Klowdy.3126

> @"luzonophir.7134" said:

> > @"Klowdy.3126" said:

> > > @"luzonophir.7134" said:

> > > > @"Klowdy.3126" said:

> > > > > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > > > > > > > > The problem is, there is no benefit to being evil in this world. Not for dime-a-dozen mooks like you/us.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You, my friend, need to start thinking like a villain.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I am. That's how I know how common all of you are. Mook.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nah, that's a common mook response. Villains have ambition and don't readily fall rank n' file behind the status quo. My qualifications for a villain is, you can't often tell the difference between one and a hero if context is removed.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then there's no difference at all, which means it doesn't matter.

> > > > >

> > > > > Besides, what's more villainous than using my position of privilege (I already have what I want) to deny yours?

> > > >

> > > > Victor's write history. Had kitten won, things would be told much differently.

> > > >

> > > > Also, couldn't you assume we already were villains in PoF? We killed Balthazar because he wanted to kill Kralkitorik and we didn't like that, then we turn right around and start OUR campaign to kill Kralkitorik. Balthazar did not seem like he wanted to use the power obsorbed by that to destroy, or enslave the planet (but who knows). I guess we're mostly just hypocrites.

> > > >

> > > > Edit: kitten= late 1940s German leader, which is apparently considered a bad word. Not as if his name could ever be used in an educational, or informative nature, not just used to belittle someone.

> > >

> > > Austrian, not German.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > He was born in as Austria, but was chancellor of Germany, then made fuhrer, and ruled over Na** Germany. I was saying he was the leader of Germany, not that he was born there.

>

> but technically Austrian. Austrian Parents, born on Austrian soil, went to Germany to disgrace and dishonor Germany's reputation.

Lol, that's not the point I'm making. He lead Germany. His place of birth doesn't have anything to do with the land and people he ruled.

> @"luzonophir.7134" said:

> > @"Klowdy.3126" said:

> > > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > > > > > > The problem is, there is no benefit to being evil in this world. Not for dime-a-dozen mooks like you/us.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You, my friend, need to start thinking like a villain.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am. That's how I know how common all of you are. Mook.

> > > >

> > > > Nah, that's a common mook response. Villains have ambition and don't readily fall rank n' file behind the status quo. My qualifications for a villain is, you can't often tell the difference between one and a hero if context is removed.

> > >

> > > Then there's no difference at all, which means it doesn't matter.

> > >

> > > Besides, what's more villainous than using my position of privilege (I already have what I want) to deny yours?

> >

> > Victor's write history. Had kitten won, things would be told much differently.

> >

> > Also, couldn't you assume we already were villains in PoF? We killed Balthazar because he wanted to kill Kralkitorik and we didn't like that, then we turn right around and start OUR campaign to kill Kralkitorik. Balthazar did not seem like he wanted to use the power obsorbed by that to destroy, or enslave the planet (but who knows). I guess we're mostly just hypocrites.

> >

> > Edit: kitten= late 1940s German leader, which is apparently considered a bad word. Not as if his name could ever be used in an educational, or informative nature, not just used to belittle someone.

>

> Austrian, not German.

>

>

He was born in as Austria, but was chancellor of Germany, then made fuhrer, and ruled over Na** Germany. I was saying he was the leader of Germany, not that he was born there.

> @"AzureTerra.1642" said:

> > @"Arkantos.7460" said:

> > NONE because they said no expansion ...

>

> Just because the first two were tied to a Expac doesn't mean that they all have to be

Ignore that guy. He has to give his negativity in any thread that mentions future e specs, or e specs that people would like to see, or ones that would be fun. People aren't allowed to be hopeful, or imaginative.

> @"DietPepsi.4371" said:

> > @"Klowdy.3126" said:

> > > @"DietPepsi.4371" said:

> > > > @"Klowdy.3126" said:

> > > > That was the exact opposite of what I said. It was a small human, and a huge norn.

> > >

> > > "And vice versa"

> > >

> > > If you're going to have this discussion with me. Read my comments properly.

> >

> > Lol, you aren't making any sense. I'm saying it was a human at the smallest scale, compared to a norn at the largest scale, and the >norn mount was smaller. You just said a human not at minimum will have a larger mount than a norn at minimum, then you >disagreed with me. I'm also fairly certain the mounts are a set size, just based off of being around 20 people in one spot with the >same mount, waiting on a WB.

