LetoII.3782
-
Posts
2,480 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by LetoII.3782
-
-
> @"Obtena.7952" said:
> > @"Anput.4620" said:
> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:
> > > > @"Anput.4620" said:
> > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:
> > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said:
> > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:
> > > > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said:
> > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:
> > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:
> > > > > > > > > > > > @"bluberblasen.9684" said:
> > > > > > > > > > > > ok you won gankers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > you have finally a stupid weapon which you can dismount players who dont want to fight.
> > > > > > > > > > > > nice anet
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is a strange complaint ... Anet tolds us about 2 weeks after Warclaw was released they were making a dismount skill.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I feel like I've established that I don't care what the rules are. Mounts/no mounts, dismount skill/no dismount skill, it's all the same to me. Everyone is playing by the same rules, so just use whatever rules exist. But I can't help noticing how odd this decision is. What was the point of adding the mount only to add a dismount skill immediately afterwards?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's easy to answer ... because mounts were probably NEVER intended to avoid combat. They were (at least to me) a way to get to where you want to be faster. I think the fact that you could be dismounted is an indication of what they were ... and were not meant to be.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > There seem to be so few players willing to adapt to either situation, everyone is entrenched in one camp or the other and I don't know how many ppl have really stopped to consider the motivations for it all . . .
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is an unfortunate sign of how MMO's cater to the newer generations now ... trying to appease everyone ... and resulting in appeasing no one. It will be a hard lesson for Anet to learn because fundamentally, this wasn't about not liking or hating mounts for players ... it was about the perceptions people have about what WvW is supposed to be. Yet again, Anet doesn't make a stand with their approach to developing the game and people are STILL left to guess and impose their own ideas of what it should be and for who. It's the same thing in PVE with raids ... game caters to group A ... Anet introduces Raids that don't suit the playstyle of group A ... WTH are they doing? Then they try and bridge the gap ... but for who?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This general wishy washy approach to the game philosophy is HURTING it, not fixing it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mounts were made to sell skins with zero afterthought to their impact tbh, as much as we argue about it skins were 90% of the reason probs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You don't know that ... it's just your speculation because you have a big bag of salt. Even to this day you can see there was not zero afterthought to their impact. They get you to where you need to be faster. That's not an afterthought ... that is intended.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not the part of getting places faster, everything else, all the bugs, dismounting unbalance etc. Look at how many things they had to change/fix, no testing done at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > No, you don't know that ... you have no clue what testing was done. Can I just assume everytime you make a post, you make most of it up?
> > > >
> > > > If testing was done why were there an enormous amount of issues? It is just the logical assumption.
> > >
> > > Issues don't indicate no testing was done. It's NOT a logical assumption at all.
> >
> > If testing was done these issues would be fixed before release.
>
> That doesn't mean testing wasn't done.
How you gonna argue they tested rev? It's not like they're borked only in hard-to-duplicate, once-in-a-lifetime situations.. Even activating a hammer skill _once_ should have indicated things weren't working as intended.
-
> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:
> > @"LetoII.3782" said:
> > > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:
> > > > @"LetoII.3782" said:
> > > > Was mocking you
> > >
> > > lol nice
> >
> > Am not ]:-(
>
> ok dood relax
You're not my real dad
-
> @"hunkamania.7561" said:
> > @"SlateSloan.3654" said:
> > they are on plan with it.
> >
> > end of month they have build templates released then they start working on alliances.
> >
> > no delays they are on plan.
>
> No delays? It's been almost 2 years since they first mentioned alliances. It's like they're working on a cure for all diseases or something. It's taking too long for sure
Figuring out how to get transfer cash and still have balanced populations is a hurculean task. I sure can't think of a way to get people to pay for no advantage ?
-
> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:
> > @"LetoII.3782" said:
> > Was mocking you
>
> lol nice
Am not ]:-(
-
> @"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:
> > @"LetoII.3782" said:
> > > @"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:
> > > > @"LetoII.3782" said:
> > > > > @"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:
> > > > > most of the application are from easy to see skills or a big sword with aoe mark on the ground. The application is NOT instant, stop with the hyperbole. FB however has much more sustain than either core or DH by orders of magnitude.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, there is a build that can drop 12 burn stacks instantly, but it's not Risen Howl's build. She's seen me and a few others use it.
