response to a cooperative group trying to help as many people as possible is extremely relevant. Most shard/fleet chat groups are more than willing to allow new players into them - and even allow them to take top slots more often early on. At some point, after you snipe Geoff out of #1, you will likely have someone from the shard chat reach out to you to invite you to join the rotation. If you refuse to participate in the fair taking of turns, either by demanding your turn to finish first whenever you decide to snipe, or by simply refusing to join the chat then you will likely be "locked" during Geoff's payout in the future - thus making it impossible for you to snipe someone who respects other's payouts.
In other words, you will be shown the same treatment as you have shown Geoff. Again, a simple concept. Not sure why are trying to complicate the issue.
If you don't care about respecting others payouts, why do you expect them to respect yours? If you do care about people respecting your payout, then join the chat and respect theirs.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
You need to go to Google and research the definition of social..... Murder is an interaction between two people, but it's hardly social....The game was meant to be PvP in arena..... The fact that folks banded together to maximize payouts is human nature .... We have a shard chat member in here blatantly telling us how his chat beats and picks on outsiders, yet you skip right past his posts and target mine with a blatantly incorrect definition..... You shard chat types are like Scientologists sometimes......
Your concept of fairness is so warped that it is really difficult to comprehend where you are coming from. You have the same opportunity as anyone else to contact shardmates and be part of a chat. If you choose not to do so, that is your choice. No one is being unfair. You make choices, you live with the consequences. Lots of other people play this game. If most people at the top of arena prefer to cooperate to maximize payouts and you choose not to do so, you are the one not following the social norm. They are not deviants for preferring to play the way the majority of others do. You are the one deviating from the norm. And no one is even begrudging you for doing so, as long as you recognize that you are explicitly rejecting the benefits that go along with being part of the group. You do not get to simulaneously reject the responsibility that comes with cooperating with others while also expecting to reap the benefits of doing so (i.e. not being specially targeted).
I give up. I genuinely thought this was a single player game designed, in the arena, to reward those who won more fights than anyone else. My intentions are determined solely by that, not that's it somehow better to manipulate it. It's just a form of organised mining, that makes the top of shards completely predictable, and introduces a monopoly which if you don't acceed to you get punished.
But yes, I'm the bad guy in all this.