>

> > @"Klowdy.3126" said: It's the same as the base with different armor. I've compared the size on my tiny human female (smallest

> > character I have) side by side with a huge norn, and a huge charr. It is noticeably bigger.

>

> Ah I see.

>

> I've misunderstood your wording on this comment. I read the "It is noticeably bigger" part as a comment about how the Awakened Jackal mount skin, from your observation, was bigger for Norn and Charr than it was for humans. What you actually meant is that the Awakened jackal mount, even on a small human, was bigger than different jackal skins being used by Norn and Charr.

>

> Basically this entire discussion was pointless then.

Lol, all good. Its sorted now. I'm not sure if the other awakened mounts are bigger, I'll have to compare.

> @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> With all the elite specialization speculation, I wonder how many elite specialization GW2 will have for this game. We know they can't stop at 2, but also they can't have 10 more. I guessing they might have 3 more to have a total of 5, and they could have one elite spec that roughly caters to each core spec in the game.

>

> What's your thoughts?

I'll take all that they will give. I love the new playstyles they bring. I'm also not huge into PvP, so I'm not really concerned with the balance problems they bring.

> @"DietPepsi.4371" said:

> > @"Klowdy.3126" said:

> > That was the exact opposite of what I said. It was a small human, and a huge norn.

>

> "And vice versa"

>

> If you're going to have this discussion with me. Read my comments properly.

Lol, you aren't making any sense. I'm saying it was a human at the smallest scale, compared to a norn at the largest scale, and the norn mount was smaller. You just said a human not at minimum will have a larger mount than a norn at minimum, then you disagreed with me. I'm also fairly certain the mounts are a set size, just based off of being around 20 people in one spot with the same mount, waiting on a WB.

> @"DietPepsi.4371" said:

> > @"Klowdy.3126" said:

> > You're saying a small human will have a bigger mount than a large horn, or it will just appear that way? Because the first makes no sense at as all. In any case, the mounts were physically next to each other, and no matter what race, or size character I as m on, it is bigger.

>

> I'm saying a human whom *is not* minimum height in the character creation screen, will have a bigger mount than a Charr whom *is* minimum height on the character creation screen, and Vice versa.

>

> As I originally stated: Mounts scale to player size (on character creation screen), not player race/species.

>

That was the exact opposite of what I said. It was a small human, and a huge norn.

> @"DietPepsi.4371" said:

> > @"Klowdy.3126" said:

> > It's the same as the base with different armor. I've compared the size on my tiny human female (smallest character I have) side by side with a huge norn, and a huge charr. It is noticeably bigger.

>

> Are your Norn and Charr as low on the height Chart as the human female? I'm willing to bet they're not.

>

> A mount for a maximum height human is bigger than the mount for a minimum height Charr. Obviously if you are playing a minimum height human and your Norn and Charr are not minimum height, their mounts are going to be bigger.

>

You're saying a small human will have a bigger mount than a large norn, or it will just appear that way? Because the first makes no sense at as all. In any case, the mounts were physically next to each other, and no matter what race, or size character I am on, it is bigger.

> @"DietPepsi.4371" said:

> > @"Klowdy.3126" said:

> > The awakened jackal mount is bigger than the base skin, and charr look like they are going to topple with every turn.

>

> If so, I'm willing to bet the Awakened Jackal is bigger than the Base Jackal for *all* 5 playable races/species, not uniquely larger for Charr and Norn.

It's the same as the base with different armor. I've compared the size on my tiny human female (smallest character I have) side by side with a huge norn, and a huge charr. It is noticeably bigger.

> @"DietPepsi.4371" said:

> I think the Charr look fine on all of the default mount skins (for example the default Raptor, since it has such a thick lower abdomen and tail, making it look sturdy enough to take the weight) , but as much as I like the skin, I do think Charr look waaaay to big on the Primordial Raptor skin. I'm using the Primordial Raptor skin with my main (a Charr), and the Raptor isn't much bigger than me.

