Pulling the bosses In dungeons as DPS a thing now?

[Shurrikhan]

If you really do what you're saying you do, which I kinda doubt, why not just speak to the party? If I see a dps underperforming, not using AoEs, I wouldn't just reduce my pulls to cater to him, I'd be frank and ask him why he isn't using AoEs, it's that simple. The problem of not communicating is that you risk being misinterpreted. We're only humans, after all.

I communicate. That said, "Please AoE when fighting 3+ mobs, and focus the same mob as everyone else when attacking the remainder," tends to me met with the same silence or offhand crude comment as "Tank, the healer has been able to keep you alive thus far off a single Regen and a couple oGCDs, and our damage is plentiful. We should be safe to do full pulls. Do you mind if we try them?"

Yes, I have multiple macros for each. They see use in about every fourth run. They have an effect in about every thirtieth. At some point, you wonder if it's even worth the space on your fly-out bar.

[Nyoraii]

I communicate. That said, "Please AoE when fighting 3+ mobs, and focus the same mob as everyone else when attacking the remainder," tends to me met with the same silence or offhand crude comment as "Tank, the healer has been able to keep you alive thus far off a single Regen and a couple oGCDs, and our damage is plentiful. We should be safe to do full pulls. Do you mind if we try them?"

Yes, I have multiple macros for each. They see use in about every fourth run. They have an effect in about every thirtieth. At some point, you wonder if it's even worth the space on your fly-out bar.

If you really do communicate, then there is no problem, you did all you could and that's fine. But it's important to note that this approach is completely different than just taking conclusions by yourself, thinking you know more than the others and trying to do their job for them. That is arrogance (having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities).

[Shurrikhan]

If you really do communicate, then there is no problem, you did all you could and that's fine. But it's important to note that this approach is completely different than just taking conclusions by yourself, thinking you know more than the others and trying to do their job for them. That is arrogance (having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities).

I don't think it's completely different. You are either performing the task for the party or you are not. That you do or do not receive a response from the member in question, or that you may run into conflict with one member in attempting to benefit everyone else, doesn't change that. Their performance changes only what can at best be expected your given party, not whether or not you are allowed to perform to that estimate as a party.

If the majority of the party wants to go out of their way to slow the run, then perhaps one should just do that or leave and queue again later. But if the majority wants to run at a unfettered pace and that pace is possible except for the ego of the tank, then I would situationally encourage the party to pressure that end, even if it means going past the tank and pulling for them. "Tank, we're doing full pulls. Use your Sprint just before combat to double its duration, get in one AoE of threat on everything and then gather the further groups. Open with HG/LD/SB and trickle CDs from there and we'll deal with it."

[Nyoraii]

I don't think it's completely different. You are either performing the task for the party or you are not. That you do or do not receive a response from the member in question, or that you may run into conflict with one member in attempting to benefit everyone else, doesn't change that. Their performance changes only what can at best be expected your given party, not whether or not you are allowed to perform to that estimate as a party.

If the majority of the party wants to go out of their way to slow the run, then perhaps one should just do that or leave and queue again later. But if the majority wants to run at a unfettered pace and that pace is possible except for the ego of the tank, then I would situationally encourage the party to pressure that end, even if it means going past the tank and pulling for them. "Tank, we're doing full pulls. Use your Sprint just before combat to double its duration, get in one AoE of threat on everything and then gather the further groups. Open with HG/LD/SB and trickle CDs from there and we'll deal with it."

I 10000% disagree, couldn't disagree more. If your idea of playing with a team is like that "lets force others to play how we want and not even talk to them!", then I'd suggest you to not play in a team at all, this is the kind of behaviour that leads to grief and drama. Whereas if you only communicated (preferably with respect), maybe you could find some common ground and everyone would be happy.

Now if you really want to play like that, I'd suggest trying Trusts, I think they'd be more to your liking.

[Shurrikhan]

Whereas if you only communicated (preferably with respect), maybe you could find some common ground and everyone would be happy.

What you're asking for, as a general rule of conduct and a result therefrom, is fantastical at best.

Communication that neither pushes towards nor achieves a result is, definitively, wasted time and breath. Moreover, when the issue itself is inefficiency on the part of one person to the expense of the others' time--largely due to entitlement, in the cases we've been discussing here--how would attempting to placate an ego of, and offering up a pedestal to (as if one held the same power as three), someone who will most likely not change their actions somehow make things more efficient? That we wish it does not make it so. When the issue taken is with someone's inefficiency, expect people to deal with that problem... efficiently. That may mean pulling or kicking.

Again, we're talking about a situation where the party is able and (minus one player) wanting to do something. If it is acceptable, with few to no words, to kick and replace a member with a difference of playstyle, why should it be unacceptable to draw the one problematic member into the playstyle of the other three under the few words or none?

Three does not equal one, except when you let the one grandstand and the three treat themselves with only a third of the respect with which they treat the one. That is what you're asking.

That no action or no words spoken -- i.e. that no conflict is readily visible -- does not mean no conflict exists. There's a difference between contentment and silent irritation.

Whereas if you only communicated (preferably with respect), maybe you could find some common ground and everyone would be happy.

This advice would be more applicable to tanks who refuse to full-pull when the party wants to and is capable than the three being held back, whom you would limit to "only communicating".

[Nyoraii]

What you're asking for, as a general rule of conduct and a result therefrom, is fantastical at best.

Communication that neither pushes towards nor achieves a result is, definitively, wasted time and breath. Moreover, when the issue itself is inefficiency on the part of one person to the expense of the others' time--largely due to entitlement, in the cases we've been discussing here--how would attempting to placate an ego of, and offering up a pedestal to (as if one held the same power as three), someone who will most likely not change their actions somehow make things more efficient? That we wish it does not make it so. When the issue taken is with someone's inefficiency, expect people to deal with that problem... efficiently. That may mean pulling or kicking.

Again, we're talking about a situation where the party is able and (minus one player) wanting to do something. If it is acceptable, with few to no words, to kick and replace a member with a difference of playstyle, why should it be unacceptable to draw the one problematic member into the playstyle of the other three under the few words or none?

Three does not equal one, except when you let the one grandstand and the three treat themselves with only a third of the respect with which they treat the one. That is what you're asking.

That no action or no words spoken -- i.e. that no conflict is readily visible -- does not mean no conflict exists. There's a difference between contentment and silent irritation.


This advice would be more applicable to tanks who refuse to full-pull when the party wants to and is capable than the three being held back, whom you would limit to "only communicating".

Please, just read what you're writing, I can feel the arrogance in your words from miles away. You're assuming the people you're playing with won't hear your words or even answer without trying? How is that not arrogance? You know better than them?

And of course my advice is applicable to tanks who refuse full-pulls, it's applicable for any sort of team situations. If you have a problem, you talk about it and reach a common ground, you don't just go doing what you think is best because you know better than others. Now if after communicating you can't reach a consensus, then it's up to you what you want to do, kick the guy, leave the party, you're free to decide.

But what if the tank is not doing full-pulls because he's having a lag that started after he got in the dungeon? Would you start pulling for the guy without knowing his situation? Would you kick him for that if you knew?

Seriously, the lack of empathy is baffling.