> > > >
> > > > But otherwise agree
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Video/link to build?
> >
> > Hmm I did stick it in a few old videos. I'll go dig one up I guess. But I can describe HOW easy enough: radiance, traited torch/zealots flame. Ignite zf, start throw instantly judges intervention, zf reignites and throw again...
> >
> > It's a duelling build, not so great at zergs, which is why she's seen it.
>
> So it works once. If that, as if I see someone running torch I am going to assume burn build right off anyway.
>
> Because after that, anyone you are dueling will slot a single cleanse and remove it or just dodge/block the JI. As it's a dead giveaway what you are doing when you ignite ZF, as JI has to be timed, so you need to pop ZF, throw zealots fire and JI in 3 seconds, as thats as long ZF is active for, so once you throw it, JI is coming fight after. Fought this build before, often times all 4 of them (zealots flame, zealots fire, JI and auto proc ZF if you crit) can all be evaded with one dodge.
>
> Its a build that depends on the other person not knowing what you are running and catching them off guard, or them being of a low skill level.
I didn't recommend the build, just exhibited it's existence. There was much less cleansing 3 years ago. I'm firmly in the "burn guard is a bad idea" camp currently.
-
> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:
> > @"LetoII.3782" said:
> > Got me there <,<
>
> lol wasn't expecting that response.
>
> 
> tip o' the hat
Was mocking you
-
> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:
> > @"LetoII.3782" said:
> > > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:
> > > I like how everyone who doesn't want to get ganked on a zerg build by a few roamers is a pve player and is sucking out all of the enjoyment for the roamers... classic.
> >
> > Preventing the blob from reassembling is vital for outnumbered groups. If they keep buffing the bigger server fights will devolve into a quick head count and concession.
>
> Preventing the blob from reassembling is vital for bigger groups. If they keep buffing the smaller server fights will devolve into a quick coordinated bomb and lootfest.
Got me there <,<
-
> @"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:
> > @"LetoII.3782" said:
> > > @"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:
> > > most of the application are from easy to see skills or a big sword with aoe mark on the ground. The application is NOT instant, stop with the hyperbole. FB however has much more sustain than either core or DH by orders of magnitude.
> >
> > Oh, there is a build that can drop 12 burn stacks instantly, but it's not Risen Howl's build. She's seen me and a few others use it.
> >
> > But otherwise agree
> >
> >
>
> Video/link to build?
Hmm I did stick it in a few old videos. I'll go dig one up I guess. But I can describe HOW easy enough: radiance, traited torch/zealots flame. Ignite zf, start throw instantly judges intervention, zf reignites and throw again...
It's a duelling build, not so great at zergs, which is why she's seen it.
About the 3min mark, tho I don't think I dropped a double (can't tell on phone)
-
> @"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:
> most of the application are from easy to see skills or a big sword with aoe mark on the ground. The application is NOT instant, stop with the hyperbole. FB however has much more sustain than either core or DH by orders of magnitude.
Oh, there is a build that can drop 12 burn stacks instantly, but it's not Risen Howl's build. She's seen me and a few others use it.
But otherwise agree
-
Wow lookit nsp and dragonbrand moving on up! Sea guilds gonna have to fight each other if this keeps up O.O
-
> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:
> @"LetoII.3782" Actually that's why I don't see this as a gimmick build. It only wrecks you if you let it, and so, it gives players an opportunity to improve their awareness while in a zerg. "Stack up on tag" while you are sieging walls isn't the best strategy. While ranged DPS should always be looking to neutralize threats on the wall / surroundings, counter disables, etc, this gives them another boogeyperson to watch for.
>
Yeah, not letting the aoedps free cast is pretty basic. I call it a gimmick because it's _very_ easy to counter but strong against the ignorant. The gimmick: a single condi stack that will kill in three seconds. Should that be a problem for anyone but maybe revenant?
I've played a lot of burn guard, and many variants... It's just so very meh in anything but a situation where ANY decent DPS will perform well.
-
> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:
> I like how everyone who doesn't want to get ganked on a zerg build by a few roamers is a pve player and is sucking out all of the enjoyment for the roamers... classic.
Preventing the blob from reassembling is vital for outnumbered groups. If they keep buffing the bigger server fights will devolve into a quick head count and concession.