>

> There is no way on earth that that is going to be changing any time soon. Especially not before War Eternal. Mounts scale with the player, so their animations fit with the player. If the mounts for Charr and Norn were scaled up, their animations would have to be redone, including the skin-specific animations, which is a hell of a load of work. In the case of the Primordial Raptor specifically they may be able to scale it up a tiny bit, since there is a gap between the player's leg and the Raptors flanks, but I doubt very much Anet is going to give the specific skins unique rigging scaling on specific playable species/races.

The awakened jackal mount is bigger than the base skin, and charr look like they are going to topple with every turn.

> @"Trise.2865" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > > > > The problem is, there is no benefit to being evil in this world. Not for dime-a-dozen mooks like you/us.

> > > >

> > > > You, my friend, need to start thinking like a villain.

> > >

> > > I am. That's how I know how common all of you are. Mook.

> >

> > Nah, that's a common mook response. Villains have ambition and don't readily fall rank n' file behind the status quo. My qualifications for a villain is, you can't often tell the difference between one and a hero if context is removed.

>

> Then there's no difference at all, which means it doesn't matter.

>

> Besides, what's more villainous than using my position of privilege (I already have what I want) to deny yours?

Victor's write history. Had Hitler won, things would be told much differently.

Also, couldn't you assume we already were villains in PoF? We killed Balthazar because he wanted to kill Kralkitorik and we didn't like that, then we turn right around and start OUR campaign to kill Kralkitorik. Balthazar did not seem like he wanted to use the power obsorbed by that to destroy, or enslave the planet (but who knows). I guess we're mostly just hypocrites.

Edit: kitten= late 1940s German leader, which is apparently considered a bad word. Not as if his name could ever be used in an educational, or informative nature, not just used to belittle someone.

> @"Tiviana.2650" said:

> > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > > @"Tiviana.2650" said:

> > > > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said:

> > > > > Let us dye weapons! Since we see those the most.

> > > >

> > > > While I totally agree this would be cool (alongside backpeices), these items were not built with dye mechanics in mind. They would require major changes in order to become dyable.

> > > >

> > > > On the other hand, aquatic headgears share their models with regular headgears which happen to be dyable, which means that the dye channels exist, the interface just doesn't let us change them.

> > >

> > > But how do you know that? Maybe it wouldnt req much to do it. I mean we can dye mounts even and thats a much more complicated thing than weapons. I dont care if we dye aquatic gear or not its so small you never really notice it, and only on when underwater.

> >

> > How do we know that? Because the Devs have explicitly explained why dyeing weapons isn't feasible, and those Dev quotes have been posted on the forums (old and new) many, many times.

>

> Well i wouldnt know that, so ill look for it. But you could have said the devs said it couldnt be done. Not just infer that.

Not to be picky, but you were to infer, Inculpatus implied.

There are enough soloable HoT points that you can fill out a second e spec. I have had a few characters leveled completely through tomes (no extra points after the core class), and had no problem getting both e specs.

This game might not be BDO with character creation, but it's nothing like WoW, where I have run into three clones of my paladin, down to the face, skin tone, hair, and even gear, since MoP. I have yet to see anyone that looks like my twin in GW2, and gear skins and coloring help that so much.

Poll needs an "other" option. I haven't bought any skins that aren't in pack, because 400 gems for a mount skin I rarely use (springer, ray, and to a lesser extent raptor, and jackal), and might not even like that much isn't worth it, and 1300 gems for a specific skin is way too much. I spent 1600 gems (on sale) for the awakened mount set, and they look awesome, and even if I dont use them as often, all the skins were one fairly cheap price. If they released more regular skin packs like that one, and not the Halloween, or Christmas ones, I would probably buy them too. I wouldn't be against them bundling the current skins that match, like exalted, or the stellar ones (not sure of the name), I would spend 2k gems on those, too.

Also, not sure if it applies to all of them, but the jackal skin makes it bigger than the base mount. I've compared on my short, human, female (thief) against the biggest norm, and charr I could find. Not a selling point, really, but it's pretty cool, lol.

Edit: Lol, three responses after 30 minutes, and no votes on any of them. This poll is going places. First response is correct, second adds another missed option, and then there's this one.

