Diak Atoli.2085

> @"Nuka Cola.8520" said:

> > @"DrMatt.9408" said:

> > Currently still enjoying pve/wvw and I've been playing on and off since release. Please don't assume that your own preferences/opinions are shared by everyone else.

>

> I don't. I also know for a fact that most (NOT all of course) people that are perfectly fine with the current state of the game are new or new'ish to gw2. Can already see the usual whiteknight saying "i play since launch and enjoy everything every day every minute of my life. gw2 is the best". Pretty common in here.

Ah, yes. The 'I know best, so everyone who disagrees with me is a rabid fan' argument. What definition do you give for 'new-ish' players? What proof can you offer to support your claim?

My 'proof' (read: anecdotal evidence) is that most I talk to are 2 - 6 year veterans, even some 13 year veterans, who are 'perfectly fine' with the state of the game.

As a side note: If you're defining 'perfectly fine' as a 100% positive review; no game, no institution will ever meet that standard.

_Blinks._

Ok.

> @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > @"Diak Atoli.2085" said:

> > My honest opinion: What possible reason is there for me to care what someone else spends on the game?

>

> Since there's no real P2W in GW2? None, kinda. In other MMORPGs though, it's quite important how far the P2W-aspects reach. That's why it's quite weird that your answer got the "Accepted Answer"-tag, since in MMORPGs where cash actually does matter, you have significant disadvantages as a "free player" (meaning a person who just spend money for the subscription and/or game-content (like the expansions HoT/PoF in GW2)). P2W is never healthy for a game - not in the long term. There are even some aspects you could criticize about GW2, like the unique and immediately account-bound skins from BLCs which you don't get any other way. That's something people should criticize in a game which is all about fashion. Another example were the first-generation-mountfits. The current solution of having a more expensive item which lets you choose the outfit you want is certainly fair, even though still overpriced. All in all, there are several reasons why people should care about how much money other people spend on a game since in the long term, it can affect the games health. Maybe not GW2, but other games prove the point just well.

Except this isn't some random Pay-to-Win, Cash-Grab MMO. This is Guild Wars 2.

Putting aside the fact (the general public) have no right to know what others spend their money on, ArenaNet already has access to data saying who buys what for how much. They already employ professionals who interpret that data. They already make decisions based on that data.

So, again, what reason do (the general public) have to care, or even know, who spends what on Guild Wars 2?

> @"Aigleborgne.2981" said:

> > @"Tehologist.5841" said:

> > Guild wars 1 the best tanks in the games were assassins and monks. They could literally negate all damage. Monks could also play bond builds to reduce damage significantly for other tanks. To tank a class simply needs to be able to reduce or evade damage. Heavy armor classes can just reduce more with no investment in additional skills. All classes have access to increased toughness though. Knights vs berserker stats for instance. Taking no damage through evasion is always superior though.

>

> Assassins and monks had a weakness with enchant removals.

> Warriors with defy pain (with 16 strength) and a shield were almost invulnerable.

There's also the fact that the only 'tank' builds were solo builds. Parties just used Prot Monks or ST Rits.

> @"Substance E.4852" said:

> > @"Diak Atoli.2085" said:

> > My honest opinion: What possible reason is there for me to care what someone else spends on the game?

>

> Probably because it ends up affecting the entire game's design in a way that affects everyone?

Let me try really hard, then... Nope, didn't work.

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> Oh someone labeled it gambling again. This merry go round has lost it's appeal.

Around and around and around and around we go...

901g, right after I sold quicksold a Queen Bee for 900g...

My honest opinion: What possible reason is there for me to care what someone else spends on the game?

Mirror Masked Jackal skin, dyed pink and gold. I think.

_Refills his popcorn bowl._

Please, tell me more.

While I disagree that WvW was meant to be the endgame content, I have no problem with them spending more time on it and sPvP. Even as a PvE-only player, I would be overjoyed if ANet ported over game modes like Alliance Battles and the Hall of Heroes.

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"Diak Atoli.2085" said:

> > > @"Nuka Cola.8520" said:

> > > > @"Diak Atoli.2085" said:

> > > > > @"Randulf.7614" said:

> > > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > > > > I look forward to each of the new releases. Apparently the OP has a more narrow set of preferences for content, so I would imagine that yeah, for them, balance patches are all that will be interesting for a long time to come.

> > > > >

> > > > > Agreed. I've enjoyed the festival very much, with tons of fun things to do. In fact since hot, I've only truly hated 2 pieces of content drop ls3,6 and ls4,3 on personal pref.

> > > > >

> > > > > We are pretty spoiled with a lot of decent content in pve in this mmo, esp vs others which often put out a lot less, less often.

> > > >

> > > > Yet, according to the OP, Guild Wars 2 is the most dull, boring game ever.

> > > >

> > > > It makes me wonder with which criteria they are measuring by. Sadly, they've yet to explain it.

> > >

> > > Guild Wars 1.

> >

> > What about Guild Wars 1 are you measuring by? What is it that you preferred?

> >

> > Six years in, Guild Wars 1 was, for me; repetitive, dull, and remarkably easy on 'hard mode.' Comparatively, Guild Wars 2 is still challenging, and the combat refreshing.

> >

> > It's interesting how opinions work.

>

> Yeah they can be wrong too. Esp on the hard mode being easy than gw2 in any form.

I can say the same thing about the OP's opinion; but, hey, to each their own.

> @"Nuka Cola.8520" said:

> > @"Diak Atoli.2085" said:

> > > @"Randulf.7614" said:

> > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > > I look forward to each of the new releases. Apparently the OP has a more narrow set of preferences for content, so I would imagine that yeah, for them, balance patches are all that will be interesting for a long time to come.