-
> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:
>
> What was exactly buffed last patch to make it so potent now? More so then before?
Antitoxin rune nerf (and a few other ezcleanses) plus a general lack of game knowledge paired with not knowing what the red things on your boon bar do.
-
> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:
> > @"Anput.4620" said:
> >
> > Burn guard has like no coverup at all.
>
> Seriously, did you even READ the OP's post???? Does that sound like a 1v1 situation to you?
>
> You are either purposefully trolling, or are just really good at doing so unintentionally...
>
>
There's a few of us still devoted to not pushing bad gimmick builds onto unsuspecting noobs. Scepter/longbow DH is a terrible idea for general use WvW
-
> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:
> > @"TheGrimm.5624" said:
> > > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:
> > > Lance
> > >
> > > >! ![](https://i.imgur.com/xwsQTUo.jpg"")
> > >
> > >
> > > Javelin
> > >
> > > >! ![](https://i.imgur.com/csxIVHw.jpg"")
> > >
> > > _Eye twitch_
> >
> > Yeah, still chuckling at the choice of the name and still not sure why that was went with.
>
> Pulling at threads ofc, but the people in charge of developing the game we spend our time in, sat around a table designing this feature, and not once did anyone raise their hand and say "er...but that's not a lance..."
>
> If GW2 were a Sci-Fi or Modern combat title, sure...but in a fantasy RPG setting? Scary tbh.
Digipen must not offer much history.
I know American primary schools sure don't, I got good grades and hadn't a clue where Prussia was until I had my diploma.
-
Anet used to say stuff before gw2 launched, too.
-
> @"hugo.4705" said:
> Some just don't want to be agroed by troll thiefs or mesmers while joining their com.
After which they'll happily chase that thief and Mesmer with their 49 friends..
-
> @"Gop.8713" said:
> > @"LetoII.3782" said:
> > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > @"LetoII.3782" said:
> > > > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said:
> > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said:
> > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > > > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said:
> > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > > > > > > > > No, and I don't really understand how you could draw that conclusion?
> > > > > > > > > > Because you said this:
> > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > > > > > > > > As long as you've come to agree that purchasing the game is not p2w, we agree, no need to argue further . . .
> > > > > > > > > > This statement implies that my arguments about the xpacs being pay 2 win are invalid because initially we all had to buy the game.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > > > > > > > >I've done nothing but buy the game, and I have access to everything it has to offer, excepting the cosmetic and convenience items to be had from the gem store. Which I guess technically I could just buy with gold anyway. Your example seems completely out of left field and not comparable to anything that exists in the game . . ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So lets compare the two examples.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Situation A: The xpacs give a huge player advantage because the PoF elite specs are just better than all core and HoT specs. Also mounts. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Situation B: The new armour tier gives a huge player advantage because the stats from the new gear are just better than all core and HoT tiers. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Both Situation A and situation B both involve additional and OPTIONAL purchases that give players who spend the EXTRA money an advantage over those who don't.
> > > > > > > > > > So far your only refute to this logic is because the base game was payed, then nothing else after it can be pay to win.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ah, the expansions are the game. I see your confusion now. So you are in fact arguing that being forced to buy the game to gain access to its features is p2w, and yes I do disagree with you . . .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The expansions are not the game. They are DLC. They are optional purchases. The game was released on the 28th of august 2012. All post releases of that game are DLC and not the game.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A game is bought once. The moment you give players the ability to gain inherent advantages over their fellow players through OPTIONAL DLC purchases then the game has pay 2 win elements. Because those who pay are more likely to win. Those who bought PoF are more likely to win over those who have not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By that logic 'the game', as you choose to misidentify it, closed to new players with the release of HoT. I hadn't realized that was such a sad day. I feel fortunate to have gotten in under the wire there. I wonder what all of those other ppl have been playing all this time . . .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They've been playing a F2P version. In an ideal world those original core classes available to the F2P crowd should be as balanced as the xpac specs. The incentive for buying the xpac being the ability to play new and interesting classes. However those classes shouldn't be straight upgrades from core classes. HoT basically was however. PoF is also however less so than HoT at release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But this is going in circles. I see HoT and PoF as paid DLC and not "the game". You see them as being a part of the base game. So we're at an impasse. Time to agree to disagree and move on.