> @"Blocki.4931" said:

> Maybe it's not completely out of question, but highly unlikely as of now. Though wouldn't it also mean that people with older rigs would get screwed over? Wouldn't be the best decision.

Not if they made it optional, which would probably end up being more work to have multiple versions running in the same server.

> @"Erasculio.2914" said:

> I'm not fond of RNG-based money making schemes. I would maybe be interested in buying a set of those mount skins if they came in a pack, like some of the packs we already got. But the current model (pay for a RNG chance to get one you may like or pay premium for the "right" to choose) doesn't really interest me.

Select tin coats more, but exists.

ANet isn't going write a story where any portion of their playerbase gets their asses whooped by the people they used to protect/fight along side, or worse, random new characters. Being bad in this game means destroying the world, and they aren't done with GW2 yet.

How would you implement this? New weapon attacks? Reworked utility? Bake this into the existing weapons? I'm just trying to wrap my head around actually putting it in the game.

> @"OneKurts.7854" said:

> Thanks for all the opinions and giving me a insight to each profession use recommend. :)

The best bit of information you can live by is play what you find fun. I still like my DH, but as I've mentioned, I had been taking more frequent, and longer breaks while trying to stick with it, and have been back for a few months with no sign of tiring after jumping onto my reaper (a spec that has interested me since I first heard of it). If you dont enjoy what you are doing, you probably won't do it for long.

> @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> > @"Klowdy.3126" said:

> > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> > > "_We all know they 're coming._"

> > >

> > > I don't.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Didn't the devs say at one point they would be releasing especs outside of an expansion?

>

> Mike Z mentioned "expansion-like features" for LS but nothing specific about elite specs. It would be cool if that's true, do you remember where that was?

No, I've just seen it mentioned in a few threads by other players, which could, more than likely, be people reading into things, mixed with other, such as myself, parroting back misinformation. I guess we all hope, right? I know some don't like the balancing issues new especs bring, but I love getting new styles, and weapons to try out. I'm also not one for doing competitive, or cutting edge content. I still roll LB/GS on my DH, and do better with that than I do with other weapon sets.

> @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> "_We all know they 're coming._"

>

> I don't.

>

>

Didn't the devs say at one point they would be releasing especs outside of an expansion?

> @"Wondrouswall.7169" said:

> Still waiting for a dual-wield-shield e-spec.

Ah, the true tank spec. Just go toughness/vitality/concentration, and stand in every boss attack in the game, lol.

> @"Trollocks.5084" said:

> Ranger, Necro and Guardian or Warrior are usually the most recommended classes for new players. They're forgiving, strong and useful.

I haven't been super happy with guardian lately. Not because of the gameplay, but because of the low health pool. It was my first class, and really thinly one I played at 80 for years, but after taking a six month break, I came back, and made myself grind out reaper on my necro. I have since switched mains, lol. I also play more of my ranger, and a bit more warrior. Maybe it's just that I've gotten (a bit) better, but these classes seem so much more tanky. The only guardian build I ever had luck with was bunker, and I wasn't killing very often. It's probably just because I'm bad with the active defense of guard, or the fact that so many small heals make up a good portion of that defense, but I just go down so easily. I do better on my DH now, but it still isn't as easy as something with more health, for me.

I don't mean to steer anyone away from guardian, or say they're bad at all, it just isn't as easy for me as a more naturally tanky class. Maybe after playing some others for a while, I'll get better at actively blocking. I will say, guardian is the only class I have beat Mordrimoth with, but it's also the only one I've taken that far. I'm doing my necro story naturally, but the others I'm just going to be taking through HoT, and PoF, after the latest LWS.

I thought it looked really awesome, and one of the animations made me think of GS3 on our ability list.

> @"NecroSummonsMors.7816" said:

> Meh, being waiting for a proper dark themed gs I guess I'll stay with Dark Harvest. Tbh I'm quite fed up with this trend of violet/yellow/blueish/cyan legendaries, they are boring and never fit a dark themed character.

I get what you're saying, for sure. If you're going for a certain look, most skins dont fit the theme. I feel like you can make a lot of things look darker with the rest of your appearance. I'm using the new glass GS (also axe and WH, and LB on my ranger), and it doesn't so much look dark, as it does "necrotic," or jus plain evil.