> > >

> > > Agreed. I've enjoyed the festival very much, with tons of fun things to do. In fact since hot, I've only truly hated 2 pieces of content drop ls3,6 and ls4,3 on personal pref.

> > >

> > > We are pretty spoiled with a lot of decent content in pve in this mmo, esp vs others which often put out a lot less, less often.

> >

> > Yet, according to the OP, Guild Wars 2 is the most dull, boring game ever.

> >

> > It makes me wonder with which criteria they are measuring by. Sadly, they've yet to explain it.

>

> Guild Wars 1.

What about Guild Wars 1 are you measuring by? What is it that you preferred?

Six years in, Guild Wars 1 was, for me; repetitive, dull, and remarkably easy on 'hard mode.' Comparatively, Guild Wars 2 is still challenging, and the combat refreshing.

It's interesting how opinions work.

> @"Randulf.7614" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > I look forward to each of the new releases. Apparently the OP has a more narrow set of preferences for content, so I would imagine that yeah, for them, balance patches are all that will be interesting for a long time to come.

>

> Agreed. I've enjoyed the festival very much, with tons of fun things to do. In fact since hot, I've only truly hated 2 pieces of content drop ls3,6 and ls4,3 on personal pref.

>

> We are pretty spoiled with a lot of decent content in pve in this mmo, esp vs others which often put out a lot less, less often.

Yet, according to the OP, Guild Wars 2 is the most dull, boring game ever.

It makes me wonder with which criteria they are measuring by. Sadly, they've yet to explain it.

Ok, then. This rabbit hole's going nowhere.

> @"Loesh.4697" said:

> > @"Eekasqueak.7850" said:

> > > @"Ardid.7203" said:

> > > OP is seriously comparing Rytlock mistakes with Logan betrayal and Caithe sociopathy? Really?

> >

> > OP has a grudge against charr I think.

>

> I have a distaste for Asura and Charr in particular. That said, I love Rox, Tybalt Leftpaw, the Olmakhan, etc.

>

> I think it's more accurate to say I have a severe dislike for their unaplogetic individualistic lifestyle of the Legions that harms those around them with little in the way of consequence, of which Rytlock is the latest and most egregious manifestation.

Ah-ha! We have now admitted racial bias! The case is closed.

_Smokes his bubble pipe after a job not well done._

I am very satisfied.

Good combat mechanics, good class balance, good story, good selection of challenging content. Great events. Awesome maps, awesome weapons.

Not so great selection of armor skins; but then, I'm really picky about those.

I approve of this goal.

Fair warning, though: The full sets of Zenith and Pinnacle weapons, and the Radiant and Hellfire armor sets, require 56,000 achievement points.

> @"Sephylon.4938" said:

> > @"Diak Atoli.2085" said:

> > Since raiding benchmarks are the 'be all, end all' (/snark), here's a question.

> >

> > The common Necromancer benchmarks for both power and condition builds is about 28,000 DPS, when properly supported.

> >

> > With that in mind, which raid encounters is a group of Necromancers mechanically incapable of completing?

>

> Any raid with a pug

A non-answer that can be applied to any of the nine professions. So, I'll ask again.

Which raid encounters are mechanically impossible for Necromancer-only DPS to complete?

Since raiding benchmarks are the 'be all, end all' (/snark), here's a question.

The common Necromancer benchmarks for both power and condition builds is about 28,000 DPS, when properly supported.

With that in mind, which raid encounters is a group of Necromancers mechanically incapable of completing?

> @"phs.6089" said:

> With all do respect. It's 2018 ans WASD with action combat is the way to go. Wouldn't take long to get used to it just set thing up for him and take to maps.

What possible relevance does the current year have on whether someone prefers mouse clicking over keybinds?

> @"starlinvf.1358" said:

> I would invest in a good multi button mouse.... except for the Naga.... Razor software issues are not worth putting up with to for it.

>

> I recently got the Z mouse.... despite being an underwhelming use of its features, I have now have enough buttons to cover all but one skill. Use 1-5 for skills, all utilities to mapped to push buttons, F skills on the upper and pull buttons, mounts mapped bottom row keys, Griffon on Ctrl+space (for easy access while gliding), and Elite on X for legacy reasons. On an older mouse I couldn't map the F keys, and had to do that by hand..... it "worked", but engineer being the piano that is, made it tricky in really movement heavy fights.

>

> Having a enough buttons on the mouse for fast reaction skills is BY FAR the best investment you could ever make for this game. TONS of things start becoming possible by doing this. I can't even do clicking other games because of it..... its just so much more efficient to have everything within easy reach, and split between the hands.

I use a SteelSeries Rival 500. Enough mouse buttons to map skills 6 - 0, F1 - F5, and Dodge; all in easy to remember positions.

Unfortunately for the OP, I don't know of any way to get rid of the mouseover tooltips.

EVE Online graphics is best graphics.

/endthread

Ok, now to be serious. Aesthetically, I find GW2 to be better than most if not all MMOs, but I would love it if ArenaNet was able to optimize performance even more. That being said, it already runs perfectly well, so it would merely be a pleasant surprise for me.

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> I feel giving it a 7/10 is being generous...

>

> Who's being dense now? Huh?

I prefer thick, thank you. _Sniffs haughtily._

> @"otto.5684" said:

> > @"Azoqu.8917" said:

> > > @"otto.5684" said:

> > > Exactly the opposite of what you just said.

> >

> > That's the joke.

>

> Meh I am dense :s. I though the op was serious.

While I do think it's a good balance patch, the 'WONDERFUL!' part might be a bit of over-exuberance. I am being serious about finding the reactions hilarious, though.