> > > > >
> > > > > You've missed the point. By your logic, everyone who bought the game after HoT's release actually bought something other than 'the game', as the game only includes vanilla, which went f2p before HoT's release and effectively ceased to exist. You could no longer purchase it, and the f2p version has restrictions which make it functionally different from the core game. So the question remains, if players who purchased the game after HoT's release did not in fact purchase the game, what did they purchase . . ?
> > > >
> > > > So you'd argue that this isn't gw2 and all purchases prior to PoF are null and void? Maybe if vanilla and hot were still available to play separately.. Both expansions offered significant power creep, for additional money. That's _kinda_ the definition of p2w
> > >
> > > No, I would argue that this is gw2, which is a game that has evolved over time into its current version, and which will continue to evolve in the future as long as they continue to update it . . .
> > >
> > > It is the poster I've quoted who feels gw2 ceased to exist with the release of HoT, and exactly what we're playing now is something other, exactly what idk and is what I've been trying to tease out . . .
> >
> >
> > Gw2 released in 2012 for $60.. People that purchased that game can no longer play it without being at a disadvantage. They have to PAY more TO WIN.
> And ppl who purchase PoF today pay $30. Which is less . . .
>
But I didn't purchase the game today. I purchased a game that's been functionally deleted.
> The only way your model could be sustained is if anet placed restrictions on all of its updates to only include cosmetic and convenience items, or if ppl who purchased one version of the game were entitled to all future versions gratis. Neither of those models would be good for the game or financially viable . . .
>
There's a third way.
They could've been confident enough that secretly, I was "really into pve" and sold their living story..
> You're trying to argue that maintaining a current copy of the game is p2w.
And you're arguing that selling power creep to your original customers isnt
> I think this is bc you are viewing the situation only from your own perspective, as if only the ppl who have been playing since core matter . .
Ah, victim status.
> > >
> > > Arguing that they shouldn't release updates bc it disadvantages ppl who refuse to keep up to date is destructive for the game. Arguing that ppl who do keep their game up to date shouldn't be permitted to play in the competitive modes is destructive for the game. Arguing that expansions should be free ignores financial reality, for the time being . . .
> > >
> >
> > Nobody is arguing those things.
> > @"Doug.4930" said:
> >
> > **The expansions are not the game.** They are DLC. They are optional purchases. The game was released on the 28th of august 2012. All post releases of that game are DLC and not the game.
> >
> > A game is bought once. The moment you give players the ability to gain inherent advantages over their fellow players through OPTIONAL DLC purchases then the game has pay 2 win elements. Because those who pay are more likely to win. Those who bought PoF are more likely to win over those who have not.
> That is exactly what is being argued. The game as defined in this post no longer exists . . .
You've gone back to arguing this isn't gw2.
> > But Anet didn't have to use power creep as a marketing tool.. That's the impasse.
> >
> >
> > > And if you're just hung up on the dollars you should use accurate data. Ppl who buy PoF today actually spend less than ppl who bought gw2 on release. How is spending less for more p2w . . ?
> >
> > I've spent several thousand dollars on the game. But I'll also call a spade a spade
> And I've spent what? $120? $150? Idr, but far, far less. Yet somehow all of your extra dollars have yielded you no advantages. We have access to all the same features, as we have both kept our game up to date over time . . .
>
Yet the player who bought gw2 for $60 in 2012 and the player who added HoT in 2014 ($120) is at a severe disadvantage in WvW still, today, needing to pay more. How do you deny they're selling advantages? Must we argue the definition of pay to win?
-
> @"Gop.8713" said:
> > @"LetoII.3782" said:
> > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > @"Doug.4930" said:
> > > > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said:
> > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said:
> > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > > > > > > No, and I don't really understand how you could draw that conclusion?
> > > > > > > > Because you said this:
> > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > > > > > > As long as you've come to agree that purchasing the game is not p2w, we agree, no need to argue further . . .
> > > > > > > > This statement implies that my arguments about the xpacs being pay 2 win are invalid because initially we all had to buy the game.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > > > > > >I've done nothing but buy the game, and I have access to everything it has to offer, excepting the cosmetic and convenience items to be had from the gem store. Which I guess technically I could just buy with gold anyway. Your example seems completely out of left field and not comparable to anything that exists in the game . . ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So lets compare the two examples.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Situation A: The xpacs give a huge player advantage because the PoF elite specs are just better than all core and HoT specs. Also mounts. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Situation B: The new armour tier gives a huge player advantage because the stats from the new gear are just better than all core and HoT tiers. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Both Situation A and situation B both involve additional and OPTIONAL purchases that give players who spend the EXTRA money an advantage over those who don't.
> > > > > > > > So far your only refute to this logic is because the base game was payed, then nothing else after it can be pay to win.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ah, the expansions are the game. I see your confusion now. So you are in fact arguing that being forced to buy the game to gain access to its features is p2w, and yes I do disagree with you . . .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The expansions are not the game. They are DLC. They are optional purchases. The game was released on the 28th of august 2012. All post releases of that game are DLC and not the game.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A game is bought once. The moment you give players the ability to gain inherent advantages over their fellow players through OPTIONAL DLC purchases then the game has pay 2 win elements. Because those who pay are more likely to win. Those who bought PoF are more likely to win over those who have not.
> > > > >
> > > > > By that logic 'the game', as you choose to misidentify it, closed to new players with the release of HoT. I hadn't realized that was such a sad day. I feel fortunate to have gotten in under the wire there. I wonder what all of those other ppl have been playing all this time . . .
> > > >
> > > > They've been playing a F2P version. In an ideal world those original core classes available to the F2P crowd should be as balanced as the xpac specs. The incentive for buying the xpac being the ability to play new and interesting classes. However those classes shouldn't be straight upgrades from core classes. HoT basically was however. PoF is also however less so than HoT at release.
> > > >
> > > > But this is going in circles. I see HoT and PoF as paid DLC and not "the game". You see them as being a part of the base game. So we're at an impasse. Time to agree to disagree and move on.
> > >
> > > You've missed the point. By your logic, everyone who bought the game after HoT's release actually bought something other than 'the game', as the game only includes vanilla, which went f2p before HoT's release and effectively ceased to exist. You could no longer purchase it, and the f2p version has restrictions which make it functionally different from the core game. So the question remains, if players who purchased the game after HoT's release did not in fact purchase the game, what did they purchase . . ?
> >
> > So you'd argue that this isn't gw2 and all purchases prior to PoF are null and void? Maybe if vanilla and hot were still available to play separately.. Both expansions offered significant power creep, for additional money. That's _kinda_ the definition of p2w
>
> No, I would argue that this is gw2, which is a game that has evolved over time into its current version, and which will continue to evolve in the future as long as they continue to update it . . .
>
> It is the poster I've quoted who feels gw2 ceased to exist with the release of HoT, and exactly what we're playing now is something other, exactly what idk and is what I've been trying to tease out . . .
Gw2 released in 2012 for $60.. People that purchased that game can no longer play it without being at a disadvantage. They have to PAY more TO WIN.
>
> Arguing that they shouldn't release updates bc it disadvantages ppl who refuse to keep up to date is destructive for the game. Arguing that ppl who do keep their game up to date shouldn't be permitted to play in the competitive modes is destructive for the game. Arguing that expansions should be free ignores financial reality, for the time being . . .
>
Nobody is arguing those things.
But Anet didn't have to use power creep as a marketing tool.. That's the impasse.
> And if you're just hung up on the dollars you should use accurate data. Ppl who buy PoF today actually spend less than ppl who bought gw2 on release. How is spending less for more p2w . . ?
I've spent several thousand dollars on the game. But I'll also call a spade a spade
-
> @"Dawdler.8521" said:
> I read this earlier and thought about it while roaming for a few hours but... never once saw it. All presses to pick up supplies or use a banner while mounted worked fine. Only seen the dismount fail (but that bug is original).
I've had it happen, you don't pick up supply until after the dismount animation completes. So, if you're trying to rush a pickup you'll leave empty handed.
-
> @"Gop.8713" said:
> > @"Doug.4930" said:
> > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > @"Doug.4930" said:
> > > > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said:
> > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > > > > No, and I don't really understand how you could draw that conclusion?
> > > > > > Because you said this:
> > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > > > > As long as you've come to agree that purchasing the game is not p2w, we agree, no need to argue further . . .
> > > > > > This statement implies that my arguments about the xpacs being pay 2 win are invalid because initially we all had to buy the game.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said:
> > > > > > >I've done nothing but buy the game, and I have access to everything it has to offer, excepting the cosmetic and convenience items to be had from the gem store. Which I guess technically I could just buy with gold anyway. Your example seems completely out of left field and not comparable to anything that exists in the game . . ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So lets compare the two examples.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Situation A: The xpacs give a huge player advantage because the PoF elite specs are just better than all core and HoT specs. Also mounts. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Situation B: The new armour tier gives a huge player advantage because the stats from the new gear are just better than all core and HoT tiers. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both Situation A and situation B both involve additional and OPTIONAL purchases that give players who spend the EXTRA money an advantage over those who don't.
> > > > > > So far your only refute to this logic is because the base game was payed, then nothing else after it can be pay to win.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, the expansions are the game. I see your confusion now. So you are in fact arguing that being forced to buy the game to gain access to its features is p2w, and yes I do disagree with you . . .
> > > >
> > > > The expansions are not the game. They are DLC. They are optional purchases. The game was released on the 28th of august 2012. All post releases of that game are DLC and not the game.
> > > >
> > > > A game is bought once. The moment you give players the ability to gain inherent advantages over their fellow players through OPTIONAL DLC purchases then the game has pay 2 win elements. Because those who pay are more likely to win. Those who bought PoF are more likely to win over those who have not.
> > >
> > > By that logic 'the game', as you choose to misidentify it, closed to new players with the release of HoT. I hadn't realized that was such a sad day. I feel fortunate to have gotten in under the wire there. I wonder what all of those other ppl have been playing all this time . . .
> >
> > They've been playing a F2P version. In an ideal world those original core classes available to the F2P crowd should be as balanced as the xpac specs. The incentive for buying the xpac being the ability to play new and interesting classes. However those classes shouldn't be straight upgrades from core classes. HoT basically was however. PoF is also however less so than HoT at release.
> >
> > But this is going in circles. I see HoT and PoF as paid DLC and not "the game". You see them as being a part of the base game. So we're at an impasse. Time to agree to disagree and move on.
>
> You've missed the point. By your logic, everyone who bought the game after HoT's release actually bought something other than 'the game', as the game only includes vanilla, which went f2p before HoT's release and effectively ceased to exist. You could no longer purchase it, and the f2p version has restrictions which make it functionally different from the core game. So the question remains, if players who purchased the game after HoT's release did not in fact purchase the game, what did they purchase . . ?
So you'd argue that this isn't gw2 and all purchases prior to PoF are null and void? Maybe if vanilla and hot were still available to play separately.. Both expansions offered significant power creep, for additional money. That's _kinda_ the definition of p2w
-
> @"coro.3176" said:
> > @"LetoII.3782" said:
> > Once upon a time there was a big push for an expanded skin market. Wall textures for structures, different models for guards/lords and siege to name a few. Now, they don't even seem to make finishers..
> > Seems WvW/pvp specific items aren't worth making. (Warclaw is a Griffon skin, it doesn't count)
>
> I don't know why they never did this. Maybe it was too much work? It seemed like an obvious gem store option for competitive gamemodes.
>
> You know they have the technology, because it comes out during holiday events like Wintersday.
Yeah and it's a shame upgraded siege masteries undo the wintersday skins. I figured that their first year release schedule (every 2 weeks) turned into a all-hands-on-deck situation. So everything else got pushed aside, like things for the competitive mode. Whole guilds had already up and left before they scaled back a bit... Not that pve has ever stopped getting the Lions share of dev time.
-
Mounted is a special state that exists outside of the normal ruleset (can't be CC'd, don't take damage, can't attack) that you have to leave before doing normal things.
-
A week worth of silverwastes traded for an hour at a real job. Skinner box junkies are the best
Reduce Lance Cooldown?
in World vs. World
Posted
> @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:
> > @"RedShark.9548" said:
> > > @"Mil.3562" said:
> > > The demand never stops. Gave you a metre now you want a kilometre :anguished: What's next? A 3 sec stun when dismounted by lance? Comeon guys, the Warclaw is already totally useless now... oh wait.. yep might as well.
> >
> > Totally useless? No it still get you quick enough over the map. You are running through a warzone, you think reallife military can just drive through enemy territory without fear of getting attacked?
>
> You've heard of Tanks and APCs right?
Ummm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_warfare